Easy Measly Lemon Squeezy

Measles on the rise, as we all predicted

I say 'we all', by which I meant anyone even the slightest bit informed about how medicine and vaccinations works. And I don't mean trained doctors and scientists, I mean anyone who's ever had a vaccination explained to them when they were old enough to form memories, which in this country should be anyone over the age of 3. But that's one of the most fascinating things about modern society, in that there's no limit to the idiotic things people will believe just because it corresponds to their gut instinct or prejudice (this is less of a blog, more a therapeutic rant for me, by the way).

The measles rise is undeniably due to the MMR scare a decade ago which still hasn't gone away really. The original claim, made on the basis of very little evidence by a doctor who was on the payroll of an anti-vaccination lobbying group, was that there was potentially a link between the MMR jab and the incidence of autism in children.

Already, there was something about this which bugged me (I was 16 at the time, so not exactly as well informed as I am now, and I'm not thoroughly informed now so this, as always, may be wrong). Autism is a very poorly understood disease, nobody really knows (or they didn't know then) what causes it, what the epidemiology is and what to do about it. So, if I was a doctor who wanted to make some spurious but hard-to-disprove link between the MMR jab and some scary illness, Autism is exactly what I'd choose. It's also worth noting that, although I'm not a virologist or expert in infectious diseases, I'm not really familiar with a mechanism by which a weakened version of a very common virus (or three) can cause hitherto unknown cognitive development impairments.

Logically, if it's the vaccine which causes autism, and a vaccine is just a weakened form of a virus with the purpose of giving your immune system a safe period to develop antibodies to prevent future infections, then surely the stronger form of the virus will be even more effective at causing autism? I had mumps as a child (it was unpleasant) and as far as I know, I don't have autism. I think I got measles too, same applies. I doubt I had Rubella, I was always led to believe that's a girl's disease. Not being sexist, just thinking back to my primary school years where such sweeping claims were common.

As Ben Goldacre points out in his regular column, on the back of a recent debacle over some mad journo squawking about the 'dangers' of MMR, the media's irresponsible behaviour with scaremongering and 'presenting a balanced argument' has potentially condemned many hundreds of children to death (he didn't say that, this is my perspective). This story has been blogged about to death, but what are the root causes of these wild opinions people have?

Journalists, as has been pointed out so many times, don't understand science as well as they should when you consider their tendency to comment on stories about it (LHC, anyone?). They need to give a 'balanced' argument, which, as Goldacre points out, takes in the the two extreme viewpoints, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. This, in many cases, is bollocks. There are still some people who believe that the Earth is flat, most people believe it's round, but we haven't had a debate on TV, where the outcome is that Earth is something of a rugby ball or dome. That's because all the evidence is on the side of the spherical Earth, and that's the same of the MMR 'debate'; there's no evidence to support it, so why in God's name are people jumping to the wild conclusion.

There seems to be two main undercurrents that I can detect; distrust of the big, evil pharmaceutical companies, and the classic cliche 'Think of the Children!!!' (parents not wanting to do anything that endangers children in other words). To start with the latter, measles, mumps and rubella are more dangerous and damaging than autism. Granted, autism is less well understood, but then does that make it the worst disease? We have more treatments for cancer than for colds, but which one would you rather have? Unless parents are saying they're unwilling to care for an autistic child because it will be too much work, in which case your concerns are null and void as, and the reactionary idiots must surely agree, being a parent is not conditional. I don't mind so much if people still aren't willing to risk the MMR 'for their children's safety', if they are consistent with this view. So that means no taking them in cars (road accidents), aeroplanes (crashes and very high doses of radiation possibly leading to cancer), mobile phones (tenuous link to tumours), alcohol (they can't have it, not the children, clumsy parenting is dangerous), broccoli (high in carcinogens), pencils (could jam it in their eyes), Lego (swallow it and choke) and anything else which has even the slightest chance of causing illness or damage.

The other problem is distrust at the big pharma companies. Granted, they're not looking out for people's interests, they're after money. And they do have a habit of inventing illnesses they can then treat with new meds. But I think there's a world of difference between being treated for a fictional disease and not being treated for a real one. If the big companies are just pushing MMR jabs on people as a money making exercise, why does it work? People seem to think it's just a money-making ruse, but why? Car companies are big and profit hungry, but nobody accuses them of surreptitiously making axles out of plywood or using whoopee cushions as air bags. it would be a lot cheaper for them and they'd make a lot of profit, so why don't they? I got a C for my business G.C.S.E., so I may be wrong, but I bet one of the golden rules of any business is DON'T KILL CUSTOMERS! And MMR is so much more expensive than giving children three separate courses of vaccination, isn't it?

If the MMR was given to a child who then developed measles, we'd never hear the last of it. Similarly, if a child was given MMR and then developed some obvious horrific side-effects, there would be no end of mob rallying. So any parent who refuses to have their child vaccinated 'for their safety' is an idiot. I don't have children myself, but I hope to one day, and damn right they'll be vaccinated, with MMR. For similar reasons, if my child's clothes caught fire I'd pour water on them, I wouldn't let them burn because there's a slim chance they could drown.

Rant over, back to work.

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.

Smart Sperm

Clever guys have better sperm?

I read this a while ago, but never got round to blogging about it, but now that I've got some free time, I'm going to, as it's quite an irksome article.

I think this is another great example of how massive conclusions can be made by a the smallest of evidence. This article says clearly that intelligent men have more potent and active sperm. This is quite a claim, as when it comes to such intangible qualities as intelligence and the human body in general, any sweeping statement like this is bound to be wrong. But what bugs me the most is the complete overlooking of the data itself. Granted, there's a few cautionary notes in it, a few attempts to make sure people don't jump to wild conclusions despite the fact that the article itself does just that.

No, this is the bit that really bugs me "...data from former US soldiers who served during the Vietnam war era." I've nothing against war veterans, but it's very unlikely that you could make conclusions about the whole of the human race based on studies of them. Why not, pray? Here are a few reasons, and some people will probably think of me as a commie liberal pacifist anti-American non-patriot, but bare in mind I'm not and never will be American, and the British people have a tendency to slag off anyone and everyone, even people 'fighting for their freedoms'. Nothing personal.

1. I'm not particularly well informed about the enlisting procedure in the US, but many TV shows and books seem to emphasise that the bulk of the armed forces are made up of guys who don't do very well academically. This may be due to a number of factors, some people don't like school and don't deal well with education, but aren't stupid. But still, the impression I get is that the Vietnam war was fought largely by guys who dropped out of or couldn't get into college. Some are obviously more intelligent than others, but for a given value of intelligent. You probably didn't see many professors taking on the Viet Cong.
   
2. Vietnam was a messy war, with all sorts of horrific stuff flying around (Agent Orange, anyone?). Don't forget the effect stress has on the body, even long term, and what could be more stressful than being a foreign country for unclear reasons while the natives constantly try to kill you? And of course, guys from the American Midwest wouldn't really have adapted to life in a tropical country, who knows what they could pick up? Long story short, all these things could contribute to a low sperm count. Maybe the cleverer ones managed to avoid such things, hence the outcome.
3. I'm not sure when the data was collected, but Vietnam vets must be getting on a bit by now. Sperm count tends to decline with age, smarter people would look after themselves and look after their health, dumb people would not. This could show up as intelligent people having higher sperm counts as an indirect result, but it doesn't automatically suggest a genetic component like the article suggests.

Maybe the research took all these factors into account, but still, it doesn't rule out the fact that only Vietnam veterans were used. The full conclusion should read "Intelligent men who served at least one of duty in the Vietnam conflict have better sperm than less intelligent men who served at east one tour of duty in the Vietnam conflict", although that's admittedly less punchy.

And don't think this is me disparaging on soldiers, I have nothing against them per se, but I endeavour to remember that you get pricks in every walk of life, the armed forces included, only the ones in the army have been trained to kill as well, and that concerns me. But I don't like rash claims based on partial data. If this was a real test, they should have used several groups of people, not just veterans. Professors, Scientists, Big business managers, engineers etc. although these people probably have better things to do than perform some IQ tests before wanking in a cup.

I'd guess people involved in science or technical fields would have surprisingly low sperm counts, as most of them are insular people who have no friends and spend most of their time in doors, constantly masturbating over pictures of Seven of Nine or some other sci-fi totty. And if they're not, they're all in labs handling toxic stuff or sitting with laptops over their groins, slowly irradiating their testicles. So yeah.

That should balance any potential soldier-bashing impression I've given.

Galileo was right!

Pope Praises Galileo

Have you ever met one of those people who have more opinions than your average person, despite having only about 10% of the factual knowledge of the average person? They seem to be more common than ever these days, where the media seems to prioritise opinion over information, and every opinion is given equal merit. It's a dangerous way to be, and I doubt it can last forever, but for the moment, every person seems to have equally valid opinions, and there seems to be an inverse relationship between strength and conviction of opinion and the awareness of the issues it's based on. I.e. People who don't have the first clue how the economy works are the ones who protest the loudest when something about it changes in a manner which doesn't benefit them, whereas those who may disagree in the same manner but know how the system works usually just accept it.

But these people have been around for quite some time, long before the technology gave everyone a voice. Back where I grew up, long before the Internet connected us up, there were a rich variety of opinionated idiots. I once heard a woman in a shop moaning that all our kids are daft because we don't send them to school enough like they do in Europe. Clearly this woman had no idea that in France, for example, the average school week is, or used to be, 4 and a half days, 10% less schooling a week than British kids. But that didn't matter; her kids were daft, therefore all kids are daft, and it's not her fault, it's the government. You get the gist.

This preamble is very long, I know, but I am going somewhere. These people are often the first to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them. Passionately, without forethought or remorse. If they were in charge, they'd just lock up anyone who challenged their world view, I'm sure. So it's incredibly annoying when, long, long after the thing they disagreed with has been proven correct and become a fact of everyday life, they suddenly accept it as if they always did. That's quite galling, but then it's especially irritating when said person then feels the need to tell you all about the impressive things they've done or learned about the new 'thing' they've taken on board. Good example, the Internet. I know many people who dismissed the Internet as an irrelevance, a sad outlet for people who didn't know how the real world works. This opinion, it turned out, was wrong. These are the same people who, quite recently,felt the need to regale me with tails of their first computer and how they now send 'e-mails' to people they know. Brilliant.

People on the comedy scene get this often, if they're new acts. You often get people bemoaning the lack of 'proper' comedy like Jim Bowen and Bernard Manning, hating younger comics with their swearing and views about things like racial equality and non-violence. This is usually on the back of never seeing a modern comic ever, as soon as they do they can change their minds. Peter Kay doesn't count though, he pays up to this 'proper comedy' angle. Fat wanker.

But an example of this sort of behaviour spanning centuries is in the news. The pope has given praise to Galileo. Remember him? Shattered many of the church's convictions about the place of the Earth in the heavens via the scandalous method of looking at things? Rather than just guessing and accepting because a man in a white dress told him it was the way of things? Contrary to popular belief, the catholic church didn't torture or just jail him on the spot, there was a long drawn out series of accusations and conspiracy to entrap him, but many of the higher ups were on his side so he got away from the worst of it. But that being said, he was jailed at home until he died eventually.

I'm not saying it was right to do that, but it was indicative of the times; church was in charge, don't piss off the church. Even if you're right. Especially if you're right in fact, then they really needed to shut you up as thoroughly as possible. But all this was long ago.

The pope now praises Galileo, and I'm not sure why. Granted, the catholic church could use a major revamp in order to improve it's image and fit in with the modern world (which is 4.3 billion or 6000 years old if you're a true believer, but neither rule out the fact that it's developing and changing). The pope now saying he did good work seems to emphasise the church's lack of understanding of the modern world, not help reduce it. It's been over 400 years! If some guy came up to you and said 'hey, this electricity stuff, it's good isn't it! I reckon there could be some use to be had from it', your first thought wouldn't be 'My, what a cool and insightful person, he clearly is in touch with modern society and I think I might see what else he has to say and live my life according to his teachings and beliefs'. Unlikely.

I thought this about when Tony Blair apologised for the role of Great Britain in the slave trade. Say what you will about Blair, I sincerely doubt he was responsible for slavery. Some people said it was an insufficient apology. This may be a controversial opinion this maybe, but I don't think he should have had to do that; not because nobody should apologise for slavery, far from it, but there's no-one alive to day who could make an apology that was genuinely meant. Everyone who did it is dead now, and whether or not they regretted it we'll generally never know. If there are people out there who have fortunes based on industries that were founded on slave labour and they then chose to donate all their wealth to looking after slave's descendants suffering hard times then yes, that would be a good apology. But they wouldn't be speaking for the whole, so it's still not sufficient.

Deep eh? Ah well, point is, the pope's an idiot. We all know Galileo was right. We've been to Mars(in robotic form at least, and I have no idea what the church thinks of robots), there's a Hubble telescope which has taken photos that people use as desktop screensavers, and we weren't all covertly sat around waiting for the pope's approval before we admitted such things were real. There was no real need to pledge the support for Galileo as it's way too late to change anything. No doubt the pope of 2183 will state that Isaac Newton was quite clever actually, and in 2542 the Pope will issue a statement saying 'you know what, that Hawking was on to something".

Art V Science: Personification

No Article, but here's the upcoming gig I keep referring too

Greetings, seasons wishes and merry new year and all that. First December entry, so I thought I'd get into the spirit of things. And why not start with a bit of self-indulgence and talk about my recent talk? Why not indeed.

I recently did the monthly Science Cafe, which was three days ago as I write this. It's a monthly forum for the open discussion of Science ideas and thinking, or just something novel about the field of science that someone wants to talk about. It's all good, and takes place in the lovely cafe-bar at the Gate, not too far from where I live. So far, so good.

I've never done this before, but am currently promoting an upcoming gig (see link above) which is billed as a science-themed comedy night. Now, I am totally aware that this may be a stupid idea. It may all go horribly wrong, it may be the most confusing gig ever, but I don't think it will be. My hypothesis is that it will be great and a novel experience. But I don't know, this gig is in every way experimental, which is somewhat appropriate.

But if I feel this way, and I'm the one who organised it, surely others will have stronger doubts? Curiosity alone may not be enough to get an audience, which is integral to any gig. So, what we need is strong evidence to support the claim that Science can be funny. Unfortunately, I can't provide that. All I can show are my own efforts at this (see what I did there? Self depreciation? It's all the rage). And that's what I was doing at Science cafe. The concept of science being a valid source of comedy most people consider inter sting in it's own right, but I was to put together a semi-talk, semi-routine to both provide a sneak preview of the gig and a talking point for the assembled masses.

It was a good night. The highlight of which was an almost literal personification of the ongoing clash between art and science. Here's my report of the evening, which may differ wildly if you ask anyone else. That's the problem with subjectivity, it's subjective.

Evening began with the first speaker, Science journalist Dr. Toby Murcott, discussing his talk about 'Why Scientists are always wrong, and why it's a good thing'. The main point he makes is that scientific reports can't offer what the media demands as a straightforward yes or no. When a scientist makes the claim that they definitely know something, then they will invariably be proven wrong with further research. Fair point, but I sort of disagree with the 'scientists are always wrong' claim on similar grounds as that in itself is a definite conclusion. Several examples he used could easily be picked apart, and the people I was with didn't really buy what he was saying, finding their own opinions reaffirmed rather than challenged. But that can happen in any debate, so no worries.

My turn then. Went very well, started talking about my background, school, education, tendencies, and my experience at dealing with the general public, always throwing in as many punchlines or humorous anecdotes as I could, most of which worked very well. This was reassuring, as it's always a risk when you try and do comedy in front of people who aren't out for comedy. It can help or hinder. If it's a music night or something like that, it can be annoying as people think you're just getting in the way. Whereas when it's more a whatever you'd define what I was doing as, people aren't expecting to be made to laugh, so it can be more effective.

Did my talk thing, got laughs, people liked, I got given a card, jobs a goodun. Break, then Q and A with me and the first guy. Most questions are aimed at the first speaker, as he made an actual claim that could be questioned/challenged, whereas my talk seemed to result in a more sort of 'fair enough' response. I said science can be funny, effectively demonstrated it, no worries.

During the Q and A, someone mentioned that school seem to favour arts over sciences when teaching. Toby came up with some reasoning, can't remember it now. At this point, our roles seemed to be that of someone asks him a question, he gives a very long answer, I jump in at the end with a humorous observation, move on. I simplified his argument, in what I thought was a clearly jokey manner, by pointing out that schools need high pass levels, and arts are easier, turning to the rest of the room and declaring "We've all thought it, don't deny it!". Much laughter. Followed by shriek of disapproval.

Intense looking middle-aged woman at the back takes exception to my ribbing. She did an arts degree. There followed some back and forth which seemed to kick off a room-wide debate. I will know highlight the main point made and my thoughts therein, and where they deviate from what I said if this occurred.

Arts woman:
"I have an arts degree" (I can't disprove that either way, lets take it as true).

"Arts subjects are just as hard as science!" (I had made no claim to the contrary, it was clearly a joke I thought, but her statement was overconfident, as she has no basis of comparison to test her claims, at best it seems to be based largely on the fact that she found her arts subject difficult but assumed she's equally/more intelligent than most people)

"Anyone could do science if you (an aggressive 'you', meaning all scientists present) just demystified it!" (A bizarre claim. Science, with it's rigid structure, logic, cause and effect mentality and absolute adherence to the laws of nature, where every claim has to be rigorously tested with approved methods and be sanctioned by a group of well informed experts and every published piece has to be explained meticulously, that's mysterious. Whereas arts, a largely subjective medium based on a shared belief system, personal opinion and with no measurable qualities, that's perfectly normal. In fairness, someone nearby immediately replied 'you could say that about arts'. Arts lady attempted to be more precise)

"But you can do arts, and you can't do science. (looks at me) I could get up and do stand-up (she really couldn't, but I was very tempted to let her try) but I couldn't just go and be a neuroscientist if I wanted! (no, she couldn't. This seemed to mean that you have to be a scientist to do science, whereas anyone can be an artist, a claim which normally enrages artists as it cheapens their profession/talent/livelihood etc. She appears to resent the fact that us scientists keep it away from the public. This is clearly just a malicious attempt on our part to keep 'normal' people in awe of us. Rather than, say, some rational attempt to stop the system collapsing entirely. Would you fly on a plain where the pilot was someone who just fancied having a go? I doubt it. Everyone is allowed to do science, as long as they know how things work, and that takes a bit of learning. What do you get if you do 'science' without knowing how things work? Homeopathy, bogus medication and Gillian McKeith, that's what you get).

Me in response
"I don't believe that scientists are any more intelligent than artists overall" (This is true, it's a ridiculous thing to say, like all women are bad drivers, such a sweeping statement can never be true. Plus I've met some incredibly stupid people who are qualified scientists. A scientist invented homeopathy, don't forget)

"I would never claim to be more intelligent than someone just because I'm a scientist" (I wouldn't it's true) Art's lady: You're not more intelligent than me (All evidence to the contrary thus far). Me: That's what I said (in a way). Arts lady: ....

"Science is seen as complex and difficult, so anyone who does it is believed to be more intelligent, but it's just another form of intelligence. You could have someone who's just as good at music as I am at Neuroscience, that would make us equally "intelligent" (I didn't mention the quote marks while talking out loud, but you get the idea) But you ask most people they'll say I'm the smarter one. I have no clue whatsoever as to how music works, but because it's more common, to more people it's not as impressive, that's the only reason scientists are seen as they are. If people can get over this misconception then we'll all be happier." (I believe all this)

This went on for some time, I managed to maintain the moral high-ground by not getting into a slanging match. It was obvious that most people in the room were not on her side, and I was coming across as the more rational, thoughtful, considerate person. it was Obama V McCain all over again (this is what I was told afterwards, not an arrogant self-appraisal)

The sad thing is I believe what I said. She'd turned up to an event called science cafe clearly expecting a dispute and to score some points off the arrogant boffins who think they're so smart, and she was going to get her argument even if no-one was willing to give it. So what we got was the scientist on one side, making calm statements, taking opinions on board and thinking rationally about the claims being made, and the artist on the other side, shouting passionately about their own opinions which made no sense and no-one agreed with but fuelled largely by self belief. Ironic how the person defending the artists was probably the worst possible ambassador. But not to worry, she'll be fine, she clearly was the sort of person who's convinced they've won a non existent argument in spite of all evidence.

But it was a fun night overall. I hope she comes to the gig this Sunday, it'll be a rude awakening. I was being polite and restrained because of where we were. Some of my fellow comics aren't so generous, if she wants to shout her mouth off again she might as well paint a target on her face. So, if anyone's free, anyone fancy walking round an art gallery shouting 'This Is Bollocks'! as loud as possible? See if they show similar restraint?

Simple Space Pleasures

Space Station Urine Recycler

"Not to spoil anything, but I think up here the appropriate words are 'Yippee!',". This is an actual quote from the ISS, from space station Commander Mike Finck. 'Yippee' is a positive term, not one used very often with regards to space exploration. What, you may ask, has brought about this restrained jubilation that invokes the somewhat archaic term of 'Yippee'?

Have they discovered extra-terrestrial life? I, personally, think that would call for more than 'Yippee', assuming it's good alien life. If they've just stumbled upon a Borg Cube dwelling behind the moon, that would definitely not call for a yippee, or any celebratory term. Perhaps they've cracked the secret of faster than light travel, or teleportation. Again, yippee seems somewhat limited, even if they have only made some massive discovery in theory, and the practice is still to come.

So it must be something more mundane but still positive. Maybe they've finally managed to grow some carrots or get the filter coffee working (water doesn't boil the same way in zero gravity, something to do with the reduced pressure I'd guess, but knowing water it's probably something more surreal). Give up.

They've fixed the urine recycler. That's right, 'Yippee' is because people on board the ISS can now drink their own piss to their hearts content. Only in this situation would having to drink your own waste liquid be cause for celebration. And it's not just a 'yippee'. Here's some other quotes;

- "There will be dancing later," (mission controllers): So piss drinking is a cause for actual dancing too. Even if you factor in the difficulties of dancing in zero gravity, where even the most basic dance steps become hideously elaborate (imagine the Hokey Cokey in zero-g, you put your left arm in, all your other bits will go with it), dancing is done either in groups or with a partner. The confines of the ISS probably make dancing in groups very impractical, but there's only 3 people on board at any one time, so if dancing in pairs is opted for, some poor bugger will be left out every time. Maths, that is.

- "Urine passes Nasa taste test": Not sure if this is a BBC elaboration or a genuine NASA quote, but either way it's worrying. Taste test for urine? This implies that they've had times when urine hasn't passed the test. Is there a flavour scale for urine? How bad does urine have to be before it's recognised as unpleasant urine, by people who celebrate being able to drink it?

I'm being stupid of course. The machine recently fixed takes urine and other waste water and scrubs it thoroughly (with what? More water? Chemicals, I beleive, let's leave it at that). It actually "distils, filters, ionises and oxidises" all water fed into it. I used to work with machines that sort of did that, not to the same scale degree of thoroughness, but close. We weren't supposed to drink from them, but I'd assume that's to do with taste, rather than actual hazards. How dangerous can utterly pure water be? It's like saying some air is dangerous because it's too fresh. Maybe our systems are more adapted to buggy tap water and anything without the background level sof chemicals would upset us, like when you go to Spain and you can't drink the 'hard' tap water because of the ionic content that screws up our weedy British systems. But if there's nothing there but pure H2O molecules, how could that be dangerous? It's probably not. This is moot anyway as I never drank any.

But those poor buggers on the ISS can celebrate their urine drinking future all they like (speaking of which, if the International Space Station is meant to represent all the countries involved in it's construction and maintenance, how much of an effective representation can 3 astronauts provide? I hope they're mixed race at least). If the water on this planet keeps getting used up, we'll come to depend on this technology. Unless of course they can get hold of one of those big Ice asteroids wandering around the solar system. Again, for such a thing to happen, we'll need to ISS to be involved. Here's hoping they keep up the good work. All that training and hard work and their reward is the opportunity to drink urine? It's not exactly a fine wine, is it. But if urine was a fine wine, what would you eat that would go with it?

Oh, God....