Recently in science Category

Following last weeks entry about the media and MMR I have another post brewing which goes into more detail about the central message of Ben Goldacre's excellent book. That central message is that you usually can't trust science and health stories in the press because they are usually written by people who don't understand the story that they are writing. Most journalists seem to have only the shakiest of understanding of anything other than the most basic of scientific principles.

Another good example is the case of Michael Reiss. He gave a largely sensible speech saying that science teachers should be more willing and better prepared to discuss (and counter) creationism in the classroom. In journalists' heads this became "Royal Society Bigwig Supports Teaching Creationism" and before you know it, he's been hounded out of his job.

I thought that the Reiss story had run its course, but journalists were determined to have one last attempt to prove exactly how little they understood. And I'm embarassed to admit that it comes from the Observer - a paper I'd like to credit with higher than average intelligence.

The picture about comes from the web site version of this article by Sir Harry Kroto, the Nobel prizewinner. The article itself is eminently sensible. It talks about how there really is a huge philosophical difference between religion and science and how people of a religious nature must, by definition, believe things on faith alone which would, on the surface, seem to make it difficult for them to flourish in a scientifc career.

But the most brilliant piece of journalism is in the standfirst - that little piece of text underneath the title which is intended to draw the reader into the article. As you'll see from the image above (which I've taken because I fully expect it to change when someone realises how stupid they look), it says:

Creationists such as the Rev Reiss don't have the intellectual integrity to teach science

"Creationists such as the Rev Reiss"! Michael Reiss may have many faults. He may not have been the best choice as the Royal Society's Director of Education. He may believe a few crazy things (he's an ordained minister - that's part of the job). But he is not a creationist.

He was campaigning for science teachers to be given better training in order to counter creationist claims in the classroom. And now, three weeks later, a national newspaper is calling him a creationist.

I hope the person who wrote that standfirst is suitably embarrassed.

Update: In the discussion on this article, the nonsensical standfirst has been mentioned. Some people have tried to defend it by pointing out that, as a theist, Reiss must believe that god created the universe even if he followed scientific processes rather than the fairy stories in Genesis. And that therefore, at some level, it's reasonable to describe him as a creationist.

I say that if you're allowed to redefine common words like that, then there's no point at all in holding a conversation.

This makes me very angry.

Yesterday the NHS Information Centre released data showing that take-up of the MMR vaccination was lower than it should be. The national level has stalled at 85%, whereas it really needs to be at 95% in order to achieve "herd immunity" - an unflattering term which simply means that immunity is at a level where it's impossible for the infection to take hold in the community. A decade ago, this figure stood at 92% and was rising.

This is terrible news and many media outlets have commented on it. Here, for example, are the BBC. the Mail and the Express. All of these stories contain a similar explanation for the drop. Here is the Express:

Confidence in the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine fell after researchers published a 1998 paper in The Lancet medical journal suggesting a link between MMR and autism.

Uptake of the jab dropped to around 80% after some parents refused to let their children have the vaccine.

This explanation is, of course, being more than a little economical with the truth. It's true that in 1998 the Lancet published a paper that claimed to link MMR with autism. But papers in the Lancet don't generally lead to such a hysterical reaction in the general population. This one wouldn't have done so either if the media hadn't picked up the story and built it up in such a disgraceful manner.

The point of publishing a paper in an academic journal like the Lancet is for other qualified academics to examine the methods and the results of a study and to draw their own conclusions as to the quality of the research and the reliability of the findings. And in this case, the methods were extremely questionable and the findings were completely untrustworthy.

But that didn't matter. Andrew Wakefield, who lead the study which the paper was reporting on, held a press conference calling for the suspension of the MMR vaccination and it was this which was reported in the press rather than other doctors' doubts about the reliability of his research.

Very quickly the MMR/autism link worked its way into the public consciousness and everyone "knew" that responsible parents didn't give their their children the MMR vaccination. Hence the massive fall in immunisation and a couple of quite scary epidemics of measles in the last few years.

All of which makes it a bit galling to read yesterday's stories in the press. The same media outlets which drummed up the hysteria in the first place are now reporting on the drop in immunisation. Here's the BBC:

The study has since been discredited, but confidence has been slow to return in the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

That's accurate, I suppose, but it hardly makes it clear that the study was discredited almost immediately but that media outlets took years to listen and to drop their anti-MMR campaigns.

The problem seems to be that many of the original news stories were written by journalists who didn't know anything about how science works. Just because some doctor stands up and says that something is true, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. The study needs to be examined closely before pronouncements like this can be made. Andrew Wakefield should not have held that press conference and he's currently being investigated by the General Medical Council for many mistakes he made in the course of this study.

If you're interested in finding out more about this story and just how badly people were mislead by the media, I strongly recommend Ben Goldacre's recent book Bad Science. The final chapter covers the whole sorry tale in some detail. The rest of the book is well worth reading too.

The moral of the story is: don't trust science stories that aren't written by people who understand science.

Happy Darwin Day everyone.

Today, it's 199 years since Charles Darwin was born and later this year it will be 149 years since he published The Origin of Species. So this year will only really be a practice for a far bigger celebration next year.

Update: Removed extra 9 from 199. Thanks Murray!

I've written before about Conservapedia, the web site that is using the same software as Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia of the US christian right's view of the world.

Usually their nonsense is just amusing. But their article on Richard Dawkins has recently verged on libel. They seem determined to promote the opinion that Dawkins is not a professor. On the off-chance that sanity breaks out eventually and they article is cleaned up, here's an archive of what it currently says:

Richard Dawkins is the holder of a donated "post" at the Museum of Natural History, an institution owned by the University of Oxford. The "post" does not entail "substantial teaching."

Currently Richard Dawkins claims on his resume the academic authority of a "professor" at the University of Oxford, but his "professorship" is actually described by Oxford as a "post" during which Dawkins enjoys the income pursuant to the donor's intent. Leading universities do not permit the "buying" of a professorship for someone. The post becomes a "professorship" when a subsequent beneficiary is promoted to the position based on a peer review election process.

The special terms of this gift allowed Richard Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor". In other words, the gift establishes an endowment for future professors, but is held initially as a "post" by Dawkins who was apparently never subjected to the full peer review election process specified in the endowment.

As of October 5, 2007, the Oxford University's Zoology Department lists the status of Richard Dawkins status as "other" rather than as "academic". Since March 30, 2005, Dawkins' online resume has stated his academic credential as "Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford," when in fact Dawkins' position is at the Museum of Natural History, an institution merely owned by the University of Oxford. The title "professor" is misleading, if not fraudulent, as the position donated for his benefit does not satisfy the Merriam-Webster definition of "professor": "a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education."

It's a shame that these enemies of reason feel they have to resort to such underhand tactics. They can't argue with Dawkins' points about religion so they resort to trying to undermine his academic standing.

It's worth reading the discussion page associated with the article. You'll see that there are quite a few people arguing on the side of reason, but that the loudest voice denying Dawkins' title is the owner of the site. And he is the final arbiter of what the page says.

According to a story on the BBC, Charles Simonyi has described himself as "the first nerd in space".

Wonder how Mark Shuttleworth feels about that.

And as it's Darwin Day, we should take every opportunity to shine scientific light on unscientific nonsense. As a good example, here's Ben Goldacre deconstructing "Dr" Gillian McKeith.

Happy Darwin Day!

And if you're enjoying this Darwin Day, then you should sign this petition campaigning to make Darwin Day a public holiday in the UK.

A few days ago, CNN ran a segment on Paula Zahn Now where they discussed atheism. Unfortunately they forgot to include any atheists (or anyone who knew anything about atheism) on the panel. You can read the transcript online or watch the whole thing courtesy of YouTube.

This strange omission was noted on a couple of atheist web sites (here's the discussion on Richard Dawkins' site), a number of letters were written and CNN have now announced that Richard Dawkins will be on the programme tonight.

So that's nice. But that's not why I'm mentioning it. One of the panelists in the original discussion was some I'd never heard of called Debbie Schlussel. She was one of the people who said that atheists "should just shut up". She has her own blog so people were able to send her comments on her performance. I assume these comments weren't very complimentary as she wrote an astonishing rant about the experience. Even the title ("When Atheists a/k/a Future Muslims Attack") is unbelievable. The main thrust of her... er... well let's call it an "argument" (even though that's a very generous use of the word) is

I don't mind receiving the atheist hate mail, since I know that in a few years, many of these same people will either be Muslim extremists (redundant) or helping the country fall further in its fight against the creep of Islamic imposition on America . . . or both.

Look at famous atheists and what happened to them. Adam Gadahn a/k/a Azzam Al-Amriki--now a top Al-Qaeda video "personality"--was raised by his hippie Jewish father and equally bizarre gentile mother as an atheist. And look how he turned out. Ditto for hippie-spawn John Walker Lindh.

Those two people are enemies of America, and many of those who think like them are of equally weak mind. If you don't believe in anything, you'll easily fall for virtual nothings. That's why Europe is so quickly turning Islamist--because atheism dominates and Christianity is rapidly dying there. Over there, the number one cause for which atheists are suddenly finding "god" is Islam.

Over here, as I pointed out on CNN, atheists are on the attack against religion and G-d only when Christians and Jews are involved, not when Muslims and Islam are. A Christian prayer at a public school graduation or football game? Send in the ACLU lawyers. A Muslim prayer at a high school football game in Dearbornistan? Suddenly, when the "Religion of Peace" is involved, atheists boast extreme tolerance and display ultimate deference. No lawsuits. Ever. And the Muslim prayers continue.

It's a frightening piece of misinformation. If you're an atheist then either you're just about to convert to islam or you're only interested in attacking christianity - you're happy to let islam get away with anything.

There are already dozens (maybe hundreds) of comments to this piece. A healthly proportion of them are pointing out the obvious errors in her argument. But she seems to be ignoring the debate.

It's a worrying reminder of just how closed some theist minds can be.

Update: Apparently the Dawkins segment on last night's show was bumped to make way for in-depth coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death. Because that's obviously far more important.

Update: The Dawkins interview was finally shown yesterday (Darwin Day, in a nice touch of irony). You can see it (together with discussion of it) on Richard Dawkins' web site.

Following on from yesterday's piece about "Truth" In Science trying to get their crackpot creationist theories taught in British schools, I see that MP Graham Stringer has tabled an Early Day Motion on this issue. You might consider popping over to WriteToThem and asking your MP to sign this EDM.

From the front page of today's Guardian:

Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.

The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".

The group behind this are called Truth in Science - which must be a joke as they seem determined to lie about science whenever possible. It's also worrying that that they are a completely different group to the one that has been lobbying MPs recently.

The story goes on to say:

A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."

This man is head of chemistry. A post that is traditionally held by a scientist.

Now let's be clear on this (as I've been misunderstood when writing about this before). I'm all for pupils being taught the history of belief and comparative religion. But the only way that creationism (or "intelligent design") should be covered in a science lesson is to illustrate how far our understanding of the world has increased in a relatively short time.

And, yes, I'm all in favour of questioning Darwin's theories. That's how science works. Theories are tested and questioned. But any questions need to come from scientific research, not from idiots who are upset because science disagrees with their favourite fairy story.

It's not all bad news though. The government has said that this material should not be used in the classrrom.

The government has made it clear the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. In a response to the Labour MP Graham Stringer on November 1, Jim Knight, a minister in the Department for Education and Skills, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum."

So, I wonder what will happen to the teachers who have used it already? In my opinion people who teach this nonsense to children should be banned from teaching. But I'll be very surprised if that happens.

Update: The same story on the BBC.