Bull. Shit! (Literally)

I've mentioned before how the credibility of science is exploited and mangled for the sake of advertising. So have more capable people, like Ben Goldacre. I was recently asked by a media representative to provide a critical perspective on the Dettol 'Mission for Health'. It seems that this major distributor of disinfectants has, purely out of the goodness of their hearts, conducted some research as to how badly infested with bacteria certain public transport services are. Why public transport? God knows. It couldn't be because so many people use public transport and this is a good way of alarming them and increasing their desire for disinfectants. That would be so cynical.

I was sent the Dettol press release, which described the different bacterial levels found on Cardiff Buses, Manchester trams, and so on. The numbers mean nothing out of context, or in the absence of any data about what's 'normal', and whether the (geographically and physically) distinct sample locations are comparable in any way. But it's OK, because the press release includes some comments from a 'media doctor' who says the bacteria levels aren't good. I was actually more alarmed by the revelation that 'media doctor' is a real job description these days.

The reporter who sent me the press release also included some comments from an actual qualified bacteriologist. These comments can be summarised as follows: 'Eh?'

It was gibberish, but it was just another example of corporations conducting a self-serving 'scientific survey' and just interpreting the data in a manner that suits their needs. Business as usual, I suppose. This sort of thing happens all the time.

Then, a few days later, I saw this. And that, for me, was the final straw for advertising-led science. I've never seen such obvious 'scientific' fabrications.

You might want to go over that article a few times, to convince your brain that yes, it does say what you think it says.

To summarise; on behalf of Laughing Cow, Comedian Milton Jones performed to a field of cows as part of an experiment in whether or not animals can laugh. And it turns out they can.

Essentially, it's a nonsensical experiment that bastardises science via the exploitation of the mediums of comedy and animal behavioural studies. Given my background, I'm not entirely convinced that this whole thing wasn't thought up with the express intention of annoying me specifically.

I will say right now that this is not an attack on Milton Jones, who is brilliant, and as a father of three trying to make a living in an increasingly crowded field (by which I mean comedy, not cows), I have no issue with him taking the corporate dollar. Plus, I imagine he felt it would be funny to perform to cows. And it is.

What's not funny in the traditional sense is the contribution of Bruce Woodacre. Bruce is, apparently, a 'Cow Expert'. Again, one of those jobs which I didn't know existed until I read this. His CV must be very interesting… Actually, it isn't. It's disappointingly normal.

Bruce has an MA in Animal Science from Cambridge. I don't know what that really involves (couldn't find it online, and he did the course nearly 40 years ago), but it sounds impressive. It's got 'science' in the title, but it's also an MA, not an MSc, so that's not 100% reassuring. But let's not get distracted by that*.

So, here's is my critique of this experiment, and why I disagree with the 'findings' that cows can be amused by comedians.

METHODOLOGY:

This wasn't written down anywhere that I could see, so I have to make conclusions based on what I saw in the video. It seems like the cows were herded towards a stage constructed in the middle of a field, and Milton Jones performed to them. My questions about this would be as follows;

• Was there an interval between the cows being corralled and the performance starting? The sensation of being herded towards an unfamiliar construct would be likely to cause levels of activity in the subjects that could obscure the behavioural responses being assessed.
  
• Why were there so few independent variables? 'Comedy' is known to have a very subjective component. Even if cows are capable of expressing amusement, there's no guarantee they would be amused by the surreal whimsy of Milton Jones. A repeat of the experiment with Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Michael McIntyre etc. may provide a more robust assessment of whether cows can be amused.
  
• In a similar vein, was it just comedians used? The cows are in a unique situation, were there measures in place to rule out the novelty of the situation as the main factor eliciting responses, rather than amusement? Did Milton Jones read out a tax return form at some point, or recite from the phone book? This would have shown whether the cows were actually understanding what was being said and not just 'laughing' at his hairstyle. Alternatively, was the behaviour of the subjects assessed when there was nobody on the stage? Some calibration and standardisation wouldn't have gone amiss.
  
• Was this experiment repeated with multiple herds? The one herd used may have been more/less open to amusing stimuli than others. Or they may have been pissed. That makes a difference with comedy sometimes.
  

EXPERT ANALYSIS:

Bruce Woodacre is a cow expert. He has 'spent 40 years of [his] life trying to understand cows'. This immediately leads to thinking 'WHY?!?!' This also causes me to have some concerns as to the extent and nature of Bruce's 'interest' in cows. Seems a bit overenthusiastic, if I'm being brutally honest.

He also promotes different approaches to cow management on his website, and uses the term 'holistic' at one point, which is enough to make any scientist twitch nervously these days. I've also found examples of him saying that it's important to put yourself 'in the mind of a cow'. I don't really know how to do this. I tried, but after 5minutes of thinking about cud and grass I just got too bored to continue.

So, I'm sure Bruce knows a lot about cows. But this does not make him an expert behavioural analyst. I myself have spent much of my life in or around cars. However, I am not a mechanic.

There are several points in Bruce's expert analysis that I take issue with. These are as follows:

• "This cow is a heckler. She doesn't like what Milton's saying. She doesn't think he's funny at all"
  

Said cow was seemingly chewing cud and moving her head around, in a manner much like most of the other cows in the video. She's also remaining audibly silent, which is not a form of 'heckling' any comic would recognise. Bruce is probably right in saying the cow doesn't think Milton's funny, in that the cow doesn't have any mental concept of what's 'funny' as we'd recognise it, and that goes double for the concept of 'heckling'. It also doesn't speak or understand English. Even if it could, it's spent its entire life in a cow rearing facility, so can't really grasp the social and/or cultural references that make Milton's (or anyone else's) jokes work. The reasons for all this can be explained by one simple fact; It's a cow, not a human.

• "I don't think a cow laughs in the same way as a human does".
  

It wouldn't, Bruce. It's a cow. Have you seen any evidence anywhere that they laugh at all? Please provide references if so.

• "[The cows] display signs that they wouldn't normally display. The position of its ears, its' rate of breathing, things like that, which could well be interpreted as laughter".
  

I'd be surprised if they weren't displaying signs they wouldn't normally display. Normally, they wouldn't be corralled into a field and forced into a small area in front an unfamiliar artificial structure and have a human in a flamboyant shirt make noises at them through a microphone. When animals are exposed to unfamiliar scenarios, they behave in ways that they wouldn't normally in situations they are familiar with. All these things could well be interpreted as laughter. They could also be interpreted as fear, confusion, curiosity, irritation, indigestion, stomach parasites, impatience, thirst, hunger or a response to any sensation or feeling an animal is capable of

• "Another example, a pair of cows that are certainly paying attention to Milton…"
  

In the clip used, the cows in question are clearly paying attention to the camera in their face. Unless they had serious budget issues, I'm guessing it wasn't Milton Jones who was doing the filming. If he's referring to the fact that the cows in question are close to the front of the stage, this is undoubtedly what happens when you're forcibly moved into an area and have several dozen of your co-creatures (each weighing the best part of a ton) pushed in behind you. Admittedly, they may well be paying attention to Milton. He's an unfamiliar thing in an unfamiliar situation. Animals that don't pay attention to things like that are usually dealt with harshly by evolution.

• "…and that one is showing clear signs of amusement".
  

'That one' has its mouth open. If that's a sign of amusement, I'm guessing cows find food hilarious. It does look like it's smiling, admittedly, but remember Bruce just said "I don't think a cow laughs in the same way as a human does". Inconsistency there, Bruce? What sort of cow expert are you, man!

• "[This experiment] has been very useful. No, cows can't laugh in the same way as humans can, but we've shown they can show amusement, and that's got to be worthwhile".
  

You haven't shown that Bruce. You've shown that you can take some ambiguous footage and speculate wildly about what it means, and then bizarrely make firm conclusions based on these speculations. As for worthwhile, if this conclusion was accurate and cows can indeed perceive and understand jokes and humour delivered by a surreal English-speaking comic, then this would undeniably prove that they are thinking, intelligent beings capable of the complex logical processing required to appreciate jokes and recognise the structural elements that make them humorous. This would mean the cattle trade is responsible for the mass slaughter of thinking, intelligent, emotional beings like most die-hard vegans already think it is. I sincerely doubt the dairy and meat industries (who seem to pay Bruce's wages) would consider this finding 'worthwhile'.

I know I'm taking this far too seriously, but this is the worst example of utter bullshit (appropriately) science and ridiculous conclusions that I've yet seen. There's no indication that the analysis is a knowing joke or parody, it's presented as straight up fact. The publicity stunt would have been just as effective, possibly more so, without this horrendous attempt to make it seem scientifically valid. I think Bruce Woodacre has crossed the line, and is making claims that are not just exaggerated or cynically worded, but flat out wrong. He may disagree, and that's his prerogative.

After all, what do I know? I'm no cow expert.

Utter Bullshit.

* = Turns out, "Cambridge awards BAs that magically become MAs- for all disciplines". Why? Don't know, but there you go.

Email: Humourology (at) live .co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

The Hiss of Piss on a Bonfire

One of the sad facts about growing older is that, more and more, I encounter people who seem to have serious issues with the manner in which people enjoy themselves, or how they do things which they enjoy doing.

I'm guilty of this myself, admittedly. I've never seen the appeal of night clubs, for example. If I wanted to spend the early hours of the morning in a converted warehouse with eye-wateringly poor lighting, inhaling the sweat of strangers while my ear drums are almost shattered by monotonous music played at volumes that could drown out a nuclear assault by a preening dickhead in shades, all while cradling a horrifically overpriced drink, then yeah, I'd probably go to a nightclub

But I have no problem with people who do go to nightclubs and have a good time. It's not for me, but I'm one non-nightclub-going person. But I've had several arguments with people who do go to nightclubs and insist that I should go too, as 'I'll enjoy it once I'm in there'. My patient explanation that I have been 'in there' several times and never even slightly enjoyed it seems irrelevant. I'm apparently wrong, they know what I like better than I do, and by not agreeing I'm being 'no fun'.

Football is the same. I can't see the appeal in watching 22 wealthy dickheads running around sporadically on a green rectangle, trying to place a sphere in a specific place without using their hands. For nearly 2 hours. But millions of people love it, so it's obviously enjoyable to many. Some of these people can be, admittedly, a bit overenthusiastic (read 'violent thugs' for that last bit if you like), but for the vast majority it's an enjoyable pastime.

But if I were to go into nightclubs, turn the lights on, unplug the amps and insist that everyone put some clothes on, I wouldn't be thanked for my efforts. Similarly, if I wandered onto a football pitch during a big game and told the assembled crowd to go home and do something more worthwhile like put up some shelves, I wouldn't be praised for this. I might be prised apart, but not praised.

As some of you probably know if you've read this before, I do stand-up comedy. I'm also co-organiser/host of Cardiff Skeptics in the Pub, and do a lot of talks for the skeptic community and beyond. These are things I do for my own enjoyment, and for the potential enjoyment of others. But apparently, these things I do voluntarily and for little or no reward beyond the actions themselves, I'm doing wrong.

Alom Shaha, lovely guy, excellent writer, gutsy bloke, wrote a piece in the Guardian about how Skeptics in the Pub is preaching to the choir. It was a while ago, but brought up again in my social circles again recently. What's the point, he argues, in talking to people about what they already know? Why don't we spend our time trying to get other communities and groups (e.g. children, ethnic minorities) interested, rather than catering to those who are already onside.

As well meant as the article is, this is just another example of this I've encountered, and it's getting to piss me off. It's a bugbear of mine. Here are the reasons why (and if you don't want to know, or care, then feel free to stop reading and do something more useful, like make a sandwich).

It's probably something to do with my comedy background. One of the ways I've noticed in which a comedian will try and exert dominance over another is to criticise their performance, and offer unsolicited advice on how to improve. The advice itself is invariably completely subjective and, often, utterly useless, but the group dynamics of these interactions are startlingly clear, as is the thought process involved, for all that it might be completely subconscious.

I've lost count of the number of inexperienced (or just plain shit) acts giving unasked for advice to more experienced and much better comedians (based on audience response, not just my subjective views). By giving advice and 'helpful' criticism, they are (unjustifiably) asserting their superiority over the better acts in order to reinforce their sense of self worth, but to the detriment of the better acts. The fact that this is presented under the guise of 'being helpful' means that social convention often lets them get away with it.

It's teeth-grindingly infuriating to see this happen as soon as a great but fragile ego'd comic (and there are loads of those, the criticisers can pretty much smell them) walks off stage after a storming performance, only to be rewarded with a volley of 'helpful' advice and criticisms. It happens to me more often than not, I think it's because I'm not particularly confident seeming or arrogant (says the guy on his own long winded blog, but please trust me on this). Also, I have a PhD in neuroscience. A lot of comics pride themselves on their superior wit and intellect, me telling them my qualifications (after they've asked, usually about half way thorough the night) tends to be very unsettling for them. Sometimes they even accuse me of being arrogant. The implication being that I've spent over a decade following a difficult, complex and financially unrewarding career purely to upset them. This makes ME arrogant. Logical.

I'm not saying Alom and the others who have expressed concern with the skeptic ethos are doing this, I'm just explaining why it pisses me off so much. I can only speak from my experience, but I don't really agree with much, or any, of the criticisms aimed at the skeptic 'movement', whatever the hell that is. It's true that there may be differences between SITP events in different towns and cities (it being a grassroots voluntary movement with no central coordination, this is inevitable), but seeing as the criticisms are pretty much always generalised to the whole, then I'll do the same with my response.

The main criticisms seem to be that there isn't enough inclusion of ethnic minorities, there should be more attempts to educate children and those who don't hear about skeptical stuff etc. And of course, we're just preaching to the converted, which is arrogant and pointless (like the Pope).

I can only speak for Cardiff, but we get a few ethnic minorities there. We don't actively try to get them along, but we certainly don't actively exclude them. This is because I (and most people I know) don't see any reason to differentiate between ethnic minorities and everyone else.

It may be true that they don't feel as if they'd be welcome at events like SITP, but (at the risk of sounding controversial) how is that our fault exactly? I promise that any publicity we do does not carry a 70's-style 'No Blacks - No Asians etc.' exclusion clause. On the other hand, nor do we include an 'ethnic minorities welcome!' notice. Why not? Because that would be incredibly patronising and, in my opinion, just as racist (albeit in a more well-intended way).

There is obviously much that could be done to encourage more ethnic minorities into these sorts of events. But how much of this should be done? I shy away from any attempt to actively try and change people's minds. And if I start thinking I have the right to decide what people from ethnic minorities should be doing, please don't vote for me when I inevitably ask you to do so.

Obviously there are many factors (social, cultural, religious, political etc.) that might prevent ethnic minorities from coming to an SITP night. Again, none of these are the fault of the rational community, and criticising them for not challenging or changing them seems unduly harsh. If there is a way in which I and my fellow organisers can encourage more ethnic community members to come to these events without being patronising, divisive or just outright racist, I'd love to hear it.

As for the active spreading of our viewpoint for people's benefits, that's the same goal of people who scream about Jesus in the High Street. These people aren't appreciated, nor are they widely respected. By and large, they're ignored, or mocked. They are by me, at least, so I certainly wouldn't want to become one of them.

I've also butted heads with many in the Science Communication business about this whole 'Think of the Children!!' attitude. I'm glad there is an ever-increasing number of people who choose to try and educate and communicate with the younger members of society. I've even done it myself several times, having spoken at quite a number of events aimed at school pupils of various ages.

But for many people involved in these activities, there seems to be some bizarre view that as soon as someone leaves the school system they become a lost cause. I prefer to try and communicate to adults, because looking like I do means it's always a bit weird when I offer children sweets. And also I like to communicate in high-brow sounding gibberish, which most children would struggle with. Most adults do too, but social etiquette prevents them from calling me on it, which would upset me and my fragile non-arrogant ego.

In seriousness, I think adults deserve as much attention as children when it comes to communicating scientific matters. Possibly more so, as they may have children of their own, so it could be a 2-for-1 deal.

And finally, there's the whole 'preaching to the choir' thing. I guessed I missed the memo, but I wasn't aware that having an interest in things scientific and rational meant you weren't allowed to socialise with like-minded people. A group of people getting together with other people who have similar interests, to hear about and discuss the things they're interested in? Such a thing is unheard of! And any people who do this sort of thing are clearly a collection of arrogant smug bastards of the highest order.

That's how I see SITP first and foremost; a social event where people with an interest in scientific things can go and have a chilled out evening with similar folk and hear about something interesting (usually something they DIDN'T already know, despite assertions to the contrary). Any lobbying/campaigning/outreach that comes from it is all well and good, but it's an 'event' first and foremost. This means; People choose to attend, the organisers don't choose who attends

That's what I think anyway, I could be completely wrong in this. It's my blog though, so only got my own views to go on.

It generally boils down to a lot of people saying 'You could do more to [insert preferred thing to do]'. But where does that end? I do comedy in comedy clubs. where people are there to see comedy. Is this arrogant? Should I just start wandering into Mosques and nursery schools and bellowing my material at anyone I find? If I don't, am I just arrogantly preaching to the choir?

We spent a lot on the catering for our wedding, why didn't I just get a black bag full of sausage rolls from Gregg's and give the rest to charity? (It was mostly because many of my in-laws are vegetarian, and Gregg's also don't take £50 notes).

I just find it ironic that anyone interested in science and rationality is seemingly doing something wrong if they have the audacity to enjoying themselves and not spend every waking moment trying to educate others. That would make us the obsessed emotionless robots we're stereotypically believed to be. And as someone with a rural Welsh background, I'm not a big fan of stereotypes.

Website: http://sciencedigestivewebnoise.moonfruit.com

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Meditate on THIS!

It must be nice to be a proper science blogger, having the skills and experience to analyse and assess scientific stories, features and articles, picking them apart where appropriate and presenting a well-rounded assessment of the merits and criticisms as applicable.

Science bloggers can educate, alert people to problems/issues, and further the cause of understanding with their writing. This is unlike what I do, which seems to consist mostly of being flippant and satirical about things that happen to me and/or attract my interest in an attempt to be 'funny' in a forlorn effort to distract from the yawning chasms that are my inadequacies as a scientist, comedian and member of society.

The only way I can possibly hope to contribute to the real world of science bloggers is if there is some sort of news story or something that is about my specific area of expertise, but is also ridiculously misleading and poorly put together.

Sometimes, you get lucky.

Look what was in the Telegraph recently. Apparently, meditation makes you smarter by growing your brain. Dear lord, where to begin...

I'd like to point out that I have nothing against meditation. It is no doubt relaxing, calming and has connections with yoga, a form of exercise practiced by my wife and mother-in-law with much enjoyment. It's unfortunate that meditation and yoga have become largely the property of the alt-med communities, as they are clearly good for you in practical terms. I have been told of an individual who is convinced that yoga can cure AIDS (and presumably other serious conditions). It's as if he believes that all illness is somehow the fault of inflexibility of the body and muscles, and that health can be altered by manipulation of posture and joints and that. Seriously, who would believe nonsense like that?

However, someone has now tried to put meditation and its benefits firmly within the realm of science.

The article begins thusly:

For thousands of years, Buddhists, hippies and spiritualists have claimed that the mental discipline promises a higher state of consciousness.

It has been taken so seriously that schools in America are considering including meditation as part of their curriculums, thanks to the championing by the film director David Lynch who has set up a foundation promoting the technique.

Now scientists have discovered that regular meditation appears to actually increase the size of the brain.

I won't argue the first few lines. What Hippies and Buddhists think is not my business, and I'm not in any position to question these claims. But obviously I understand how any theory/technique has to be taken seriously if David Lynch champions it, known as he is for his commitment to logic, rationality and reason. I've not seen Twin Peaks for years, but I'm pretty sure it was a detailed, well-researched documentary about the geological processes that produce some of the more interesting features of mountain ranges in the Americas.

Seriously though, what else could it be?

Anyway, the last sentence is incredibly loaded. No scientist worth his salt would claim to have discovered anything like this, especially not to the Telegraph. And, in the unlikely event that such an affect was proven to exist, why is this being lauded as a good thing? Our brains are too big for our heads as it is. It is possible for our brains to get bigger, but when this happens it often requires some pretty heavy-duty neurosurgery to make it stop before it kills us.

Admittedly, 'meditation causes severe headaches and death' would be a much more urgent headline, and would probably have been noticed by now if it were the case, by all the hippies, Buddhists, and spiritualists. And David Lynch would probably be arrested. At the very least, Rhys Morgan will have taken him to task.

So the article probably isn't really claiming this is the case. Surely, all will become clear as it progresses.

In the latest research scans revealed "significantly larger" amounts of grey matter in people who had been mediating long term.

The inverted commas tell you a lot about this statement. But what does a 'larger amount' of grey matter (significant or otherwise) actually mean? This statement, to a neuroscientist, is hopelessly vague. Overall, it could be said that, in the brain, grey matter does the processing of information, white matter carries the information around. Logically then, you could say that if you have more grey matter, you can process more information, and are therefore smarter.

Except it's not even close to being that simple. The amount of grey matter we possess is barely, if at all associated with how intelligent we are. People who have had half their neocortex removed at a young age in drastic but essential surgery develop to become grown people of perfectly normal intelligence, despite just over half as much grey matter as your typical idiot. There are also conditions where the brain grows abnormally and with much less overall mass than a 'normal' brain, but these conditions are usually only diagnosed after a scan, as the 'sufferers' show no noticeable ill effects from the condition, despite having drastically below average brain mass.

There is no real defining neurological factor that correlates precisely with intelligence, and this includes 'amount of grey matter'. This statement is of no use, and as potentially misleading as me saying 'I have a significantly higher body mass than a typical featherweight boxer' in a discussion about health and exercise. Used in this context, it's like I'm saying that this fact makes me fitter and healthier than professional athletes, whereas I could just be significantly fatter. I'm not though, this is just an example.

Actually, I most definitely am.

It continues...

High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed their hippocampus – a key area of the brain associated with memory and learning – was bigger.

I'd love to comment on this sentence, if only I'd spent nearly 4 years studying the hippocampus and its functions.

Oh, yeah. I did.

There have been many experiments that have revealed that certain people have bigger hippocampuses than others. The hippocampus is indeed strongly implicated in memory and learning. It is also a key area for spatial perception and navigation. A very simplified generalisation would be to say that the hippocampus receives information from the myriad sensory inputs and combines it into specific useful configurations for use to remember and exploit when needed, e.g. the spatial layout of a room or area, or the combination of spatiotemporal factors that make up an episode (otherwise known as 'what' happened, 'where' and 'when', commonly known as episodic memory).

OK, maybe that wasn't so simplified. But suffice to say, the hippocampus is indeed associated with memory and learning. And it does appear that the hippocampus, like a lot of neurological regions, has muscle-like properties; i.e. the more it's used, the bigger it gets. Eleanor Maguire and colleagues discovered that London taxi drivers, those who have 'the knowledge', have significantly larger hippocampuses than your normal person (remember that the hippocampus is also implicated in navigation and spatial awareness)

This may be an unfair stereotype, but when I think of the terms 'meditation', spiritualism' and 'inner peace', the first thing that comes to mind is rarely 'London Taxi Drivers'. This seems to be another excellent example of a mainstream media article confusing correlation with causation, which is a common mistake. It could be that those who practice meditation are well travelled, actively pursue different cultures and practices, spend a great deal of time on concentration and self-analysis, all of which would potentially increase your information intake and ergo increase the size of your hippocampus. A tendency to meditate, like hippocampus size, could easily be another symptom of their lifestyle, rather than a cause.

On the other hand, people 'blessed' with a larger and/or more efficient hippocampus due to some genetic or other environmental factor could find their enhanced ability to encode and retain information quite stressful and distracting, and may eventually turn to meditation as a means to relax for once. Maybe the hippocampus size is the CAUSE of meditation, not an effect?

I bet if you performed a similar assessment, you'd find that a significant percentage of people involved in car crashes had suffered fractured or broken bones at some point in their lives. Therefore, breaking bones causes an impairment in driving ability (presumably this increases substantially with how close in time the breakage and attempt at driving are).

Obviously, that last sentence is not the most obvious conclusion to jump to.

Other parts linked to emotion were also larger than in people who did not practise the ancient technique. The finding was made by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, who published the results in the journal NeuroImage.

Yes, I expect the parts 'that linked to emotion' were indeed larger. If the hippocampus is larger, I'd be worried if they weren't, seeing as the hippocampus is heavily involved with memory processing, so processes pretty much everything we experience, and nearly everything we experience has an emotional aspect. This is encoded via the amygdala, a neural region closely linked to the hippocampus and also pretty much essential for effective memory processing (I assume this is what they're referring to when they say 'other parts linked to emotion' if you were wondering). To put is as harshly as possible, let me enter incredibly sarcastic mode:

Wow! They found that both the hippocampus AND the amygdala were larger? That's AMAZING! Almost as amazing as that time I found out that very tall people have longer leg bones AND longer leg muscles! I mean, who'd have even expected it?!?!

There, that's enough of that. I think you get the point.

I like how they also felt it necessary to point out both the city and the state the University was in, I imagine that makes all the difference. Not sure how reputable a journal Neuroimage is, but going by this article alone, I'm guessing 'not particularly'. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

The authors said that previous research had "confirmed the beneficial aspects of meditation. In addition to having better focus and control over their emotions, many people who meditate regularly have reduced levels of stress and bolstered immune systems".

Confirmed? Really? Beware any scientist who drops the C-bomb so casually, there's usually a sharp learning curve approaching. And as for the rest of the statement, it's incredible isn't it! People who consciously choose to spend hours every day practicing a relaxation technique which involves sitting still and shutting out external stimuli, which is strongly linked to yoga and a variety of practices dedicated to improving health, these people have less stress and better immune systems? You don't say.

What does 'bolstered' even mean, anyway? I'm pretty sure it's not a standard scientific term. In fact, I'm pretty sure it usually involves cushions.

But less was known about possible links between meditation and brain structure which is thought to affect intelligence.

The team studied the brains of 44 people – half of whom had practised various forms of meditation for between five and 46 years.

More than half said that "deep concentration" was an essential part of their routine, and most meditated for between ten and 90 minutes a day.

The MRI scans showed "significantly larger cerebral measurements in meditators".

...What?

Of course less was known about possible links. Until this article, I didn't think there were any. And I'm a neuroscientist.

44 people.

Half of these were controls (it's suggested, at any rate), so that's 22 people in the meditating group.

"[Mediating] Between five and 46 years".

Bloody Hell! Talk about your variation between subjects, the error bars for this group must have been off the chart (and that's the most literal use of that cliché you'll see for a while, I'll wager). People who've been meditating for 46 years? Even if they started as a 10 year old, that still means they're close to 60 years old. That's a lot of life to remember, and this may lead to an enlarged hippocampus. "Living for a long time increases your brain size" isn't so much of a story though, I guess. (Also, I don't know why in the original statement one number is spelled out and the other isn't, but then I'm not a journalist working for the Telegraph).

It's possible that all the subjects were within a very narrow age range and just started meditating at different times, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

"'deep concentration'".

Which is...? Not really something I'd trust myself to measure unless it could be quantified in some way. Perhaps I'm just pedantic.

"most meditated for between ten and 90 minutes a day"

'Most'? Between '10 and 90' (only one spelled out again)? Well, as long as it's between 10 and 90, that's fine. I mean, 10mg and 90mg of morphine have pretty much identical effects, so it doesn't really matter how much a subject gets if you're studying the effects of the stuff, as long as they get some. "Consistency is overrated by science" is a thought I have very regularly (ironically).

The MRI scans showed "significantly larger cerebral measurements in meditators".

I imagine if you'd put me in an MRI scanner right now I'd also show increased cerebral measurements as I desperately try to figure out what the phrase 'increased cerebral measurements' means in this context. I had to go to hospital once after an accident. I no doubt showed 'increased physiological measurements' at the time, due to my injuries. Exactly what anyone would have done with that information is anyone's guess, as it's so generalised as to be meaningless.

The lead researcher Eileen Luders said the changes in the brain could explain why people who meditate "have a singular ability to cultivate positive emotions".

Do people who meditate have 'a singular ability to cultivate positive emotions', then? Exactly how would you measure or even quantify such a thing? We're not talking about mass or speed here, these aren't things that can be worked out with an equation or set of scales. I'd really like to see some evidence for this beyond the anecdotal/observational. A lot of people who practice meditation would logically be in a position where they are educated enough to discover it and learn it as a practice, have enough free time to indulge in it for prolonged periods, and find that it works for them so continue. What I believe we have here is a sampling bias and a lot of wishful thinking.

"The differences in brain anatomy might give us a clue as to why meditators have these exceptional abilities," she added.

Not arguing that, if these exceptional abilities can be said to be real. But this in no way automatically means that meditation is behind all this. These people all meditate. Do they all wear black underwear too? Maybe they all had a dog when they were younger? It's easy to make associations when you pick and choose your data.

Previous studies have shown how the brain can change its structure over time.

[...Slow ....Hand ...Clap]

The researchers found significantly larger brain measurements in meditators compared with others, including larger volumes of the right hippocampus and increased grey matter in the right frontal cortex.

Because these areas of the brain are closely linked to emotion, Ms Luders said, "these might be the neuronal underpinnings that give meditators' the outstanding ability to regulate their emotions and allow for well-adjusted responses to whatever life throws their way".

This seems to be the article reiterating the same points in a different way in order to make it look more substantial than it really is. I won't do the same here, I think you've got the gist now. I don't know how many 'brain measurements' they took (seriously, what? This article is starting to cause fluctuations in my 'health numbers') but I've gone over the issue with grey matter and all that already.

I like how they've dropped the whole 'makes your brain bigger' angle by the end though, as that was misleading even by the standards of this article. As it happens, the biggest brain on record was about 3.5 kilos, and belonged to a mentally-retarded* epileptic. So claiming that meditation makes your brain bigger could be interpreted as 'meditation makes you retarded*', it's just as tenuous a link as a lot of the arguments put forward here.

There we go, my first piece that combines my passions for Neuroscience, cynicism, skepticism, nitpicking and sarcasm. I think I need a cigarette...

* = This is the term used when I read about it, I mean it purely in the scientific sense.

Email = humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter = @garwboy

I