Hot War-on-War action

There's a lot of war about these days. I know that's sadly usually the case globally, but I meant in daily life here in cushy western society. And I don't mean this in the most literal sense. I'm not regularly experiencing mortar fire every time I go to Morrison's to buy some bin bags. I meant the word 'War' is, as far as I can see, popping up seemingly everywhere. And words are funny things, aren't they?

Actually, forget that, most of the time they're not. Words can be quite bland. Slate, Grey, tepid, felt, step, moored, these are just some words which provoke little or no reaction in your average person, they just exist to fulfil a function. Like windowsills. They're useful and we'd miss them if they were gone, but I doubt anybody has ever said 'I do love those windowsills'. If I'm wrong about this and you know someone who does say that, then fair enough. But I'd give that person a wide berth if I were you.

But undeniably, some words can trigger intrinsic emotional responses. This is actually used in clinical assessment in a few ways, one of which is a version of the stroop test. To briefly describe it, subjects/patients are asked to say the colour of each word in a list of words, not to read it. Of course, people tend to be unable to stop themselves reading words, even if it's made more difficult, it's an automatic process much of the time. The emotional stroop test, as it's known, gets participants to give the colour of a list of words, some of which have strong emotional connotations. For example, if the test is intended to assess whether someone is depressed or not, a lot of the words will have strong, 'bleak' connotations (murder, suicide, cancer etc.). In theory, a depressed person will divert more attention to these loaded words than they will to more neutral, generic ones (leaf, wheelbarrow, melon etc.). Depression tends to be a self-perpetuating condition due to the psychological preoccupation and emphasis on the negatives, and this test arguably reveals indications of this.

So words can and do have intrinsically powerful meanings, is what the overall point is.

This has been brought up a lot recently, with the controversy over Workfare in the UK, the government scheme to get the unemployed back in work but without all that pesky payment to sort out. Whatever you think of it as a concept, it's definitely caused a lot of controversy, and there are plenty of other, better informed blogs/articles out there if you want to delve into that.

What struck me was the fact that many people are comparing it to slavery. Some were doing it for satire, which is fine. But many people objected to those objecting to workfare by comparing it to slavery. No doubt a fair bit of the latter is intellectual posturing, people wanting to show that they're even more 'right on' than the 'right on' bandwagon, but there's obviously some relevance to the complaints. I don't think that being compelled to work for several hours a day in order to justify benefits, however unpleasant and unfair it may be, can be seen as directly analogous to being kidnapped, beaten, sold as property and forcibly made to toil all day every day for the rest of your (undoubtedly short) life. Obviously, a lot of people feel strongly about the casual use of such a loaded word as slavery, one with such terrible historic implications.

Some words are too loaded, apparently, unless used with 100% contextual accuracy. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is largely subjective and depends on your views on free speech, censorship etc. I've mentioned before how the previously used term 'depression' may be too generic, meaning sufferers might get short shrift as a result. And the casual use of the term 'rape' is not something that usually ends well, as I may have discussed.

What confuses me, though, is why the same consideration and gravitas isn't applied to the term 'War'. I don't think there are many rational people who actually think war is a good thing. Those who are 'pro war' are almost exclusively people who are very unlikely to actually experience it directly. I may be wrong about this, but I'll go out on a limb and say that people who genuinely think war is a good thing are unlikely to be the sort of people who would object to using a specific term in an incorrect context. They're clearly an 'ends justify the means' type.

But of those who do object to the casual use of meaningful, loaded terms, I've not yet seen anyone object to the causal use of the word war. I'm just wondering why this is?

War is, at best, viewed as a necessary evil. And when the most positive spin you can give to something includes the word 'evil', that's not a good sign. The very existence of war has often been used as a shortcut in sci-fi to show that humans = evil (check out The Fifth Element, or any series of Star Trek). War is bloody. War is destructive. War involves armed conflict and invariably a high death toll. War kills people, usually in their thousands, often indiscriminately. Cultures, societies, populations, environments, there are many examples of each that have been utterly devastated by war. Historically, that's what war does.

In a historical context, War has killed countless millions over thousands of years, and with the invention of nuclear weapons it has become something that could wipe out the human race altogether, and relatively easily. We still have remembrance day and many other occasions across the world to honour those who went to war (and never came back) so we don't have to now. So, historically, war clearly has the same resonance and connotations of words such as slavery, or genocide, or holocaust.

Now, imagine if there was a TV advert for a bleach or toilet cleaner with the slogan 'It's like a bacteria holocaust!' It would be pulled from the air in seconds and those who made it would be pilloried mercilessly (and rightly so, I hasten to add). However, if the slogan was 'go to war on bacteria', that would be fine, people probably wouldn't even register it as anything unusual. Because it wouldn't be.

Just through the use of google autocomplete, here are some wars that are apparently going on at the moment.

War on Women

War on Waste

War on Want

Welfare state

War on Free Speech

War on Christmas

War on Drugs

War on Terror

War on Binge Drinking

War on Teenagers

War on Poverty

War on the working classes

War on Piracy

War on Censorship

War on Islam

War on Christianity

War on Religion

War on atheism

War on science

War on Democracy

War on Unions

Price War

Bidding War

That's a lot of war to be getting on with, and I've not even mentioned the actual armed conflicts (which are these days, contrastingly, being described as 'police actions', 'insurrections' and so on, not 'wars').

The term war is clearly thrown around so casually that I worry it's become largely devalued. Vince Cable declared that he'd 'declared war on [Rupert] Murdoch'. As much as I like the idea of Vince Cable recruiting an army and forcibly storming the offices of the Sun at Wapping, I don't think that's what he meant. I'm pretty sure for something to actually be a war, both sides involved have to actually be aware that it's happening.

War on women, war on waste, war on want, war on working classes, war of words, I now move we declare 'War on words that begin with W purely to take advantage of the phonetic similarity'.

The war on Christmas has been going on for many years now. I guess that's inevitable, as it's one of the only wars where you can't say 'it'll all be over by Christmas'. It's the opposite, if anything.

The War on Poverty was declared in the 60's, apparently. I'm going to assume it didn't involve carpet-bombing impoverished areas with shell casings filled with banknotes and jewels. If anything, the war has stepped up in recent years, with the 'Make Poverty History' campaign calling for all-out eradication of poverty. A poverty-genocide, if you will.

If you believe what you read these days, most of the major religions (and also atheists) are having war waged against them, although none claim to have initiated hostilities nor to be actively taking part in said war. Indeed many are engaging in some bizarre form of pre-emptive retaliation, which doesn't seem logical when you think about it

A lot of these 'wars' are shorthand ways of describing a seemingly orchestrated campaign by a particular organisation or powerful body to limit the powers/rights of another group, or to undermine a process or principle which they see as a threat. I'm not saying these are good things or that they aren't happening, but I just question the appropriateness of describing them as 'wars'. And I'm aware of the irony of me questioning whether or not 'War on Freedom of Speech' is an acceptable term.

It would be easy to blame George W. Bush and co for starting all this, with their 'War on Terror', an official armed conflict against an abstract concept. But there's plenty of examples before this. The Cold war, which had the threat of war but no actual conflict. The Cod war, which was purely about fishing territories, but at least was an official disagreement between 2 countries, which is one of the aspects that normally defines a war. But these days it seems that someone can declare a war against something/someone at the drop of a hat, and nobody even registers it. People even use the phrase 'been in the wars' to describe someone who's had a run of bad luck. Not even one war, several!  

You could argue that the term is being used correctly, as war can be described as 'active hostility, contention, conflict'. Indeed, not arguing that; hostility and conflict can easily occur without actual violence or weaponry or death. But then a slave can be defined as 'a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person'. People on workfare could be said to meet this description, as they are under the domination of the government/social services who will remove their life sustaining benefits if they don't work for free, but this is argued to be an inappropriate term because of the historical context around slavery. Fair enough. This is the case for slavery. Not for war, though. Granted there are still people experiencing slavery today, the fallout from it is still very real and it's undeniably a very real problem that ruins lives. But this is also very much the case for war.

I just can't help but wonder why this casual use of the term war has come about unremarked upon. I can't imagine someone who has written a successful book talking about it being subject to a studio 'bidding war', to a WWII veteran with one leg. Odds are it could happen and neither party would think anything of it. It just strikes me as odd.

Maybe people are more comfortable with using the term war as it is taken to mean 'conflict', and it's very hard to avoid conflict in normal everyday life, whereas most people can easily go their whole lives without enslaving anyone or committing genocide.

I don't have an answer or any real alternative for this situation, other than to highlight a supposed double standard that nobody else seems to have picked up on. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could suggest that this was an orchestrated attempt by those in power to rob the term War of its gravitas, so that when the next full-on military war is declared (let's say against, oh, I don't know, Iran, to pick a country entirely at random), people are more likely to just tut and sigh, rather than stage massive protests. Another war? Just add it to the pile.

I guess we need a new word to describe initiating a conflict without a violent military component. I propose 'Bilgefest' or 'Lubeathon'. It would be hard for politicians or powerful individuals to declare a 'Bilgefest' and retain any credibility, so they might not bother?

Twitter: @garwboy

The most depressing gibberish of the year.

Hi all. Long time no see.
In case you weren't aware of it, next Monday is the 'most depressing day of the year'. Or to put it another way, it really isn't, but a professional codswallop merchant worked it out using 'actual math' a few years ago, and the media have regurgitated it ever since around this time, like some awful hairball of garbage with the faint whiff of science.
Forgive the overly-descriptive language, but it's become something of a personal issue of mine. No doubt I've mentioned it before in this blog, but I think it bares repeating, and that certainly seems to be the media's approach.

For 2 years running now, due to my dual role in the Science-Comedy worlds, local media people have come to me asking for an 'explanation' as to why it's the most depressing day and what people can do about it.
The first time was a puff piece for a local paper, where they asked me to explain how it works and what people can do to cheer themselves up. My detailed explanation about why it isn't was cut in favour of me saying 'just go out' in a variety of ways, coupled with 'cheerful' pictures of me looking like a knock-off Doctor Who after too many e-numbers.
The following year, the Regional news team approached me with the same idea. I thought this would be a good way to make amends and clarify my position, and decided that I'd do it. What it ended up being was a 10 second clip on the evening news, of me saying 'cheer up' again and telling painful jokes while the journalist interviewed me on my couch, having arranged us in a position which could only be described as homoerotic.
Not sure if anyone else will be approached in your areas by media types with similar intentions, but here's a brief list of things worth knowing (if you don't already) if they do come a knocking.

- The Equation behind the most depressing day of the year was invented by Dr Cliff Arnill, and was paid to do so by a travel company (Thompson's I think, but don;t hold me to that) in order to encourage people to take winter breaks.

- I don't know what Dr Cliff Arnill's qualifications really are, but he bills himself as a Cardiff University researcher (like what I was until recently). He did briefly teach an adult learning class at the University, but is certainly not a researcher there, nor was he ever. The fact that he claims he is makes me suspicious as to his actual scientific credentials, and the Cardiff University media dept. have asked me to stress that he is not affiliated with them in any way

- He gets paid money by said Travel firm every time the equation is mentioned in the media, so even criticising it will benefit him.

- The equation, as you can probably tell if you look it up, is based completely on guesswork and bizarre logic, so is of no actual use at all, and I am told there is much research to completely contradict the idea that Winter is 'more depressing' in general. But in it's defence, it does look all Sciencey.

I say all this just to share the benefits of my painful experience. I felt it was good that the mainstream media took an interest in an aspect of 'science', but my feeble efforts to correct their misconceptions were completely ignored. If you are scientist of any sort and are asked to 'comment' on this non-story wherever you are, I'd bet Diamonds to toenail clippings that they already have the story/article/feature planned out and are asking someone in the science-based field to comment purely to lend it credibility. Unless they give you final say on the finished item, which would be incredibly unusual, I'd advise everyone to leave it alone
The media will keep flogging this never-was-alive-to-begin-with Horse whatever we do, no doubt, but we don't have to donate our credibility to it too.

P.S. Other people may have experiences with this issue that are the polar opposite to mine, this is just my two-pence worth. Not that I got paid even that much for my contributions...

Dean Burnett, PhD
sciencedigestive.blogspot.com
Twitter: @garwboy

Science and the Media: A personal perspective

Following my last blog, and where at the end I hinted that I would be making my own media appearance soon, I felt it would be appropriate to discuss my own experiences as a scientist who keeps getting involved with the media. Although I think it is a relevant subject for blogging, it also neatly covers the fact that I can't seem to find an article that I feel can be thoroughly satirised or ridiculed.

I've been featured in all types of media now, apart from films. TV, Radio, journals, newspapers, magazines and of course, the global interworldweb, what you're looking at at the moment. So, I feel I have as much right as anyone to comment on the portrayal of scientists in the media, and I'll be honest, I'm not happy with it. You might think it churlish of me, that I'm biting the hand that feeds me, and this would be a good point if at any point in my life I'd actively sought out media exposure.

The weird thing is, I never have. Genuinely. About 90% of my media exposure has been thrust upon me as if by the whim of some wacky God with a questionable sense of humour. The only times it hasn't been, it's been me calling in a favour on behalf of some other friend/project.

I usually get my media gigs by the same route; an email ends up in my inbox, my work or personal one (possibly via my myspace in the past but not so much these days), which says something along the lines of "Hello Dean, we've never met, but I'm X and I work for Y, and we need a scientist to say something about Z for article/show ... Z1... yeah, that works.

This happens surprisingly often. Here's a brief synopsis of some of my media appearances and how they came about.

GLEE TIME (ITV) - I emailed Glee club manager to enquire who the 'local acts' advertised as part of the show were, he said I could do the first night. Unprompted.

'SCIENCE' MAGAZINE - Journalist (the lovely Krista) created a myspace account for the sole purpose of asking if she could profile me, and berated me for being hard to get hold of in the first message.

FUNNY BUSINESS (BBC Wales) - Director Neil gets hold of Dan Mitchell, who assembles us all to discuss it. I end up progressing further in the televised 'contest' than any of us expected, especially me.

SOUTH WALES ECHO - Get called several times by Katie, lovely girl, asking for my contribution to various articles, which oddly continues after she leaves.

BBC RADIO WALES - Get contacted, again out of the blue, by Sarah, who asks me to guest on the Rodri Williams show.

HTV NEWS FEATURE - Email via work, asking for me, discussing the exact same topic mentioned in and echo article a year previously.

BBC RADIO SCOTLAND - Another work email, asking if I'll do a live link-up to a chat with Fred Macaulay and Tim Vine.

I know a lot of comics who would crave such exposure, and I'm genuinely not trying, so I feel bad in a way, but there's not much I can do about it. I think if you type in 'comedian + Neuroscientist' into google, you get me, although I don't know why people keep typing that in.

But anyway, my credentials established, I think the problem with media and science, and this is becoming a laboured point, is one of ignorance. On both sides. Scientists, by and large, either don't understand or don't expect the way 'the media' does things, it goes against their grain. In scientific media, you can't say or do anything without evidence supporting it, or the references to back it up (but then there are those scientists who do it anyway, but they tend to get frowned upon). The Media doesn't work this way. My impression is that scientists try and tell people what they think they people need to know, or should know, whereas the media leans heavily toward telling people what they think they want to hear. These two things rarely overlap.

Case in point. The recent 8 second clip of me on HTV news (it was on Monday, I think I was on for 8 seconds, I don't know because I didn't watch it) was part of a 'humorous' feature on Blue Monday, the most depressing day of the year. When I say 'most depressing day of the year' this is according to Dr Cliff Arnil, whom everyone I know has their doubts about. He once taught a night class at Cardiff University centre for life long learning, and has since labelled himself a 'Researcher at Cardiff University'. Hmmm.

His equation is self promoting bollocks he sells to travel agents, sales executives and anyone else without the scientific wherewithal to question it. So, media people lap it up. When the reporter Duncan (nice guy, I'll say that) turned up at my flat (yeah, they come to me, I'm that important) to get footage of the story form the 'scientific perspective', I explained thoroughly why it was bullshit. His expression turned to what can only be described as 'I've dedicated an entire feature to this theory and if this viewpoint ever gets established I'll look like a right arse' expression. But we ploughed on. He allowed me to say it wasn't the most depressing day of the year, that there's no such thing as an absolute most depressing day of the year.

According to people who saw it, in the final edit a bit of that was left in. This is quite impressive. The editing I mean, because I didn't say much else, apart form a crap joke which got pride of place of course.

But this sums up exactly why science and the media don't get on. By the time the scientists are asked to get involved, the media has already decided on the story/report from an understandably ill informed viewpoint. A lot of people have complained that science stories in the media are rarely looked over by trained scientists in the way political or economic stories are. This may be the case, but when you consider that most people who study science go on to become scientists, there's probably a shortfall of science versed people with media jobs. Those scientists who do spend a lot of time with the media are generally ones who are more concerned with self publicity. This is also frowned upon in the scientific circles.

But I think the media does need to give scientists more say in how they're represented, they should give control over what's said about an issue to those who understand it most. The media's obsession with the MMR-Autism link (which doesn't exist) has probably resulted in the deaths of children. Doctors aren't familiar with measles, and it's quite a potent disease, but because some idiot said there might be a link and the media took his side, some child somewhere will not have the vaccine, catch the illness and will be presented to a doctor who doesn't know how to handle it. Assuming this hasn't happened already.

On a lighter note, here's a good example. When I was filming funny business, the fact that I was a comedian-neuroscientist proved to be of interest to the film crew (this is why I get all my exposure, I won't deny it, I'm an oddity). They wanted to film me at work. As it happened, a busy neuroscience lab like the one where I work(ed) isn't really open to filming, a lot of sensitive material and equipment scattered around. But no matter, they just wanted to film me 'doing science' a phrase that I've never really defined.

This ended up with me sat in an empty teaching lab that normally occupies over a hundred students, transferring water from one vial to another with a pipette while they asked questions. Apparently, this looked fine. This is the equivalent of someone being an IT technician in a busy office building, and interviewing him/her sat at a child's desk in an empty warehouse while he plays with a calculator. This wouldn't look fine, but people would see that. And that, I think, is the problem.

Rant done

Celebrities and Science, and never the twain shall meet.

Celebrities are misleading about Science

Some people have been complaining that celebrities mislead people about science. It's true, they do, but I don't really see it as a big a problem as those concerned make out. Granted, I'm the person who's the first to say that public awareness of Science is seriously lacking, and I greatly resent all these pseudo-scientists who get millions for spewing fictitious gibberish in the public's faces (see earlier rants regarding McKeith and her ilk).
However, I'm not sure this issue is that big a deal. The article reports that Delia Smith has been stating that if people could cut down on sugar then we could cure the nations obesity. This confuses me a bit, I don't see it as anything more than a generalised statement. If you cut down on pretty much anything you eat excessively then it would help with obesity. Unless you're addicted to carrots or something, but eating too many carrots will kill you faster than obesity (vitamin A poisoning I believe, can break down your cell lysosomes which releases all the aggressive enzymes into the cells and they break down, you sort of fall apart really slowly and horribly, it's very unpleasant or at least it was in the sci-fi novel I read where it happened which was very well researched but probably not a 100% dependable source of information).
If I was a celebrity, that previous quote taken out of context could be used to claim that I stated that carrots are lethal. Luckily I'm not a celebrity.
I think Delia's problem was that she tried the classic bluff of dropping a bit of science in to enhance credibility:
"After six weeks [without sugar] everything will taste sweet... because you will have got your palate back to what nature created". OK, I'm not sure that's true. Granted, you'll desire sugar less if your blood's always full of it, but things will taste different? Taste is a sense, and admittedly sight and the corresponding brain areas can change depending on the stimulus they get, but does this work for taste? And is it even the same thing? If I stop looking at red things for a few weeks, will everything start to look more red to me? If I stop touching metal things, will everything else feel like metal? Granted, this doesn't take into account the metabolic role of sugar, but if I'm confused, surely Delia should be more so? And isn't it a bit rich for a celebrity chef to have a go at people for eating too much? And would we want everything to taste sweet anyway? I prefer savoury things, as do many others. Everyone would start putting excess salt on their food to counteract it, which would cause more health problems. THINK, Delia!

That's one issue. Someone else has criticised Mariah Carey for her maths skills. That's just awful. The criticising I mean, not the Mariah Carey maths skills.

"Carey's grasp of maths came under fire after she said her album E=MC2 stood for "emancipation equals Mariah Carey times two" - rather than squared... Mathematician Dr David Leslie said Carey had "misread the algebra" after adapting Einstein's famous equation for her album title. "The 'two' in the equation means C squared, not MC multiplied by two. "The correct reading of the equation is E=MCC, so perhaps Mariah's re-interpretation should have been 'emancipation equals Mariah Carey Carey'?"

Jesus Christ! Firstly, anyone who takes their mathematical learning from Mariah Carey is clearly beyond any hope. And secondly, what a dickhead! Not really doing much for the impression of Scientists there, and have you ever heard of poetic license? And I don't even like Mariah Carey, but come on.

Then they talk about Tom Cruise disputing the use of psychiatry. But lets bare one thing in mind; Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Anything he says, does, or even thinks, can be discounted for ever and ever amen. He says this because... Ah, but is he a Scientologist? Then he's wrong. Even if he told me Gravity pulled you down, I'd have to get a bag of apples and a high window just to check. Therefore, all his claims are nonsense. Nuff said.

There's more about Demi Moore not understanding detox and other stuff, but I don't think they should be blamed for this. They're not scientists. Agreed, it's harmful when you figure the influence they have, but that's the unthinking minions who worship them who are responsible.

You may wonder why I'm being so lenient to misinformed stars? It's because these reports of their claims are filtered through the media, therefore I don't believe them. Why? Because it's happened to me. See here. It sounds like I agree with this 'most depressing day of the year' nonsense. I made it quite clear that I didn't and explained why in some detail, but in fairness to the South Wales Echo, that doesn't make for an easily readable story, does it? Still, makes me look like a dweeb.

So take every media claim of celebrity claim with a pinch of salt. All the better to take away that persistent sweet taste


P.S. The 'most depressing day of the year' occurs again a week today, and ITV Wales have asked to do an interview with me about why people should stay cheerful. Dejavu indeed. I shall do my best to ruin it if they try to dumb me down again. Watch this space for details.