Redbrick, December 14th, 2009

My article How do you live to be 100?, previously published here, has been published at Redbrick Online, the online home of Birmingham's student newspaper.

Click here to read the article at its new home.

Thanks to Redbrick for supporting it.

To flat-earth climate sceptics

This is a response to recent ClimateGate news stories, in which I feel the emphasis is wrong.

news.bbc.co.uk

NOW, I don't know all of the science behind climate change, it's not my area. I don't know what doubt there is over anthropogenic climate change, or if data from East Anglia was falsified (I personally doubt it, the consequences are too grave). But I know enough to understand that the longer we argue semantics, place emphasis on the gaps in knowledge or accommodate flat-earth sceptics and their wily ways, the more imminent disaster is. It doesn't matter if science keeps changing its opinion as to the extent of the problem or of man's contribution (and I'm not convinced that science does do this, only the way it is portrayed) - the conclusion is always the same. We owe the planet and everyone on it now and in the future to TRY to stop this.

"With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do."

Gordon Brown

We must not allow politics and egos to get in the way of this. There can be no second chances, no 'I told you sos'. If you argue against Copenhagen because you disagree with a leader or political party, or even the science, then more fool you. Perhaps the sceptics are right, but is blind faith in their convictions enough to ignore the risk of catastrophe associated with what the proponents of climate change are saying? I don't think so. When the world goes belly-up, future generations won't accept any excuses for failing to act.

How to live to 100

I WROTE this article for Redbrick. I've no idea if it will be published, or in what form, but never one to let something I've worked on go to waste, below is the unedited form. I hope it makes sense: I researched and wrote it all in one go, rather late at night.

Redbrick Features: COMMENT on science
How to live to 100
19/11/2009

THIS week I read a headline that caught my eye: “Scientists identify gene that can help you live to 100”. Now that, I decided, sounds interesting. I wouldn’t mind a gene like that.

Whatever happened to Atlantic 252?

"Welcome to Atlantic 252, or what's left of it. As I understand it, all of the office furniture is to be auctioned, and the broadcast equipment is in storage at the tx site in Summerhill. Mornington House itself is now on the property market, I believe the asking price is half a million."

Atlantic 252 presenter Dave James, Tuesday 29th October, 2002

I SPENT much of Friday looking down a microscope, thanking the good monk Mendel for his laws of genetics and the relative ease with which I can discover many interesting things. I divided hundreds of flies by phenotype (and, because of the brilliance of balancer chromosomes, by genotype also) so that I could set up genetic crosses that will, with any luck, start to produce some results by Christmas. In order to keep up my attention throughout, the fly room was graced by the sound of BBC Radio 4, from 9am through to 7pm (with a brief change of station at 5pm when I decided I didn't need to hear the same news a fourth time). There was Desert Island Discs with Anthony Julius (I liked his choices of Chicago and little Stevie Wonder). There was the final reading of the excellent book of the week, The Magnetic North by Sara Wheeler. I wandered off through Woman's Hour but came back in time for The Richest Man in Britain, The Archers and Gardener's Question Time. I almost felt intellectual by the end of the day.

What surprised me, however, were the frequent referrals of listeners to Radio 4's long wave output. I knew that this was where the cricket commentary is often relayed, but I knew of no other purpose for it. Nor, for that matter, do I know of any shop that sells long wave radios anymore. Why do the BBC still broadcast on something the majority of people can no longer receive?

On intergalactic radio wave distortion

IN the last week I have been talking a lot about what I wrote here on the motives behind, and the aims of, science. One of the arguments against what I said is that, in order to obtain funding, work should have a tangible benefit to humans, as it would otherwise be a waste, or at least an unjustifiable use of, public or government funding. I by no means believe that work should not be done on clincial topics. However, I think that to deny the possibility of funding projects conducted out of simply human intrigue, the desire to answer curiosity, would be a shame and detrimental. In addition, so many human benefits have arisen indirectly from tangential topics - I gave positron emission tomography (PET) as an example in my post, and a further example presented itself to me this week as I listened to the latest Science Show on ABC Radio National. In it, they covered the Australian Prime Minister's prizes for science (a marvellous idea). The winner of the main prize itself was John O'Sullivan, who invented WiFi. WiFi is a tremendous tool and is seemingly everywhere. It assists business and communication at home and in public. Many people rely on it. But where did this come from? How did they invent it?

For the benefit of humanity

I FIND that I have to explain, fairly frequently, what it is that I am doing in PhDland. This is fantastic: it is great that people are interested. But just as frequently, people ask me why. More specifically, they ask to what end am I conducting my experiment? What benefit does it have for people?

This question troubles me and I think it troubles many scientists. Look at enough journal papers, no matter how disparate, and you will notice a trend: the final paragraph of the discussion of many, many papers often seems to have a loosely worded, research council-pleasing vague suggestion that the study in question might, in some way, be applied to humans. Search for many scientific terms, even highly specialist and unrelated terms, and chances are you'll come across something that mentions Parkinson's disease or cancer, often, perhaps, because the authors feel they have to. Newspapers do it too. There'll be a study in mice or flies and, sooner or later, the journalist will give in to temptation or the standard framework of a science report and bring humans into the picture. It is mightily tempting and I've been there myself. But do scientists really have a benefit to mankind in mind? More importantly, does their study need to benefit mankind to be justified?

Cervical cancer vaccine

(this post via Hagley Road to Ladywood)
From Malcolm Coles:

"I've pointed out that any concerned parents searching Google for information on the cervical cancer jab (in the tragic wake of a schoolgirl's death) see a mass of negative and inaccurate information linking the girl's death to the vaccine.

It turns out she died of an unrelated tumour [read what really happened here- ed]. But Google's results will give parents second thoughts about letting their daughters be vaccinated, even though the injection will save 00s of lives a year".

If you're looking for information regarding cervical cancer vaccine, please visit the NHS website.