A step by step guide to a 'revolutionary treatment'

This was part of an episode of the Pod Delusion a few weeks ago. Meant to put it up here then. Forgot. Doing it now. Don't worry, it's no more-or-less relevant now than it was then.

The following semi-coherent diatribe is step-by-step guide about how a ‘revolutionary treatment’ or ‘medical breakthrough’ comes into being in today’s society. What follows is theoretical chain of events based on my own experiences and understanding. As far as I know, these events has never actually happened as detailed here. As far as I know. But as far as I know, they easily could. As far as I know.

Step 1: Researcher A completes a research project. The project in question investigates the effect of substance A on biological process A. Biological process A is one of dozens that contribute to unpleasant disease X. Researcher A’s results indicate that substance A significantly reduces the rate at which biological process A occurs when administered to a small group of subjects that have been genetically modified so that process A occurs in them. The subjects are members of species A. Otherwise known as mice, because they definitely do exist.

Step 2: Researcher A, having spent 6 months on the project, writes it up as a paper for submission to a relevant scientific journal. He then forwards it to his immediate superior for checking before it is submitted. He then goes out to celebrate, become dangerously inebriated by consuming excessive amounts of alcoholic substance A, tries to chat up unknown attractive woman A, makes several appalling conversational errors due to drunkenness, eventually receives a vicious kick to testicles A and B, then limps home and sleeps for 18 hours straight.

Step 3: Researcher A’s immediate superior, Professor A, eventually reviews researcher A’s paper and considers it sound. However, Professor A is also putting together a large grant proposal and is keen to cite impressive research his department has produced, in order to improve its chances. As soon as the paper is accepted into a journal, Professor A sends an email detailing (and somewhat exaggerating) the results and implications of researcher A’s project. He includes the role of process A in disease X. The email is sent to the public relations department of his institution (Institution A), with the intention of getting his department some publicity, which could potentially aid his grant proposal.

Step 4: The public relations department, understaffed and underfunded after recent budget cuts, are similarly keen to gain attention for institute A and hopefully obtain extra funding. They quickly read Professor A’s email, and after adjusting it for succinctness by removing some of the ‘minor details’ they include it in their regular press release, which is sent to a wide variety of media sources.

Step 5: Journalists at a number of media outlets receive institute A’s press release. Several of the less-scientifically literate journalists read through it quickly and notice the phrases “results show” “substance A” “reduces occurrence of process A” “which is” “an” “important” “part of” “disease X”. There is also a collection of numerical results and analyses accompanying this, but numbers are boring and tend to put readers/listeners off so these are ignored. Many of the journalists know a relative/acquaintance/celebrity who was a victim of disease X, ergo many people must know/care about it. Logically, this discovery is newsworthy.

Step 6: After the story is passed between seeral people, becoming distorted with each retelling, public relations department at institute A receive dozens of phone calls regarding the discovery of a cure for disease X. After 2 hours of noncommittal responses made in purely to buy time, someone in the department recalls mention of disease X in the recent press release. This is traced to professor A, and all subsequent requests for information are directed to his office.

Step 7: Professor A spends an afternoon responding to enquiries from journalists about his ‘discovering a cure for disease X’. Mindful of the danger of making unsubstantiated claims, but also aware of the positive effect publicity could have on his grant application, he responds cautiously, but plays up the possible implications of the research while downplaying the fact that it is just a small result from a small study on a small component of a complicated disease, expressed entirely via an analogue of the disease as experienced by a non-human species. Mice, in this case.

Step 8: Professor B, of institute B, who is widely known for his work on disease Y (which affects similar areas to disease X) is contacted by journalists and asked for his opinion on professor A’s ‘revolutionary treatment’. Professor B, currently on holiday in Cannes, points out that he has not seen the findings of the experiment, is not an expert in the area in question, and doesn’t actually know who it is calling him and interrupting his holiday. After much cajoling, he admits that the results sound ‘intriguing’ but expresses his doubts at the ‘cure’ claims, given the scant information provided to him. Following several calls of this nature, he experiences an uneasy feeling for the rest of the day. He switches his phone off for the rest of the trip, and then spends 2 days on the toilet, as his uneasy feeling resulted in him being distracted and eating shellfish, which he had forgotten he was allergic to.

Step 9: A news story hits the media outlets about the new ‘revolutionary treatment’ for disease X, accompanied by pictures of a celebrity sufferer. The story is reported via each source in a manner alarmingly similar to the original press release, but with the removal of much of the data and experimental description, and with the inclusion of ‘criticism from professor B’ and a great deal of worrying but ultimately irrelevant statistics about the prevalence of disease X in society. In some media source, names and pictures of a few more famous sufferers are also included as an afterthought, mostly female ones who have at some point in their careers been photographed wearing a bikini.

Step 10: A nightly news programme features the ‘revolutionary treatment’ as part of the news round-up. Researcher A, watching this in his pants while eating corn-based chip-snack 'A' at home, recognises some of the terms and names used, but concludes that it can’t be anything to do with his research; he wasn’t investigating anything so ground-breaking (process A only occurs in disease X in 15% of reported cases at any rate), and anyway, somebody would surely have told him if his research was in the news. Surely…?

Step 11: Support groups for sufferers of disease X welcome news of the new treatment, substance A. However, they react angrily when they discover that it is not readily available on the NHS. Attempts are made by representatives to explain that the NHS does not treat patients with untested, unproven substances that are not readily available and would only work on a small percentage of sufferers if they were. However, the only aspect of this that registers is the term ‘small percentage of sufferers’. Accusations abound about the NHS sacrificing people in order to save money.

Step 12: Professor A is more regularly contacted by people asking him to explain or defend things he never actually said. Other experts in his field criticise Professor A for his ‘self-aggrandising’, ‘dangerous exaggerations’ and ‘bringing the profession into disrepute by potentially costing lives in order to satisfy his own ego’. This means he is dropped as a speaker form several conferences. After every third phone call or email, he finds himself searching the job vacancy listings for anything with the word ‘farm’, ‘library’ or ‘monastery’ in it.

Step 13: In response to the extensive media coverage of the ‘revolutionary cure’ for disease X, GPs report a significant increase in patients claiming to be suffering symptoms of disease X. Although disease X is a complex one with features and symptoms varying between sufferers, the symptoms reported correspond significantly to the ones described in the more popular results provided when ‘disease X’ is googled. GPs attempting to suggest a psychosomatic issue (as well as pointing out that ‘revolutionary treatment’ substance A is only shown to affect one facet of the disease in specially bred mice who don’t actually suffer from disease X in the strictest sense) become the subject of a media campaign attacking ‘uncaring, unfeeling health professionals’. This campaign has the opposite effect to that which is presumably intended, as it increases the level of contempt GP’s feel toward typical patients, and the general public overall.

Step 14: The journal in which researcher A’s original paper was published report that the paper has been requested/downloaded no more or less than what is typical for a paper in that area.

Step 15: Researcher A begins a new project, studying the effect of substance B on process A. He notices no change in his daily life, except that Professor A doesn’t answer many of his emails any more.

Step 16: The shadow government accuse the government of ‘spending lives, rather than money’ by neglecting to provide substance A on the NHS. The fact that ‘providing a relatively unknown substance which has not been deemed fit for human use to sick patients’ is a perfectly acceptable method of not risking lives is never mentioned by either political party.

Step 17: A pharmaceutical company that began a ridiculously accelerated drug development project to develop and patent a substance A based treatment for disease X decides that the marketing opportunity has passed. The project is slowed, and then abandoned as the realisation occurs that the accumulated data was obtained via such a rushed and haphazard method that it is effectively useless.

Step 18: Interest in substance A as a cure for disease X abruptly vanishes when researcher B at institute J discovers that common substance epsilon may contribute to disease J. The media then focuses on that for a total of two weeks, then lose interest entirely as a famous posh person reveals that they are engaged to a slightly less famous posh person.

Step 19: Researcher A begins actively asking people in his department where Professor A is. He is told that he is ‘on sabbatical in Nepal’, probably not returning. Researcher A is offered his vacant job. Researcher A is confused, but accepts. Occasionally he receives emails asking him to speak as ‘the discoverer of the cure for disease X’. He deletes them immediately, assuming that they’re spam.

Step 20: Disease X effectively dies out as, over time, an effective vaccine is developed. This is not given the same level of media coverage as the supposed ‘revolutionary cure’ as 1) it was a gradual development, and 2) a vaccine makes sure something doesn’t occur; thing’s not occurring are not newsworthy.

Step 21: Disease X sees a sudden resurgence when, years later, a ‘maverick doctor’ makes a fatuous link between the vaccine and illiteracy in children.

A Beginner's Guide to Skeptical Dickery

Regular readers of this blog will know that I’ve become known on the internet due to my science-based letters and other comedy articles. When I say ‘known on the internet’, it’s the equivalent of someone saying they’re ‘known on TV’ because they once did a guest spot on a 3am call-in show on Challenge TV, or one of those other pointless channels where the nameless presenter tries to remain jovial but ends up looking psychotically desperate while talking to strangers drunk enough to think calling a premium rate line is a good idea but too drunk to work out a simple word jumble like ‘MASTE OF WONEY’. But still, it’s more than I expected. So, thanks for that.

Anyway, as a result of my blogging and satirical approach to science, it appears that I’m now part of the skeptic community (and it’s sKeptic for a specific reason apparently, but damned if I can remember what it is right now). I wasn’t invited to join, nor did I apply, it just sort of happened as a result of my attempts to make science interesting/amusing.

For all the use of the phrase ‘skeptic community’, there is no discernable central organisation or committee that regulates skeptic activities; you just sort of get acknowledged as a part of it and that’s it. This is by far the best possible system. If there were a central organisation you had to apply to, imagine the paperwork you’d have to fill in to prove your identity to a bunch of superskeptics? You’d probably have to submit a video of your actual birth along with DNA samples of all your family members before they’d even agree to send you the forms.

Either that, or maybe there’d be some ancient entry ritual involving the slaughter of a goat or virgin (presumably just to prove that such an act has no superstitious or unnatural consequences other than a lot of screaming, a terrible mess and a high likelihood of imprisonment).

But lately, it’s been pointed out several times that a lot of skeptics are dicks. Either that, or they come across as dicks, which to a casual observer is the same thing. As skeptics spend a great deal of effort trying to encourage others to join in or at least see things differently (i.e. more rationally), this isn’t a useful trait.

This has caused a lot of discussion and heated debate as to who exactly is being a dick and why. One side usually accuses another of being dicks because of their ‘incorrect’ actions when engaging others, and these in turn accuse their accusers of being dicks because they’re ‘clearly’ the ones in the ‘wrong’. And on and on, like a bunch of dicks.

Oh, the irony. Also, my preferred term of 'skeprick' hasn't been picked up.

The whole thing is quite confusing; especially for someone like me who is relatively new to the skeptics (I’ve still not got my membership card). So, in order to make some sense of this for myself and other potential newbies, here is a list of the type of skeptical dicks I’ve noticed, coupled with what I’ve learned about the skeptic community to make some sense of the ‘why’ of it. And as an experienced stand-up, I have a lot of experience dealing with dicks (metaphorically) so have suggested some strategies for dealing with these people should you be on the receiving end of their dick-ness (again, metaphorically).

(DISCLAIMERS: This list is based entirely on my own observations and conclusions, no examples are cited because I’m trying not to be a dick to people myself and, conversely, much of it can be applied to me).

· THE EVIDENCE JUNKIE: A lot of things are just accepted as fact. E.g. If I let go of my coffee mug, it’ll fall and probably scald my leg, and lo there shall be heard much foul-mouthed cursing throughout the land. I don’t need evidence to know that’s the case. For anything less certain, skeptics are very big on evidence, which is as it should be, but none more so than the evidence junkie. When debating a contentious issue, a typical skeptic will demand evidence for the opposing argument. If this is presented, they should then adjust their position. However, an evidence junkie will want evidence that the evidence is real. Present this evidence, and they’ll question the validity of this follow up evidence, and on and on. For an evidence junkie, sufficient evidence is like the speed of light; something that can be approached with massive effort, but never actually reached. These skeptics are the ones that most closely resemble opponents of skeptics, and are always in danger of switching sides, becoming moon-landing deniers or antivaxxers

o BEST DEFENCE: If possible, respond with the same strategy. Demand evidence for every claim they make, even if blatantly true. They may realise they’re being unreasonable. If you’re especially lucky, you might cause them to question their own existence, at which point they’ll leave you alone in order to escape the Matrix, or something.

· THE “YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!” SKEPTIC: There is no manual on how to ‘do’ scepticism. Certain skeptics feel that their way is correct, and that other people’s methods are wrong (usually with regards to effectively engaging non-skeptic). When they feel the need to tell everyone else why they’re wrong and what they should be doing, that’s when they become a YDIW skeptic. They mean well, and may have many logical points, but they tend not to suggest but instruct others in the ‘correct’ approach despite being unable to confirm that their way is ‘correct’. And people don’t like that. Imagine an art class where an unknown fellow student keeps tearing up your paintings or squashing your wet clay sculptures because ‘they don’t look right to me’. Whatever their rationale, the unshakable impression they can generate in their victims is ‘and WHO THE F**K ARE YOU, exactly?’ Civilised debate with someone is difficult if they make you want to kick them in the nuts as soon as they open their patronising mouth.

o BEST DEFENCE: A passive approach is recommended as a YDIW skeptic usually means no harm. For someone who feels they are experts in effective engaging, pointing that their approach is infuriating may cause enough of a logical contradiction for them to revise their strategy. Or they might call you a prick, which further undermines their argument.

· THE IMPERIAL CONQUEROR: Upbringing and background varies considerably from person to person, and is possibly the most significant factor in deciding how a person behaves and what they believe. For an ‘imperial conqueror’ skeptic, none of this is an excuse. Like an imperial conqueror, they feel they have free reign to belittle and insult those from ‘inferior’ communities, and feels duty bound to bring skeptical civilisation to the savages. Backed up with their cast iron logic and evidence, an IC will wade into any debate or discussion and ridicule those with a less-than-rational viewpoint, no matter what the reason for their position. An IC is the sort of person you could imagine visiting a tribe of Native Americans and spending the whole time mocking them for not inventing iPods.

o BEST DEFENCE: Can be quite aggressive. Avoid if possible. If it’s an option, single out a physical flaw or failing (e.g. being overweight) that they could do something about but haven’t. Accept no excuses for this ‘oversight’ as, by their own arguments, they should know better

· THE ‘PRESENT COMPANY EXCEPTED’ SKEPTIC: Despite the rumours, some skeptics do have friends. You can sometimes spot these anomalies as they are equally enthusiastic as other skeptics about debunking ridiculous beliefs or pseudoscientific theories, except if they have a close friend who shares those beliefs, in which case they’re off limits to criticism. And not just to themselves, but often anyone else who probably doesn't have the same friends and sees no reason to make allowances. Accommodating the views of others is fine and diplomatic, as is not wanting to upset close friends, but with a PCE skeptic you do get the impression that they’d verbally tear you a new one if you mentioned you supported homeopathy, but would argue in favour of the merits of genocide if Idi Amin came to their house for dinner once and complemented their wallpaper.

o BEST DEFENCE: Claim to have friends who are committed sex-offenders or drug dealers, and that you see nothing wrong with their actions. If you manage to get them to face their double standards, the subsequent cognitive dissonance may cause their brains to reboot.

· THE 'GOAD AND WITHDRAW' SKEPTIC: People who have beliefs that aren't supported by science tend, to compensate, to get very angry when they're challenged. As such, skeptics have an instinctive distrust of people who argue from an emotional base rather than a logical one; citing an emotional element in your argument is akin to a Godwin's law of scepticism. Skeptics also like to win arguments. A GAW skeptic will get their debate-winning fix by deliberately making statements that have some supporting evidence but are clearly shocking or controversial to many people. They will then appear to be shocked and alarmed at the emotional response, retaining the moral high-ground by claiming to be simply trying to generate debate. Anyone with a logical argument delivered in an emotional manner is disqualified.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is only required if you're the one being goaded, in which case just reply rationally and calmly. If this isn't an option, simply overplay the emotional aspect; threaten to turn up at their house and bludgeon them to death in their sleep. You will be scorned for your childish overreaction. Then turn up at their house with a lump hammer. Upon seeing you, future goading should cease.

· THE 'WEIRD PRIORITY' SKEPTIC: Vaguely similar to the Goad and Withdraw, the WP skeptic will engage in debate but dismiss their opponents argument for reasons which have little or no bearing on the debate itself. E.g. incorrect grammar, the use of slang, a known relationship with a religious person etc. A current prominent example is the attacking of Jenny McCarthy's support of the anti-vaccination movement. Many skeptics claim that she has no possible credibility as she used to pose nude. Under this logic, any woman who performs in a strip club to pay their tuition fees (quite common, I'm told) is just wasting their time, as if you've exposed yourself to strangers for money you are incapable of having an informed view on anything. In truth, McCarthy being a dangerously deluded idiot is unlikely to have anything to do with her physical features being more familiar than most people's.

o BEST DEFENCE: Should a WP skeptic point out a ridiculous flaw which invalidates your argument, do everything possible to emphasise this flaw. Abandon grammar all together, adopt an incredibly dense cultural patois (preferably not your own), just strip off there and then. This should enrage/confuse/arouse them to the point that their own arguments become incomprehensible.

· THE ‘RELENTLESS KILLJOY' SKEPTIC: Science has yet to really accurately define and quantify 'fun', ergo some skeptics seem to feel that it doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. Harmless non-scientific or irrational activities that people enjoy are unacceptable and not to be tolerated, and any objection by people who enjoy these activities is irrelevant as joy can't be calculated on the metric system. You could easily imagine an RK skeptic turning up at Disneyworld and ripping the heads off the Mickey Mouse costumes worn by the entertainers, before angrily remonstrating with them and the crowd about how it's physiologically impossible for a mouse to have evolved into a bipedal humanoid. RK skeptics don't get on with PCE skeptics, partly because they see no exceptions for the application of ruthless rationality, partly because they don't see the point of friends.

o BEST DEFENCE: The RK is relentless. Your best bet is, when you see them approaching, fling a well known fictional novel (e.g. Harry Potter) off to one side, then make a run for it after they pounce on it and start crossing out all the bits which science does not agree with.

· THE 'ACOLYTE' SKEPTIC: Some people get involved with the skeptics because they want to be cool. As ridiculous as this sounds, being different is sometimes the same as cool, and most people aren't skeptics. As they're clearly influenced by the opinions and views of others, these people tend to latch to the most well known skeptic community figureheads and agree with anything they say, and react aggressively to anyone who dares criticise them. This completely misses the point of skepticism, but then again that's not why they're involved

o BEST DEFENCE: If on the receiving end of a monologue/rant about how great their hero is, casually slip in a mention of something you heard/saw about that person which is completely incongruous with their image (e.g. "Have you seen that video of Richard Dawkin's mud-wrestling with a sheep?"). They'll either think you have a superior knowledge of their idol's work, or make their excuses and immediately go to check your claims. Either way, rant over.

· THE 'SQUIRREL' SKEPTIC: The squirrel skeptic is not a dick, just inadvertently irritating. When someone finds out about the skeptic community, it can be very liberating to realise there are many others who share your interests and views. Sometimes though, these newcomers can be a little overzealous in their enthusiasm, scampering around the internet finding examples of pseudoscience and irrationality or blogs/articles they've written and sharing them with anyone who listens, like a squirrel gathering nuts with a rodent-like exuberance. However, they run the risk of repeating very familiar points, digging up old arguments or presenting you with things that you'd rather not have to encounter, like a cat dragging dead birds into your house. The squirrels are also the closest the skeptics have to cheerleaders, eager to defend skepticism as and when challenged, with an enthusiasm that can seem quite over the top.

o BEST DEFENCE: The Squirrels mean no harm and will most-likely settle down into a typical grumpy skeptic curmudgeon. Should they suddenly wade in to a polite debate you're having and risk upsetting the whole thing, just throw a stick or ball; they'll be compelled to chase it.

· THE 'ARISTOCRAT' SKEPTIC: Whereas many skeptics feel the need to engage with non-skeptics in some way, some seem to have a very specific view of the kind of 'non-skeptic' that should be engaged. Usually, people who aren't university educated, aren't scientists, have an arts/humanities qualification, have had or do have any connection with pseudoscience or irrational beliefs in any form, have read the wrong sorts of books, have read the right sort of books but have the wrong views about them, and so on. Being interested and keen to know more is not nearly enough, you have to meet their personal entry criteria. People who don't aren't referred to by Aristocrats as 'proles', 'muggles' or 'scum', but you can easily imagine them wanting to use those terms. Anyone who doesn't 'meet the grade' but dares to ask a question can either expect a hideously patronising indulgence (think house guest confronted by host's toddler showing off the contents of their potty) or utter disdain (think an expert film critic being told by someone that their favourite film is 'Dude, Where's my car?').

o BEST DEFENCE: If confronted by an Aristocrat, ask many random questions that can have no logical answer, such as "If ghosts did exist, how much would they weigh?" "When will science finally get round to producing the jetpack?" or "Would people pay more attention in talks/lectures if the speakers were forced to do them in the style of movie stars from the '80's?" They may attempt to answer the question, which will end up with them looking stupid, or they won't be able to answer, at which point you can indulgently accept their limitations, infuriating them.

· THE 'INSECURE JOKER' SKEPTIC: Probably a newcomer to the skeptic community, this one finds himself overwhelmed by the genuine intellectual curiosity most people involved demonstrate, and in order to compensate for his failings in this area becomes flippant and satirical where important issues are concerned. Highly qualified, but this is not evident in his output. Uses humour in all his dealings as a clear attempt to compensate for lack of knowledge. Makes wide and sweeping generalisations about diverse groups for the sake of a joke, but then pursues it too far and it gets boring and monotonous. Probably keeps a blog which varies wildly from relentless self-depreciation to breathtaking arrogance, such as adopting the mantle of the entirety of Science. Tries to be funny and incisive but probably ends up pissing a lot of people off, but carries on regardless.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is unnecessary, the 'insecure joker' knows how pointless he is already.

So there you go. In truth, every skeptic everywhere occasionally wanders into some of these categories to a certain extent, most likely without being aware of it. Because skeptics, like scientists, pseudoscientists and religious people the world over, are people; messy, confusing, complex, changeable people.

There are plenty of dicks in the skeptic community, I've even advocated being a dick myself, but (based entirely on my own experiences) they're the exception, rather than the norm. If people wish to generalise based on the few, that's their prerogative, but if you want to see truly breathtaking levels of self-aggrandising dickery, just take a look at any of the groups who oppose the skeptics.

Now, if we've spent enough time giving the dicks a spanking (a 3rd 'metaphorically' for luck), let's get back to work.

Dean

e-mail: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Bad Astronomy

As mentioned in previous post, this humble blog got bigged up in Bad Astronomy today

Here's the page

No reason for that link, apart from giving my regular readers (many of whom are German, for some reason*) an idea as to why there's been a lot more traffic to this site, if they'd picked up on it. It just links back to here anyway, but that means that with a bit of luck we might be able to trap some spambots in an infinite loop.

Back with more letters soon

DJB

* = I mean, I don't know the reason why my blog has proven particularly popular with German people, the reason they ARE German is most likely due to being born and/or living in Germany

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

Poor Susan!

Clinic tends to Boyle

Unless you've been living under an especially big rock for the past few months (or working in a Vodaphone call centre, apparently), you probably know about Susan Boyle. A Britain's got Talent contestant who was launched into World Wide Superstardom because she's not as attractive as most crap singers. Not that she is a crap singer, but apparently, she should be crap. Because she's ugly, and only pretty people can sing. There's some mythical equation in the music and entertainment industry, where attractiveness is directly proportional to performing talent. Also, as with most British Reality talent contests these days, there's a category of contestants which doesn't exist officially but blatantly does. Not sure what they're called, but to understand what I'm talking about, remember that in the 18/19th centuries, wealthy folks used to visit mental asylums, where the patients were prodded and stared at, purely as entertainment.
Britain's Got Talent, X-factor and other shite like that, they offer do the same thing, only you don't have to leave your home and the inmates haven't been diagnosed yet. Susan Boyle looks like she should have been one of these, but she wasn't you see, she could actually do a bit of singing. Thing is, she could still have been mad and recent evidence suggests she still is, but she doesn't look nice in the traditional sense.
The first wave of publicity was about how inspirational she was. She was an ugly woman who showed that you didn't have to be attractive to be talented. Nobody actually ever thought that, I've never heard anyone ever say that, but it's nice to be told what we are thinking by the media groups who decide what we are thinking on our behalf when they make things we watch or buy.
I always found it ironic that they kept mentioning how she defied our appearance obsessed culture by being so ugly. That this ugly, hideous, shambling, hairy, grotesque woman, and God she's rancid, should be able to sing, despite looking like the Rancor's mother, well that shows how appearance obsessed everyone except the media is. Hmm...
But yeah. She didn't win, apparently. She came second. But the pressures she's experienced, which must admittedly been insane, has driven her to the Priory. People seemed surprised that a 50+ spinster who seems mentally unsound and has never left her village in Scotland would be badly affected by the most intense media scrutiny anyone's ever experienced. Nobody saw it coming, apparently. Except anyone with any know how.
That's why the BBC did the article linked above. What the experts say about the way she was treated. There's some suspicion that reality TV may be exploiting people. In other news, Earth goes round the Sun. But the article itself seems to be very media-biased to me, even the Government funded BBC. Note how all the TV pundits and pop psychologists get big sections with photos, and the true experts get seven or eight lines and no pics at all. Interestingly, the pop psychologists seem far more supportive of Britain's Got Talent producers etc., (you don't bite the hand that feeds you I suppose), whereas the real experts are more scathing, or as much as you can be with seven short lines to get your point across.
It could be argued that the pop psychologists have TV experience and a media profile, whereas the others do not, so they are less able to make a punchy, concise argument for mass consumption. Why, then, does Charlie Brooker, by far the most famous person in the article, get a seriously reduced section? And no pic? He's also the most critical of the media involvement in her breakdown too, weird that.

On a finishing note, I find it very appropriate that Britain's Got Talent, a show supposedly displaying the best of all that is British, is sponsored by Domino's Pizza; An American Business selling Italian Cuisine staffed largely by middle-eastern or East European immigrants. If that doesn't symbolise the multi-cultural Britain I know, nothing does.

UPDATE

I seem to have caused a strange paradox with my last entry. To my shame, I didn't actually type 'Neuroscience PhD Jobs + Comedian' into Google, I just assumed it would provide no useful hits. Which it didn't really, but I admit I should have tested before assuming, like an actual scientist would. Which I am, so have no excuse.

However, if you do type that into Google, now my blog is the first thing that pops up.

But also, looking further down the page, I find that I was profiled in the prestigious Time Higher Education Supplement a few months back. I was not told or consulted about this. I don't mind at all, but you'd think someone would say something?

I suppose it's kind of reassuring that I am clearly not a fame-hungry wannabe star, seeing as I've been discussed in a national paper but am blissfully unaware. Now I'm a bit worried though, as this is like overhearing someone talking about you behind your back, but on a national scale.

Oh dear...