Sex and the Scanner

I have commented on the ridiculous ways in which the media can use results from scanning experiments before, but I feel I should clarify my position on the issue, particularly with regards to MRI (Magnetic resonance imaging).

(In the interest of fairness, I should point out that I've not had much experience with actually using MRI scanners in my previous research, but I have been a subject for the experiments of others many, many times. I'd estimate I've spent over a day in total in an MRI scanner of some form, so I feel sufficiently qualified to comment on MRI scanning in general in the following piece. However, I may well have many more experienced scanning-centric neuroscientists read this who are able to pick me up on errors that I've made. If so, please feel free to leave comments about this and I'll link to them)

First and foremost, I'm all for MRI scanning and other imaging techniques. It's amazing technology, and a modern privilege that I don't think enough people really appreciate. Until relatively recently, seeing your own brain was very rare. It was possible, but given the typical circumstances that would allow someone to see their own brain in the old days, it was probably the last thing they experienced. What they thought about it was impossible to determine. However, thanks to MRI scanners, seeing detailed images of our own, living brain is a common occurrence these days. One could get quite philosophical about that kind of thing, looking directly at the source of our minds, memories, thoughts, feelings, everything we are and every aspect of our being. The fact that it resembles nothing so much as a steroid-abusing walnut just makes it more unnerving for many.

There seems to be this weird view among a lot of non-neuroscientists (or as we call them, Morlocks) that the only thing preventing a complete understanding of the brain's inner workings was the fact that we couldn't directly observe it. Ergo, once you can observe the brain doing its thing, you can figure out how it works. But it's not like this, at all. A smartphone is an impressive bit of technology, but I doubt many people understand exactly how they work. Prising the cover off and looking at the guts of the device probably won't make it less complicated, more likely the opposite. The brain is like this, except orders of magnitude more complex and made of wobbly grey bits.

So, simply putting someone in an MRI machine and making them do a task will not inevitably show which specific part of the brain processes that task. Human's aren't that simple, any task or action will use several faculties at once, and the relationship between mind and brain is still  relatively poorly understood. Useable results from MRI, or more accurately in this context, fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) are obtained by analysis of the blood flow to certain brain regions observed during specific activity. Not neural activity directly, but the (supposedly) associated changes in blood flow as the metabolic demands of certain areas increase in line with activity. This is not as easy as it sounds, and I have not tried to make it sound easy. You need baseline activity rates, threshold readings, anatomical precision which differs from person to person, and so on. It's a very useful, but complicated and time-consuming task.

However, most media mentions of scanning 'experiments' seem to think that you just put someone in an MRI scanner, and if you stimulate them in some way then a bit of the brain will light up. That isn't neuroscience, that's 'Operation'. But still, brain scanning is 'cool', so is often shoehorned into the most meaningless 'science' stories.

This is something that irks me a lot, but you learn to put up with it. But sometimes, this sort of thing can reach satirical levels.

I was recently contacted by Dr Petra Boynton via that there twitter. As a rather clued up and intelligent Sex educator who works with the media quite a lot, she's often contacted by TV types who want to get her input on their latest sex-based documentary, a programme format which seems to show no signs of going away. This is understandable, as they offer an intellectual discourse on one of the more intriguing yet taboo aspects of human society. But also, tits!

Sadly, the majority of sex-based programmes seem to deserve the degree of cynicism with which I've just described them. Many seem to be far more concerned with titillating, provoking strong reactions, conforming to the prejudices of a target demographic, or just mawkishly parading the intimate details of strangers around for the audience to gawp at. An evidence-based and rational discussion of sex, sexual behaviour or its myriad features seems to be way down the list of priorities.

But like I said, sometimes these attempts to dress up our morbid fascination with sex as serious scientific investigation crosses a line, and the whole thing just becomes farcical. Dr Boynton was recently contacted and asked to give an opinion on a new programme which aimed to investigate whether a new type of sex toy could provide measurably more pleasure in women who use it (compared to other sex toys). Why? I don't know, even though I was forwarded the email conversation that occurred. But there you go. They did specify that they wanted to do a proper and respectful analysis of women's sexual behaviours and needs, and if that's true then it's a reasonably noble aim. Dr Boynton's response was very reasonable, what with sex research and education being a lot more complex than most people realise. She advised against the use of things like MRI scanners, on the grounds that a) they are usually just used as a shorthand for impressive science visuals and b) have little or no practical use when it comes to sex research.

The TV people have seemingly decided to go with the use of MRI scanners anyway, purely on the grounds that they look impressive and make for good TV. Lacking sufficient expertise in the area, Dr Boynton then tried to get some more persuasive arguments against this approach from more neuroscientific people. Sadly for her, the discipline of Neuroscience, the media and you good people reading this, that included me. So, if you're someone from the media and are thinking about putting together a programme with a setup like this,  please let me explain why this is unwise.

If I've interpreted them correctly, the suggested experiment aim(s) can be summarised as follows;

Use advanced brain imaging techniques to quantitatively demonstrate that a specific sex toy gives women using it more pleasure than other sex toys, and do this in a way which makes enjoyable television

Now, as you can probably tell from my previous ramblings, I have several problems with this. Let's go through them all.

·         

•       Measuring 'pleasure' is very difficult: It would be in this context, anyway. There are numerous brain regions that are involved with the processing of rewarding and enjoyable stimuli, I'm not arguing that. But 'pleasure' as a term is like 'intelligence', or 'irony', in that everyone knows what it is, but it's actually quite hard to write down a coherent explanation of it that everyone would agree on. This is even more true of sexual pleasure. How do you measure such a thing? There is no one single thing that every woman finds sexually stimulating (as far as I know), and a person's sexual preferences are a complex neurological system based on their own experiences, biology and so forth. You could feasibly scan the brain activity of a large number of women attempting to achieve sexual pleasure in the exact same way, but the readings would probably be very different. Any data applicable to all of them would probably be too general to be of any use in studying a neurological effect as complex as sexual pleasure. A reputable science programme wouldn't show some meaningless data and then just make their own conclusions, would they?... Would they?... Hello?
•           Sex and masturbation aren’t the same thing: A minor point, but possibly relevant if you're wanting to make a programme about how sex is perceived/experienced. Although they have a lot of biological and anatomical processes in common, sex and masturbation are perceived and experienced differently. Obviously, as with sex there is at least one other person there, and they tend to be very close (spatially, if not in other ways). This is a very big stimulus (even if one partner does not possess a particularly big stimulus, so to speak) and something that is by definition absent during masturbation, so the sendory processing being done by the bain will be drastically different. Some experiments have apparently revealed that intercourse is a qualitatively different (better?) experience to masturbation, so any results obtained from this TV study may not be applicable to sex, per se.
•           fMRI requires stimulus to occur in real time: Obviously I don't know the exact set-up for this potential experiment, but I do know that if you want to see what parts of the brain activate in response to specific stimuli, you have to scan the brain while that stimuli is occurring. Ergo, if you want to see what effect a sex toy has on a woman's neural activity, she has to be experiencing it while in the scanner (in this case hving the stimulation occur and then scanning them will give you 'post-coital comedown' data, and that's probably even more vague). Given the remit of the experiment, is this something you can get away with showing on national television? Even if you use the classic 'thermal imaging' cop-out, that's still potentially quite a graphic image to broadcast. I imagine you'll have trouble getting that past the censors, but then I'm not an expert.
•           fMRI is very sensitive and subjects are secured in place: This is something that really should be flagged up in advance, if you plan to go through with this. Obviously, there are many different types of MRI and maybe I have the wrong idea here, but if you want to do an fMRI, in my experience you have to be very still indeed, as the machine is trying to measure very subtle changes in blood flow through tiny capillaries in a small region of the brain. The precision required to detect such small changes means the subject has their head secured in place very firmly, and usually the rest of the body too. Even minor movements can render the whole thing pointless. Bearing all this in mind, how exactly are you going to measure women's responses to masturbation when they're not allowed to move? Some may prefer to have sex in this manner, but I know women masturbate in a different way to men (this is normally where I'd link to something to back this up, but to be honest writing this piece has already rendered my browser search history quite unspeakable) and it logically must involve a reasonable degree of body movement, particularly if using a sex toy. MRI scanners are also usually require the subject to be inserted into a tube, which necessitates a 'legs closed' bodily arrangement, thus compounding the problem.  If you do want to do this right, you'd probably have to have someone using the sex toy on the women while she's being scanned. In all honesty, I don't think lab techs are trained for this sort of thing. And even if you do somehow get approval to do this, getting to show it on TV would be even more of a headache than the last issue.
•           Taking mechanical devices into an MRI is seriously not a good idea: Even if you were to get approval for all of the above, and somehow manage to work out a system where you can 'run the experiment', so to speak, how do these sex toys work? Hopefully they're just shaped plastic, but I'm getting the implication that they're mechanical in some way. This should present an insurmountable hurdle as you can't take any metal into an MRI scanner, particularly if it's ferrous. It's best not to even have it in the same room. A lot of people are surprised by this, because if an MRI is completely safe for humans, surely an inanimate metal object would be even less affected by it? But you can use this same logic for a typical bath; a human can sit in the bath without experiencing any ill effects, but throw a toaster in there too and you've got problems. MRI's use incredibly powerful magnets to pick up minute changes revealed by movements in our iron-containing blood. If you've ever watched House, they like showing what happens when tiny amounts of metal find their way into an MRI (I know it's just a TV show, but they've done their research there). Some professionals have also kindly arranged some practical demonstrations. In summary, if you want to have women use a metal-containing sex toy in an fMRI scanner, you may as well have them masturbate using a lit stick of dynamite. It's just as safe, and the results of any 'accidents' would be just as spectacular. I suppose this would make for impressive visuals, but I imagine the sort of audience you'd get for them is not going to be your target demographic.
•           MRI Scanners; Erotic?: Even if you do manage to get round all the issues mentioned above, being in an MRI scanner is confining, boring, potentially claustrophobic, incredibly loud, very chilly, or possibly all these things at once. Again, I'm not an expert in female sexual preferences, but none of that strikes me as conducive to achieving a state of mind that would be required to achieve orgasm. If you do want to go through with all of this, you'd need the sort of women who would be willing to be filmed masturbating/being masturbated while staying very still in a very distracting and intimidating environment, then having it broadcast on TV. Therefore, the only women you could use would either have some very 'selective' turn-ons, or be the sort of person for whom public displays of bizarre sexual antics are commonplace.  This may be doable, but you're seriously veering away from any noble 'how normal women experience pleasure' ethos you may have started out with.

So, that's why I don't think that programme would work. Even if you do manage to overcome all the problems I've mentioned, what are you left with? Nothing that would give you any useable information, at any rate. It would be cheaper and easier just to set up a fake MRI and have the subjects do whatever it is you want them to do, and just use footage of a different MRI scan, there are plenty around. This may seem dishonest, but it's as scientifically valid as the proposed experiment, and this way is probably much cheaper and frees up an expensive MRI in case anyone wants to do some actual science.

Rant over. I apologise to well intended media types and any disappointed men who have found their way here as a result of a more 'questionable' web search.

Twitter: @garwboy

Don't read this! It'll destroy your brain! (Susan Greenfield article)

Baroness Susan Greenfield has been at it again. Weirdly, out of all people, I was called on to write a rebuttal piece, for the Telegraph of all things.

However, those who know my writing will probably realise that I'm never that concise and clear. My original piece was more verbose and piss-taking in its tone.

Here's the original

(NB: Any Telegraph readers who have found themselves here, this is usually used as a science-themed comedy blog, not a serious science one. Just a heads up, as odds are you were expecting the latter)

Baroness Greenfield has espoused yet again on the potential damage that video games and other technological entertainments are wreaking on the brains of young people.

The key word there is 'potential'. The potential damage could be quite significant. Similarly, if I get hit by a bus, the potential damage to me could be very significant. But this doesn't mean it's definitely going to happen. The mere existence of a possibility is not cause for alarm. As a result, I don't feel like I'm dicing with death whenever I need to leave the house. If I did, I'd probably have massive anxiety attacks whenever I realise I've run out of milk. I don't, though.

As a doctor of Behavioural Neuroscience who works teaching Psychiatry via an online course, I have a special interest in how our brains are influenced by our behaviours, but also the view that electronic media can damage our brains is, by necessity, almost the exact opposite of my own. If Baroness Greenfield is ever proven conclusively to be right, my job will be the first thing to go, so I'm not exactly unbiased when it comes to her claims.

Admittedly, Greenfield's claims have an element of accuracy to them, but it's always aggravating to see people use some basic facts to support outlandish, harmful conclusions, lending them credibility where shouldn't really be any.

Greenfield recently made several comments on the matter of computer games.

"Technology that plays strongly on the senses – like video games – can literally "blow the mind" by temporarily or permanently deactivating certain nerve connections in the brain, the Baroness said".

First off, 'literally "blow the mind"'? Ten points off for a seriously dubious use of the word 'literally'. What does 'blow the mind' literally mean? 'Blow' as in physically cause to explode? Or 'blow' as in force air into or over something? The former would mean the complete physical destruction of the brain by use of force, the latter would mean exposing the brain to the external environment and applying air pressure to it. Neither of these is particularly beneficial to an individual, and those who have experienced such things seldom survive long enough to confirm whether the experience was enjoyable in any way. If video games did literally 'blow the mind', they probably wouldn't be as popular. Or, in fact, legal.

[N.B. Professional pedantry: 'Mind' in scientific terms has no universally accepted definition, and is presently impossible to measure, observe or quantify, so the majority of behavioural and neurological studies simply have to ignore it as a factor altogether. But I'll ignore that matter here (a certain irony there)].

But pedantry aside, the temporary or permanent deactivation of nerve connections in the brain is implied to be a negative consequence of excessive computer game playing, as opposed to a perfectly normal and actually quite essential occurrence in a typical, healthy brain. A great deal of the brain's connections are actually used for deactivating other connections and processes. Arguably the brain's most powerful neurotransmitter (the chemicals used by neurones to communicate with each other) is gamma Aminobutyric acid (GABA), which is inhibitory, meaning it stops activity in other cells. And it's really good at this.

The constant deactivating of parts of the brain is vital to our functioning as normal cognitive beings. There can be times when too much of the brain is active at once, and these are seldom good things, as anyone who's had a seizure or violent hallucination will probably attest to. You could argue that Baroness Greenfield is referring to specific, damaging connections, but I can only be as precise in my comments as she is being in hers. Areas of the brain being shut down or deactivated is as normal a part of development as losing your milk teeth.

She told the Daily Telegraph last night: "The human brain has evolved to adapt to the environment. It therefore follows that if the environment is changing, it will have an impact on your brain.

Baroness Greenfield is right in this, the human brain does adapt to its environment. And changing in response to a changing environment is what allowed mankind to survive as a species. I'm actually impressed by the way she's managed to take this extremely impressive and vital property of the brain and turn it into a negative. That takes some doing.

"If you play computer games to the exclusion of other things this will create a new environment that will have new effects ... every hour you spend in front of a screen is an hour not spent climbing a tree or giving someone a hug."

The problem here is that this effect is not specific to video games. Anything you do excessively will create a new environment that your brain will eventually adapt to. If you are a keen fisherman you will spend a great deal of time staring at a large volume of water while holding an elaborate stick. Does this have long-term effect on your brain structure? Most likely, yes. Is it seriously damaging? Not that anyone is aware of, in fact most people will argue the opposite. The fish probably wouldn't, but then they rarely say anything of interest.

And yes, every hour you spend in front of a screen is an our not spent climbing a tree or giving someone a hug. And every hour you spend on a train is not spent on a horse. What of it? Every hour spent doing something is an hour not spent doing something else. You may feel that climbing trees is a more 'positive' activity than video games, but that's purely a subjective view. Climbing trees is undoubtedly a healthy, enjoyable past time, but I think most people would agree though that you have less chance of genuinely falling and breaking your neck while playing on an X-box.

And let's be honest, which is more likely to end up at a psychologist's first? A child who plays a lot of video games, or a child who tends to hug someone constantly for a full hour? I know who I'd worry more about.

... the Baroness urged pupils “to be outside, to climb trees and feel the grass under your feet and the sun on your face".

Yes, as above, indeed this is a good idea, but this black-and-white view that outdoors = good, indoors = bad is seriously simplistic and undoubtedly flawed. A lot of bad things happen outside, as a flick through any mainstream newspaper will tell you.

"Screen technologies cause high arousal, which in turn activates the brain system’s underlying addiction and reward, resulting in the attraction of yet more screen-based activity, the Baroness said.

Again, yes. This is a largely accurate statement. But it's annoying how people (scientists in particular) will use long-winded, verbose methods of describing something in order confuse people, and attribute a meaning to it which suits their arguments. In this case, the phrase "high arousal, which in turn activates the brain system’s underlying addiction and reward, resulting in the attraction of yet more ... activity" is more commonly known as 'fun' or 'enjoyment'. This same effect can be seen in football fans or pretty much anyone who has a persistent hobby. The long-term damaging effects of these aren't being questioned, so what sets video games apart as a negative? The intense visual stimuli? The interactive nature of them? The requirement for concentration? The competitive element? All of these factors apply the any sport you want to name.

The visual aspect of video games is only 'intense' or 'excessive' when considered in technological terms. In real terms, you'll still get a more rich and detailed visual experience from opening a fridge. The brain can handle way more than what even the most powerful console can throw at it (although this seems to not be the case for Baroness Greenfield)

The average child will spend almost 2,000 hours in front of a screen between their tenth and eleventh birthdays, she added.

I don't know where this figure comes from, as no references were provided with this piece. But even if it is right, what of it? Welcome to 21st century Western society. Everything has a screen now. I currently own about 7. I've got one in my pocket at all times, odds are you will have too. That's where we get all our information from now.

A while ago, it was books. Some people would spend a lot of time reading books, which are rectangular, information-rich objects that could cause intense arousal and engage many brain regions. But people who condemn books aren't usually respected for it.

Comparing the dangers to the lack of awareness about the health risks of smoking in the 1950s, she said playing too many computer games could cause a shorter attention span and more reckless behaviour in children.

An unfair comparison which does the Baroness no credit. Indeed, the dangers of smoking weren't know about for a long time, too long for many. But this doesn't mean the same is true for everything else. But smoking involves a process whereby poisonous chemicals are inserted directly into the human lungs. Unless you want to melt them down and directly inhale the fumes, video games cannot do this. All they can do is activate sensory and physical processes in people that were in place anyway. By making this alarming, scaremongering comparison, the Baroness could be said to be implying that stimulation can give you cancer. I genuinely don't think she is doing this, but when you make such alarmist comments, you leave yourself open to such criticisms.

Several scientific studies have suggested that playing an excessive number of computer games or spending too much time surfing the internet can have a physical impact on the brain.

Again, I don't know which studies this is referring to, but it's hardly surprising. The key word is 'excessive'. Excess is a negative term, it means 'too much'. You could replace the word 'computer games' in the sentence above with 'poker playing', 'piano lessons' or 'flower arranging' and the outcome would be the same. As stated previously, too much of anything will cause physical changes in the brain (sorry, have a 'physical impact'), as the brain adapts to better deal with your behaviour. That's why we get better at things with constant practice. Again, this is normally something to be appreciated, but here it's a bad thing.

A paper published earlier the summer in the PLoS ONE journal indicated that internet addiction could rewire brain structures in the inner brain, and even cause shrinkage in grey matter.

In a critique of video games, an article about internet addiction is cited. Odd, that. But I've encountered 'the internet'. There are a lot of things on 'the internet'. This term is extremely vague, like describing a hardcore football fanatic as 'fond of competitiveness'. It's essentially correct, but doesn't really tell you the important bits. And once again 'could' stands out like a sore thumb. As far as the brain is concerned, doing anything constantly for long enough could have all manner of detrimental effects. This is not enough to base firm conclusions on, far from it.

Also, if we're being pedantic, the use of the term 'addicted' means the brain has already been rewired. That's essentially what differentiates addiction from 'excessive use'. So brain rewiring can cause brain rewiring? Quite a tautology.

Another study by Japanese scientists ten years ago warned that because video games only stimulate the brain regions responsible for vision and movement, other parts of the mind responsible for behaviour, emotion and learning could become underdeveloped.

'Could' they now? Funny how some so many bad things 'could' happen. I 'could' develop an aneurysm while reading one of Baroness Greenfield's books. It's a distinct possibility, but not enough to have them banned. I wouldn't even think about demanding it.

Every one of Greenfield's arguments seems to boil down to 'Too much [X] causes a normal brain to adapt in response. These brain changes may have negative consequences', where [X] is video games or other electronic distractions, which seem to be her personal bugbear.

But other scientists have claimed that certain games can help the brain in a variety of ways such as treating post-traumatic stress disorder, boosting intelligence and developing the memory.

This is just a positive spin on my main argument. The brain changes, you use certain parts of it a lot for certain tasks, those parts will alter and possibly grow in size and complexity, whereas lesser used parts will atrophy somewhat. Video games are very complex activities, so the brain will become more efficient at performing more complex actions in response. It's unsurprising that this may have beneficial consequences, as well as potentially negative ones.

There are undoubtedly many things to criticise about video games. They can be needlessly violent, they can be quite unrewarding, perhaps it is unwise to subject children to such graphic themes, perhaps they do teach children unrealistic or dubious things. But each of these criticisms can easily be levelled at any entertainment format. I struggle to see how an hour spent coordinating a detailed assault on a virtual enemy stronghold is more detrimental than an hour spent watching naive young people having their ambitions crushed in front of millions on the X-Factor. But that's just me.

The use of electronic media is an undeniable fact of life now, and is changing the way we see the world. In many ways, it's encouraging that so many children become adept at computer-based activities from such a young age; it'll give them more of a chance of making it in an increasingly technical society. It certainly did for me.

Baroness Greenfield clearly has her reasons for disliking computer games and other electronic entertainments, and they well be noble, well-meaning ones. But this does not justify the use of junk science or the public stating of overblown conclusions based on little or no evidence. With every unsubstantiated claim that video games cause children to become socially deficient or distant, Baroness Greenfield in turn distances herself further from the scientific community that once had such respect for her.

Twitter: @garwboy

Homosex-reality

Once again, homophobia has ruined someone's night and made it into the news. This seemingly keeps happening, and it invariably leads to the tired debate about lifestyle choice/religious views/political correctness and all that. It's ridiculous but inevitable, like Boris Johnsons rise to power. But why is it so common? In my experience, you do have to be careful about talking about homosexuality in a public forum, no matter what the context. The majority of people I've encountered aren't homophobic, and perhaps more importantly, seemingly even more people don't want to be thought of as homophobic, even if they probably are. This leads to some strange outcomes.

You know how people say 'I've got lots of gay friends!' after saying something blatantly homophobic? I don't do that. It's another variation of the classic get-out-of-jail-free card when expressing derogatory or unacceptable views about groups of people that they don't actually belong to. The typical formula is "I think [group x] are all a bunch of [offensive comment or term]. But I'm not [prejudiced against group x], a lot of my friends are [belonging to group x]". With people who use this argument, I would question their definition of 'friend'. I'd wager they define it, in this scenario, as 'someone [from group x] I met who I didn't like due to my views but who I remember I've encountered when making offensive comments about [group x]'. This is just my opinion, though.

But like I said, in the case of homosexuals, I don't do that. Partly because it would be superfluous (I don't have any issue with homosexuals, nor do I make offensive jokes about them), but mostly because it would be inaccurate. Truth be told, I don't have many gay friends. Gay male friends, at least. I do know a statistically unlikely number of lesbians. Not sure why, I don't actively go out of my way to meet lesbians, I get the impression that I probably wouldn't be too welcome in the places they allegedly hang out. Worryingly, the only thing these lesbians I know have in common is that, at some point in their lives, they all met me. But to make any conclusions based on this would be confusing correlation with causation (sort of), and that would never do.

Admittedly, I do have a habit of unintentionally upsetting the gay men I do meet via the medium of social faux pas. For example, I got a lift back from a wedding with a friend of my then girlfriend (now wife) who, as it happens, is homosexual. We were listening to Radio 1 (I was much younger then, don't judge me!), and Sarah Cox was on. I like Sarah Cox, unlike most of my mates. I like to see if my fondness for the nice gobby northern lady is considered weird by other people as well, so I asked my generous driver friend 'Do you like Cox?' The awkward pause that followed last just long enough for maximal embarrassment to kick in, which made the drive a lot more 'interesting' (meaning 'quieter'). Stuff like this happens with me alarmingly often, as anyone who's seen my stand-up set will know. But I'm telling you this to point out that, in the sociological context at least, I'm ill-qualified to make any comment on the matters I'm about to comment on extensively. Just letting you know in advance, so feel free to take all this with a pinch of salt, or whatever your preferred cliché.

Homosexuality, or maybe more accurately, homophobia, is an ever present issue in modern society. I don't 'get' homophobia. It's not as if homosexuality is a new thing; judging by what we see in the wild, it predates the concept of conscious prejudice by a significant margin. So if we're going to talk about 'unnatural behaviour'... And it's not as if homosexuality is an uncommon thing either. If it were, you can sort of see how people would be a bit afraid of this bizarre and unfamiliar practice. But no, lots of people are gay. The figure 'One in Ten men' get's bandied about a lot, but not sure how accurate that is. And women, they're even worse. There is extensive video evidence available from a variety of sources that show that two women who are left alone together will inevitably end up having sex with each other, within minutes, for no discernable reason other than boredom, or simply because the opportunity has presented itself. I know this sounds ridiculous, but trust me. I did extensive research into this during my teenage years. And then again when I first installed high-speed broadband. And every now and again when the wife is out.

But despite all this, homophobia is still rampant in pretty much all societies. And in my own personal view, I don't think it will ever be stamped out entirely. For example, men in a group of male friends in full on male-badinage mode, will invariably imply that one or more of their friends is gay in a joking yet derogatory manner. I don't think this will stop in the foreseeable future, but I don't think it's as bad as other forms of homophobia. Heterosexual men constantly evaluate their own sense of self worth and social standing by their masculinity, and one of the most common and powerful ways to demonstrate masculinity is via prowess with the opposite sex. Young boys will often describe other boys as 'girls' when they want to insult or offend them (or maybe that was just my school). I'm not sure if the opposite is true, that girls describe other girls as boys, as I was never a young girl. I'm pretty sure boys don't insult girls by calling them boys, children tend to struggle with reciprocal negative gender stereotyping, for some reason. Probably because I just made the term up a minute ago.

As we grow though, the rational world tends to shape our consciousness more and more, and we are expected to be smarter and more accurate when it general interaction with others. If he wished to imply that a friend was not masculine, he could still call him 'a girl/woman', but that would be demonstrably not true, so would be something of a hollow insult. The insulter would also look stupid/childish, so the insult would have to opposite effect to that intended. However, now the concept of homosexuality has been introduced into their lives, and accusing a mate of being a gay man is far more effective way of questioning his masculinity; it's physically possible, potentially true, and the only way the accused to completely disprove it is to have enthusiastic sex with a woman in front of the accuser while demonstrating genuine revulsion in response to a naked man. And that sort of behaviour will get you thrown out of the pub. As will homosexual activity, apparently. When it comes to sexuality and socialising, it might be easier to just not bother, just buy a 4-pack and stay in.

But I don't think the 'gay' insult in the context of friends trying to undermine masculinity is such a bad thing, as it's (usually) more to do with the 'activities' associated with being gay, rather than a slur on homosexuals themselves. But the use of the term 'gay' as a general derogatory one, that's not good. The use of the term 'gay' to describe something stupid, or physically weak/incapable, that's just crap. Of course, no gay person has ever been considered

intelligent, or physically adept at sports or combat. What a ludicrous notion! Especially since every straight person is an intellectual beefcake.

I'm not sure if this applies to lesbians and lesbianism to the same extent. Obviously in a patriarchal society where the desire to prove 'manliness' seems to be an overarching necessity to pretty much everything, homosexual activity between women is both non-threatening to the masculinity of, and erotically stimulating to, heterosexual men. I don't have any proof of this of course, it's just speculation on my part. The only thing I can call on to back up my supposition is the fact that the term 'lesbian' itself is an emotively-neutral term which specifically describes a homosexual woman. I don't know of any equivalent for homosexual men. Lesbian is, as we all know, derived from the island of Lesbos, where the ancient Greek female poet Sappho resided. If only the ancient Greeks had shown any interest or appreciation for male homosexuality, what might have been!

Anyway, to the point. Whenever any homosexuals get in the news for having the audacity to expect to be treated like normal humans, it generally kicks off with the right-wing posse. The Daily Mail columnists, the fundamentalist Christians, the deeply conservative, and so on, complaining about the Gay agenda and marginalising of 'normal' people. But invariably, we'll get some argument about homosexuality being a 'lifestyle choice'. And this then leads to the argument about whether homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuals almost unanimously say it isn't. But skeptics and the like have a saying; the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Even if every homosexual person in the country stated flat out that they did not choose to be homosexual, this would not constitute reliable evidence as it wouldn't be free from bias, personal interpretation, objective measurements etc. So this begs the question, is Homosexuality actually a choice or not?

I mean, obviously it's not. Logic alone dictates that much. If it were a choice, then logically it's a choice made when an individual is old and mature enough to recognise sexual attraction and physical intimacy as something they'll end up doing (hopefully). So until the time of 'choosing', they'd logically either be heterosexual or some sort of 'asexual' with no preference. If they're heterosexual originally, why change that? Does the thought process go "I know I'm heterosexual, but life is too easy so I will spend my life pursuing relationships with my own gender (who I'm not actually attracted too), engaging in sexual actions that don't appeal to me, in order to endure a lifetime of prejudice, judgement, persecution and legal challenges to my efforts to lead a normal life". Stereotypically, Gay people do tend to have more interesting and varied wardrobes, but that seems like a paltry conciliation. And if people start of as asexual and make a choice comparing after comparing the options and opportunities presented to heterosexual and homosexual people respectively, anyone who chooses the latter is going to seem quite masochistic. And I know some people are masochistic and there are clubs for just that sort of thing, but I do believe they're not limited to the homosexual communities.

But I've always been concerned by the extent to which the 'choice or not' argument rarely brings up any scientific or quantifiable information. Is there actually any? Turns out, there is.

One of the earliest findings I could uncover is from about 20 years ago, which, based on post-mortem studies of brain tissue of heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men, revealed that heterosexual men have a much bigger Interstitial Nuclei in region 3 of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3), being almost twice as those found in women women and, more tellingly, homosexual men. The cells that make up INAH3 are widely believed to be the Sexually Dimorphic nucleus in humans, i.e. the bit of the brain that controls sexual behaviour, found in many in many animals (including rats and sheep, for example). Development of this region is highly sensitive to sex hormones during gestation and neonatal phases, particularly testosterone, the bad boy of the sex hormones. Why should some male foetuses receive less than 'normal' testosterone and some female foetuses receive more?

One theory was to do with the fecundity of and number of previous children from the mother. A study did discover that homosexual males do tend to have more homosexuals in their family in the maternal line, suggesting an X-chromosome genetic factor that leads to homosexuality. There's also a possibly affect of having more older brothers; the 3rd, 4th etc. brother from one mother is potentially more likely to be homosexual as the mother has built up an immunity to testosterone due to repeated exposure. As far as I'm aware, most mothers are women, so testosterone isn't as prevalent in their systems as it is in, let's say, a mans, so they become desensitised to it when repeatedly carrying male foetuses. As previously stated, testosterone greatly influences how INAH3 develops. Hence, homosexuality.

Before any macho dads jump on the 'it's all the woman's fault! Ain't no gays in my mighty seed!' argument, these effects only account for, at most, 20% of homosexual males, so maternal genetics and testosterone insensitivity are contributing factors at best, not deciding factors. Also, the study I'm referring to only focussed on homosexual males, so not sure how much (if at all) lesbianism is influenced by these factors. You could argue that having more daughters means a mother becomes more sensitive to testosterone, thus the testosterone present has a more potent effect? Or maybe having older brothers means the mothers testosterone insensitivity results in more testosterone being released in order to compensate. Both outcomes could influence the sexual development of the daughter, but this is just speculation on my part.

Whatever the underlying cause (I'm no embryologist, but it's a fantastically complex process, and the interplay of hormones and chemicals involved probably means there are countless things that can influence the overall outcome i.e. sexuality), it could be argued by opponents of homosexuality that just one slightly over/undersized brain region suggests that homosexuality is less a natural occurrence than a biological 'glitch'. Leaving aside the fact that this completely ignores the 'choice' argument, it's more complex than that. Research has revealed that there is also significant variation in the brain structures and connections between them between heterosexual and homosexual members of the same gender. Men typically show greater hemispherical asymmetry than woman (in lay terms, they use one half of the brain more than the other, which might underlie the whole 'single minded/multitasking' gender disparity). Interestingly, this asymmetry is also present in homosexual women. Contrastingly, women and gay men share a more balanced hemispherical usage. There are also noticeable differences in functional connections between the brain regions, such as gay men and straight women having more widespread connections from the left amygdala to

the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate. Contrastingly, straight men and gay women have more connections from the right amygdala to the caudate, putamen, and prefrontal cortex. The brain is quite an incredibly impressive organ (I would say that, given my background), but this persistent and regularly occurring extensive wiring difference between the sexual preferences of the same gender is far too common and complex to simply be a recurring 'glitch'.

Long story short, homosexuals seemingly show brains structure and development that is more commonly associated with the opposite sex, which is sort of what you'd expect to see. And if some angry priest or right-winger tells you that someone from one gender having features associated with another is sick, wrong or unnatural, remember that his argument is entirely void if he has nipples.

Clearly, homosexuality has a use, otherwise gay people wouldn't still be around in such numbers. There are many evolutionary psychology theories as to the roles homosexuality plays/played in our developing culture and societies. Social bonding, better interaction between same-sex groups, a means of keeping population rates down in times of scarcity, inter-gender relationship building, and so on. I don't know how many, if any, of these theories have any validity, but there's a certain logic to all of them.

I sincerely doubt that there's one underlying aspect that underpins all homosexuality, and attempts to find one are likely to be misguided. I've discussed this 'complex behaviour must have a simple source' in relation to neuroscience in some depth previously. I read 'The Eternal Child' by Clive Bromhall. An interesting, if somewhat flawed, account of how everything about human society can be explained by paedomorphosis (which isn't as bad as it sounds, it means evolution takes 'short cuts' by exploiting the features and properties of children, such as humans having the smooth skin and upright stance of pre-adolescent chimps). He argues that homosexuals are the result of the same-sex bonding phase we experience in childhood, but achieving sexual maturity without going beyond that. This must be why all gay men despise women and never go near them. And all lesbians clearly despise men… actually, scratch that last one.

So clearly there are evolved neurobiological properties that give rise to homosexuality. And the research suggests that these are the result of variations in hormones and other developmental factors that occur during pregnancy or during the neonatal phases. Even if we could somehow consciously choose to drastically alter our biological features to support a sexual preference that comes encumbered with relentless persecution from psychotic idiots, that idea that we do it before birth, or before we develop the ability to sit up straight, or before we gain the ability to not have to spend long periods sat in our own copious bodily waste, seems to me to reaaaallllly stretch the definition of 'informed decision', to the point where it's not a choice at all.

So yeah. Science strongly suggests that homosexuality is the result of natural biological process beyond our control. There's plenty more research than I've covered here, and maybe everything I've referenced was flawed in some way? That's always a danger though, and that way madness lies. But if you're still reading this, well done, and next time someone says that homosexuality is a choice you can hopefully provide some proper data as to why they're wrong. They probably won't listen, but you'll have done what you can.

Just remember, science says Homosexuality is not a choice, it's just a naturally occurring facet of the complex and varied gestalt that is humanity.

I'm not sure if this applies to bisexuals though. They're probably just slags*

* = bisexuals are obviously not slags. Any suggestion that they are is wrong and pig headed. My reference to it was a blatant joke regarding the fact that I'd spent so long in criticising and condemning homophobia in any form that the fact that I myself was prejudiced against a group of people with a specific sexual preference would be ridiculously ironic. But some people have reminded me that there is such a thing as Biphobia, a prejudice they encounter from both straight and gay people, hence this clarification; Bisexuality is just another form of sexual dimorphism, and they should not now or ever be subjected to criticism, abuse, prejudice, or anything else based on their sexuality.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

SCIENCE NEWS ROUND-UP: 2010

A round-up of the most significant science stories from the year 2010

World’s Largest Particle Betting Pool Nearing Conclusion

Scientists at the World’s largest Particle accelerator (The Large Hadron Collider, LHC) recently announced that they were closer than ever to finding an eventual winner of the world’s largest betting pool concerning elementary quantum particles.

“We’re all getting really excited about the eventual discovery of the ‘God particle’” says leading physicist Professor Brian Delacour. ‘The pool’s been running since before the collider was built, but since then both the theory and the technology have really come along drastically, so we have been able to really expand the number of eventual candidates for the ultimate particle and really flesh out the betting pool.

According to most scientists, the particle that gives rise to mass, the aforementioned ‘God particle’, is the Higgs Boson, although this is yet to be conclusively proven. It is this proof that many of the largest particle accelerators are attempting to discover. When asked about this, Professor Delacour said ‘of course, the Higgs Boson is the most likely candidate, but that option was picked out of the hat by a San-Franciscan at a conference in 2003. He’s not even a physicist, he’s a conservationist or something, but you know how pissed people can get at conferences, nobody had a clue at the time. So now we’re hoping to discover the most elementary particle is not the Higgs, but something a bit more exotic again. Anything so that jammy bastard doesn’t walk away with the prize fund“

When asked whether this was the noblest aim for experiments using equipment costing billions, Professor Delacour was surprisingly frank. “Of course it isn’t, but then to be honest, we probably stopped finding out generally useful things sometime in the mid-80’s, so now gambling and spite are the main motivators for us carrying on. I’m not optimistic about my chances, I’ll be honest. A few of my colleagues have drawn things like types of quark or neutrinos as the most fundamental components of matter. What do I get? Odd socks! That would help iron out some issues in the whole missing-matter problem, but I reckon it’s a long shot. My co-investigator got Styrofoam pellets, and there’s a Swiss quantum theorist lecturer who got potpourri. We all had a good laugh and that, but we’re not really feeling as motivated as we once were, and that’s a fact’.

When asked when he expected a winner of the pool to be announced, Professor Delacour was noncommittal. “Knowing this thing, it could be anytime from tomorrow to twenty years from now”, he said, before vigorously thumping the section of the LHC he was stood beside for emphasis. “We’ve got to keep it at close to absolute zero. Every time it suffers a glitch we have to reboot the whole bloody thing, and that takes about 14 months. It’s like Windows Vista, but colder.

When asked, Professor Delacour revealed that the prize fund for the particle betting pool currently stands at 458 Euro (£391). “It’s the biggest in the world, but that’s not saying much given the subject matter. Hah! ‘Subject Matter’! I’m writing that down!” He then ran off to find a pencil.

Ancient humans “not quite as Genocidal as first thought” say Palaeontologists

Although assumed to be responsible for the untimely extinction of every species to suffer such a fate, recent discoveries by palaeontologists suggest that one of the more famous extinct species, Woolly Mammoths, may have died out as a result of its own incompetence.

Doctor Michael Lalsow, Head of Prehistoric Studies at the Institute for Anthropology in Inverness, welcomed the findings. “It seems to be taken as read that ancient humans were savage insatiable killers and all other creatures were noble, wise beasts, perfectly in tune with nature. However, research now suggests that primitive humans were weedy half-formed idiots and other animals were lumbering vacuous morons that evolved themselves into unsustainable predicaments”.

Recent research has revealed that mammoths died out as a result of the depletion of grasslandsfollowing the end of the ice age, rather than excessive hunting by contemporary humans. “It’s ironic when you think about it, people complain about deforestation in order to raise cattle, but it was reforestation that killed off even bigger grazing quadrupeds, so if anything the forests are just reaping what they sew. That’s an agriculture joke there, by the way, so it works on two levels” Dr Laslow reassured us.

Dr Laslow also admitted to always being sceptical about the original overhunting hypothesis. “You ever seen a mammoth? About 7 tons of angry orange fur and giant tusks. It’ll take more than a dimly aware primate waving a stick to bring one of them down, let alone ALL of them. They’re not like Pandas; they wouldn’t need round-the-clock attention just to make sure they don’t shit themselves to death after eating the wrong kind of twig. If they hadn’t been so dependent on grass they would still be around today. My mother always said, ‘stay away from that grass! It’ll be the death of you!’ I used to think she meant the ‘grass’ as in drugs, but then she was massive with orange hair as well, so maybe it was racial memory.’

However, not everyone is so eager to dismiss the overhunting philosophy. A contrasting view was put forward by Buck McChickford, professional hunter and president of the Sarah Palin Fan club (Wyoming chapter).

“My great-grand daddy brought down at least 5 o’ them woolly mammoths in the winter of ’38 using nuttin’ but his old colt and a fishin’ pole. Had to build a bigger cabin just to mount the heads.” When asked how this could be true when mammoths largely died out around 10,000 years ago, Mr McChickford laughed and pointed out that this ‘were plum stupid, boy! God only gone done made the world some six ‘hunnerd years ago’. This argument continued, but the rest was unintelligible. When asked if he’d ever killed a mammoth himself, Mr McChickford replied by saying “You callin’ me a Queer?” before scratching his unfeasibly large and suspiciously sock-like genitals.

Brain Scans Reveal Direct Link between Enthusiasm for Brain Scans and Scientific Incompetence

Recent studies have shown that the more impressed a researcher is by brain imaging techniques, the more likely they are to produce studies and data that are about as useful as a rice-paper catheter. A metastudy conducted on a substantial body of recently published papers revealed an inverse relationship between a), a researcher’s reliance on impressive brain scanning techniques in their research, and b), their ability to make even the vaguest sense of all the cool flashing lights they’re looking at.

This came as no surprise to many experts in the field of Neuroscience. Doctor James Van Johnson, head of Cerebrology at the Maidenhead School of Brain Biology, explains.

“The technology to study living, functioning brains was a very important breakthrough in neuroscience. However, it’s important to remember that it’s a painfully complex process requiring extensive analysis and data collection before we can even achieve results beyond that offered by random guessing”. However, many recent studies have reportedly used neuroimaging techniques to link certain behaviours and traits with specific brain regions. When asked if he took issue with these studies, Dr Van Johnson responded by swearing profusely. When he had calmed down (which took 73 minutes, including coffee breaks), the following conversation occurred.

“Do you know what an active brain looks like?” asked Dr Van Johnson. Our reporter suggested that it was probably a warmer, leakier version of an inactive brain, which is reminiscent of a dense grey blancmange trying to impersonate a walnut.

“Fair point yes” agreed Dr Van Johnson, “But I meant on an imaging scanner? It depends on the technique you use of course, there are several, but it’s generally all over the place. That whole thing about us using ‘only 10% of the brain’ is complete bollocks, we use all of it all the time, and that’s reflected in a scan. To find a significant level of activity in a certain area in response to a certain process, that takes substantial time and effort. But some people just see the cool flashing colours that represent someone’s thoughts and they assume it must be like reading a book. Not even a proper book with normal words, but some sort of brightly coloured Fisher-price book, about the alphabet or a monosyllabic story about a dog. An inflatable one that you can take in the bath, at that. Well, it’s not, it’s a damn sight more complicated than that. I have a PhD in this sort of thing, I would know.”

Other researchers, however, disagree with the findings of the metastudy and intend to pursue the use of brain imaging techniques in studies linking bits of brain with hard-to-define abstract behaviours. Recent papers have linked enlarged amygdalas with expanded social circles, political views with differing brain structures, meditation with an above-average sized hippocampus, and a more densely-innervated Shatner’s Bassoon with a love of dark satirical comedies.

“It’s a whole new paradigm” said Doctor Terence ‘Moonbeam’ Gustafson, a researcher in Neuroholistic tendencies at the University of Omnicultural Research (online only). “With this technology we can see directly into the mind, into the psyche, and eventually, into the soul. We are morally obligated to use this technology to take science beyond the crusty neo-fascist restrictions of the established institutions and into the realms of spirituality and oneness”. When asked if he believed the use of scanning technology could ‘bring Phrenology into the 21^stcentury’, Dr Gustafson said “Yes! Yes exactly! That’s precisely what we’re doing here”. When it was pointed out that phrenology was based on scientifically unfounded theories and widely discredited during the 19^th century, he added “except for that bit”.

Other researchers also object to Dr Van Johnson’s views. Professor Harold Wyszynski, of the Brain Imaging Centre for Investigative Studies in Detroit, wished to give his views on why brain imaging techniques are both crucial and informative for research. In order to demonstrate this effectively, he insisted that the interview be conducted from an MRI machine and that we derive the answers to the questions from the images produced by his brain. When asked why he felt brain imaging techniques were so useful, his answer was BLUE FLASH-GREEN FLASH-YELLOW BLUR-RED FLASH-BLUE SPLODGE SHIFTING INTO GREEN SPLODGE-LARGE DARK GREY STRIPE-BLUE SPIRALLY THING-GREEN FLASH-ORANGE PULSE-BLUE FLASH-LOCALISED BLUE FLASH. He then sneezed and the scanner needed to be recalibrated.

Moon Landing Conspiracy Gets Even More Elaborate

More than 40 years after the original conspiracy to convince the world that man had landed on the moon was initiated, NASA continue to add yet more layers of complexity and detail to this ludicrous but far-reaching notion that humans are capable of travelling to Earth’s natural satellite.

The most recent addition to the vast body of fabricated data that supposedly supports the possibility of a moon landing is the ‘discovery’ of large bodies of water ‘on the moon’. Professional moon-landing debunker Keith Armstrong stated that “this is just yet another example of the elaborately concocted fiction by NASA in order to perpetuate the myth that humans are somehow capable of travelling to the moon”. When asked why he thought it was that numerous international scientific bodies not affiliated with NASA or the US government were treating the information as genuine, Mr Armstrong stated that “That’s exactly how they do things. They buy off all these scientific groups and bodies so they’ll back up their lies. That way NASA gets to keep their budget”. When it was pointed out that NASA’s budget wouldn’t even come close to enough for bribing that many international scientific bodies, Mr Armstrong pointed out that “they’re cunning, you see. They planted that water on the moon in order to fool the scientific community into supporting their agenda”.

When asked about the logical paradox behind the contention that NASA went to the moon in order to perpetuate the myth that they went to the moon, Mr Armstrong accused our reporter of being ‘one of them!’ and ejected them from the premises. Further attempts to contact him for a quote proved unsuccessful, possibly due to a combination of his tin foil hat and poor phone signal in his mother’s basement where he lives.

Other sources take a more optimistic view of the alleged findings. Doctor Nathaniel Price, Conspiracologist at the Centre for Bizarre Beliefs (Surrey), suggests that there is great potential in the claim of discovering water on the moon.

“The nature of the moon-landing conspiracy means it has endured for some considerable time, despite the limited material available from the 60’s and 70’s for effective debunking, which has been repeatedly assessed countless times over the intervening decades and is in danger of growing stale. This new development could lead to a much more extensive volume of claims and data to refute. Moon bases, established communities on the lunar surface, regular transit of the Earth-Moon distance, structures that would be clearly visible from the Earth’s surface with any decent telescope, there are so many possibilities offered by this latest development for conspiracy theorists to vociferously deny in the face of considerable evidence. This ‘discovery’ could breathe new life into the moon-landing debunkers conspiracy, and fire up a great deal more interest and investment for the 21^st century. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have the New World Order on the other line…”

Rationalists Suffer Side Effects after Poorly Judged Alt-Med Protest

Alternative medicine practitioners claimed vindication this week after a large group of skeptic protestors were discovered to have suffered serious side effects after a coordinated mass-overdose of homeopathic remedies back in January. The original point of the protest was to demonstrate that the mass-produced alternative medications have no active ingredients and thus cannot lead to overdose or side effects, but pro-homeopathy experts now claim that the protest has backfired.

“The argument that they have no harmful side effects is only valid in terms of accepted medical definitions. However, as homeopathy is clearly an alternative medicine, then logically it would have ALTERNATIVE side effects that differ to standard medicine” claims professional alternative medicine proponent Harrison Ford (no relation). He then went on to detail the significant alternative side-effects suffered by the protestors.

“An excess of homeopathic remedies can have dangerously powerful soporific effects. As such, it’s highly likely that nearly 100% of the protestors will have experienced prolonged periods of unconsciousness, around 7-9 hours on average, within 24 hours of their overdose. In many cases, this can be compounded by some form of minor respiratory obstruction, resulting in excessive noise production of a nasal/throaty sort during the unconscious period. This is most commonly experienced in males”

Mr Ford also pointed out that the benign, alternative mode of action of alternative remedies meant the side-effects occur outside the usual time frames. “Unlike harsh, dangerous traditional medicines, alternative medicines have a more subtle action, and as such most ill effects will take a while to occur, which is why it only looked like they didn’t happen to the impatient protestors. For example, the positive energies resulting from homeopathic remedies mean the immune system is less active and so becomes sedentary, and this means that the protestors will have become more susceptible to viruses. I’ll be many of them suffered some form of cold or similar infection between 0 to 2 or 10 to 12 months of their overdose. But not so much outside their time frames. Outside of those times, the homeopathic remedies will have built up in the skin cells, so they would have, around 6-8 months of the overdose, found the skin on their arms and faces to be browner/redder than normal. The areas of skin normally covered by clothing won’t have been affected as much because of science”.

“Women in particular may have found themselves suffering serious ill-effects for several days every month since the overdose. They may claim that this had been occurring for many years before the overdose, but this overlooks the fact that homeopathic remedies work retroactively; they cure illnesses you suffered before taking them, which means they didn’t happen at all. That’s how good they are”

“In extreme cases, a homeopathic overdose has been known to lead to an insatiable desire to appear on radio talk shows and other media outlets in order to criticise homeopathy. This is because their bodies are subconsciously rejecting to the presence of homeopathic agents but do not know what to do about it”

Several sceptical activists were contacted for comment, but all of them just laughed at our reporters. Renowned Placebologist and raconteur Dr A. A. Alan was also contacted via email, but declined to answer any questions. He did, however, wish us a happy new year and assured us he would ‘be back in the office on January 3^rd’.

“I am not playing God!” insists bearded, thunderbolt-wielding Scientist

Despite claiming to have created the world’s first synthetic organism and the subsequent backlash, Dr Craig Venter insisted that he is in no way playing God, in an interview conducted while Dr Venter was dressed in white robes and sat on a large golden throne.

“The accusations being thrown at me are ludicrous” he asserted, “Granted, I have created a completely novel life form, this life form would definitely not exist without me, so therefore I gave it life, and if it were to develop in complexity to the point where it could think and reason then it would be unsurprising if it eventually came to recognise me as its creator and worship me accordingly. I certainly didn’t have this in mind when I performed this ‘Genesis’, if you will, but if it should come about then I certainly wouldn’t interfere, because that’s not how science works”.

Periodically, when confronted with a question he didn’t like, Dr Venter proceeded to shock the interviewer with his fingers, using a nearby Van de Graaff generator to create ‘lightning’. When asked how he responded to accusations that these synthetic life forms could be dangerous, Dr Venter was dismissive.

“Yes yes, old news. Every possible scientific advance has led to the old ‘possible dangers’ accusation, and it’s always people themselves who are the deciding factor in whether something is harmful or not. Now these life forms I’ve created, they won’t do anything deliberately dangerous”. It was asked if this was due to the fact that they are single-celled organisms currently confined to a Petri dish. In response, Dr Venter became visibly uncomfortable and adopted an expression that could be described as ‘vengeful’.

“For now” he admitted, portentously. “But these life forms could develop to unprecedented levels of sophistication. But there’s nothing to worry about, if it turns out they display dangerous behaviours, I’ll instruct them to resist their natural tendencies. See, what’s God-like about that?”

Following an awkward pause, Dr Venter continued “The potential of these life-forms in astounding. We could create medical breakthroughs that are unthinkable to modern science. We could take a damaged organ and they could synthesise a new one, no matter how complex. An eye for an eye, and all that. There’s nothing God-like about what I’m doing here, although I’ll wage war on anyone who tries to copy me. No others other than me, that’s my motto. Anyway, God doesn’t exist, and I do, so if anything I’m better than God.”

When asked if he had any advice for people who were still worried about the potential dangers of his synthetic life forms, Dr Venter gave us a set of crucial instructions for the safe use of his discovery. He urged us to tell everyone about these instructions, despite the fact that they were carved into large stone blocks. He then kicked us out of his elaborate garden.

Dr Venter would like us to point out that his original request to conduct the interview via flaming shrubbery proved unworkable.

Celebrities in “Knowing absolutely piss-all about anything Scientific” shocker

Recent revelations have shocked the scientific community to its core in no way whatsoever by showing that many celebrities hold views that are not only unscientific, but are barely consistent with reality on the most basic of levels. Some of the more wacky celebrity theories and views include wearing bracelets that improve strength and fitness, reabsorbing sperm to improve combat prowess, eating charcoal to mop up ‘toxins’, and worshipping a zombie carpenter who existed 2000 years ago. None of these things have any basis in science, but then neither do the majority of celebrities.

“It’s hardly surprising when you think about it” says Professor Eugene Schmembly, head of optically-compromising widespread data at the Devon University of Humanology (DUH). “Your typical celebrity is someone who’s paid extravagant sums to knock a ball about in some specific fashion, which doesn’t really encourage much rational thinking, or get’s paid extravagant sums to convincingly pretend that a situation or occurrence which demonstrably isn’t real actually is real, and that actively discourages rational thinking. Of course there are also the celebrities who are famous for willingly revealing oversized body parts, but if you rely on them for important information then you deserve everything you get, frankly. If I want medical advice, I go to a qualified doctor, but if you’d rather consult the woman who was in Grease 30 years ago, a coronation street actor or some mindless thug with a thyroid problem who’s only famous for marrying a woman with so many silicone implants she probably qualifies as a cyborg, then be my guest. But don’t expect me to mourn your removal from the gene pool”

Given the relative scarcity of celebrity scientists and the seeming abundance of celebrities who hold unscientific views, is there something about celebrity itself that promotes unscientific thinking? Professor Schmembly believes that there may.

“I’m not a celebrity myself so can’t speak from a completely informed viewpoint, but from what I’ve seen and heard, most celebrities are overly pampered vacuous airheads who get paid ridiculous fees for doing nothing of consequence and are constantly surrounded by people agreeing with whatever they say for fear of them ever being told they’re wrong about something. But again, that’s just my opinion. In these circumstances, it’s understandable that you’d end up thinking that your own opinions are significant enough to alter the fabric of the universe in order to accommodate them, rather than what they really are; meaningless guff spouted by someone whose existence has actually depleted from the pool of human knowledge.”

Professor Schmembly’s application to be in the final series of Big Brother was rejected, and his unicycle act never made it to the live showing of Britain’s Got Talent, but he insists he isn’t bitter about it.

Bacteria sue NASA for Libel in landmark legal case

In what is sure to be a groundbreaking event in legal history, a group of bacteria from Mono Lake, California, are suing the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) for libel, after misrepresenting them in the mainstream media.

According to preliminary reports, the bacteria in question were “grievously offended” and suffered “considerable mental anguish” after NASA held a press conference and engaged with international media where they claimed that the bacteria in question were able to ‘thrive on arsenic’, instead of the more traditional phosphorous, which is essential for numerous critical cellular processes.

Although the American legal system does not have any provisions for allowing a federal institution to be sued by single-celled organisms, the fact that the press coverage was international allowed the offended bacteria to take advantage of English libel laws, which are notoriously complex and archaic, to the point where they take into account periods before multi-cellular life occurred.

A spokesman on behalf of the law firm representing the bacteria (Carter-Ruck) made the following statement.

“Our clients were grievously offended by the accusation that they thrived on the poisonous chemical arsenic, which as most scientists have realised, is incorrect. They were not permitted any opportunity to put their own views or claims across, they were not consulted as to this veracity of this statement, they did not give their express consent to be removed from their natural habitat and studied extensively but incorrectly before arriving at the erroneous, slanderous conclusion. By making the aforementioned claims, our clients have found themselves ostracised from every other known life form on Earth. They have even struggled to find legal representation, but thankfully Carter-Ruck have never shied away from representing poisonous, subhuman claimants”.

A spokesman for the campaign for libel reform had this to say, “The fact that this case can be brought before the courts at all reveals how badly the English libel system needs to be overhauled. In order to be more in-keeping with modern society, it should be limited to Eukaryotic organisms at the very least.”

(All Science News Updates can be found HERE)

Most of the above never happened. It's an attempt at satire. Just so you know.

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

Twitter: @garwboy