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

PhDamaged

I've never had a problem with the Royal Mail. I've always used their services with minimal fuss before, and I've always found myself sympathising with the postal staff when whatever smarmy dick in government cuts their funding, criticises them and generally hamstrings their ability to provide a decent service in what appears to be a rather transparent effort to force the Royal Mail into privatisation.

However, something happened recently as a result of a postal service employee that I can't actually overlook, and have decided that I really must lodge a complaint about it. Of course, I don’t expect anything to be done as a result of my complaining, so I thought I'd share it with the general public (or the select few who actually read this guff), so that at least the incident will be known about.

Here's my complaint, in all its dweeby glory.

"Dear Sir/Madam

Although I have never before had any particular grievance with the Royal Mail that ranks above a moderate irritation, I am sad to say that this is no longer the case. I am writing to you to register a serious complaint regarding a recent delivery I received at my Cardiff Bay address. The rather complex and surprisingly verbose guide to making a complain found on the Royal mail website states that, when submitting a complaint in writing, I should be as detailed as possible. I shall warn you now that, in this case, that may have been an ill-judged request on your part. So, here goes.

Last week I was away for a 5 day period, from the 7th to the 11th of February. My wife and I, who also lives at the same address for obvious reasons, went to Rome as part of her 30th Birthday celebrations. Yes, we had a very nice time, thanks for asking. One restaurant we visited had run out of mussels for the dish I wanted, and my wife did step in some particularly pungent dog 'mess' one evening (suggesting that Italian pet food is also much richer and varied than typical British offerings, but this one encounter provided insufficient data for such a generalisation), but apart from these incidents it was a very enjoyable time.

We returned to the UK at around 2pm on Friday the 11th, landing at Bristol and making our way back to Cardiff. After navigating the baffling route from this low-key airport, encountering numerous delays offered by Friday afternoon traffic along the seemingly perpetual but constantly unoccupied road works on the M4 between Newport and Cardiff, and stopping at a nearby Asda to stock up on perishables that weren't readily available in Italy and/or suitable for transporting via suitcases in the hold of a passenger jet (e.g. Bread, semi-skimmed milk, explosive materials), we arrived back at our address around 3.30pm.

As we live in a multi-story block of flats, our mailbox is located at the rear of our building, in the car park by the back entrance. As a result, we always check our relatively low-capacity mailbox before entering the building. In this case, we were encumbered by 3 suitcases (one of which weighed over 20 kg, according to the Easyjet check-in desk in the Roman airport) and 5 bags of shopping, which we had to carry up 3 flights of stairs. I had also just spent nearly 3 hours driving after a 2.5 hour flight, so was in a rather 'frazzled' state, shall we say. So perhaps you can appreciate that my reaction to what I found in the mailbox was remarkably restrained in the circumstances.

As I said, we had been away for several days, and it was the week of my wife's 30th Birthday. As a result, the mailbox was relatively full. It was mostly birthday cards, several bills, some official correspondence from my wife's workplace, and general flyers and advertising material from local businesses (coincidentally, regarding our recent holiday destination, the latter were mostly from Pizza delivery outlets).

However, among this predictable collection of mail, there was a large, stiff card-backed envelope wedged to one side. Here is what it looked like (minus the other mail, for clarity)

It doesn't look great, I'll admit, but if it won't fit I guess there is no alternative but to force it in and hope for the best (although I would suggest you avoid using this phrase as a defence in court, just so you know).

However, a closer inspection proved to be a very infuriating experience. Here is a clear view of the front of the envelope.

In case of any problems with the hosting or formatting of these images, I'll describe the envelope in detail so we both know what I'm referring to. The top left corner features a label with the return address, which is the registry office of Cardiff University. Under this, in slightly faint red letters, are stamped the words 'First class'. I'm not sure the expense of first class is meant to rule out the 'jam it in a too-small space and hope for the best' style of delivery, so I won't question that. Just above the centre is a smaller label with my name and home address on it. The most prominent feature of the envelope is to the bottom left, where the words 'Please do not bend' are stamped in large, clear red letters. This phrase is, in this context, quite ironic, being as it is quite visibly presented below a blatant large fold right across the centre of the envelope, which undeniably results from the envelope having been severely bent in order to get it into the mailbox, when it was delivered by someone whose job it is to deliver mail safely and correctly.

The photo also features my left hand, my mailbox and those of my neighbours, and part of the building car park. I believe these details are irrelevant.

This 'Do not bend' envelope that had been bent was alarming and frustrating. Despite the fact that a large and reputable institution like Cardiff University had gone to the effort of sending whatever this was in via first class in a hard-backed envelope (as is made clear by even the most cursory inspection of it), I could only hope that it was something unimportant.

Here is what was inside it.

In case it's not made clear by the picture, the envelope contained a certificate. Specifically, it contained my PhD certificate, the legal document which states that, after 5 years of research, study, writing and infuriating delays, I am now officially a doctor. I need this document to prove to the passport office, my bank, the DVLA and numerous other students that my title is has now, by law, changed from, or 'Mr.' to 'Dr.' (or 'Mister' to 'Doctor' if, as 'the Dude' said in 'The Big Lebowski', you're not into the whole brevity thing).

My PhD has been subjected to many delays, resulting from lab shutdowns, numerous re-writes, questionable decisions by external examiners, and other factors. As a result, I have effectively been waiting for this document for over 18 months. To finally receive it, but have it treated with such blatant disdain and lack of care by a member of the postal service was quite galling (although I had to admit it was rather ironically symbolic of the way my PhD efforts have been treated by external agencies, but that's another matter)

As said, this certificate is an important document legally. I've not heard back from my enquiries about how much it would cost to get a replacement, but it's not likely to be cheap. A replacement birth certificate costs to replace, and those are far more common, and my PhD certificate took a lot more work to obtain than my birth certificate (although my mother may dispute this conclusion).

I have struggled to come up with a logical explanation for why a postal employee would actively damage an extremely important piece of mail that did not belong to them in clear contradiction of the blatant instructions presented on the package itself, and have failed to do so. I have come up with and ruled out several options. These are listed here, as are my reasons for dismissing them. If you feel I have made a logical error then please feel free to correct me.

So, why would they do this?

1: The Postman felt the package was too urgent to take back to the depot? Although a potentially well-intended action, this doesn't really excuse the damage to my document. If the postman was forward thinking enough to predict I would require the document with some urgency, he would presumably have had the wherewithal to notice that there were several other pieces of mail already in the mailbox from previous deliveries (this delivery is postmarked 10-02-2011, the day before we returned home). I appreciate that he may have considered this delivery important enough to risk damaging in spite of the obvious instructions, and in spite of the fact that I clearly wasn't collecting my mail at present, but that's not his decision to make.

2: The Postman felt that taking the package back to the depot was a bit excessive and unnecessarily costly? Again, potentially well meant, but not really his decision to make, even if it was for my benefit. And in all honesty, this would run contrary to previous experiences I've had with packages from Royal Mail. Most recently I received a 'failed to deliver' card, and was made to drive to the main depot and pay the excess on what was declared 'a package'. What it was was a small envelope with a thank you card from a friend based in Oxford whom I had recently done a talk for. She sent me the card, but it was deemed too big to be considered a letter because it contained the cap from my USB stick which I had mistakenly left behind. The cap had the dimensions and weight of a slightly-thicker-than-average thumbnail, but this was still considered too big to be delivered. So you can hopefully understand my being sceptical of a postman willing to deliver something which is clearly much larger than the hole it has to go into.

3: The postman was angry with me for some reason: The damaged delivery may have been due to malicious intent. Admittedly, there have been several times before when a delivery has been too big for my letterbox and the postman has contacted me via the building intercom, and there is usually a delay between me answering and arriving at the letterbox, but this is because I live on the 3rd floor and we don't have a lift. If this relatively minor delay is deemed sufficient reason to damage my property, then I'm somewhat stuck as, aside from bodily hurling myself down the 3 flights of stairs, I can't see a way to get down there faster than I already do. Even if I did do that, I doubt I'd be in any fit state to sign for packages by the time I got to the bottom. I suppose it's possible that it's traditional to tip postmen at Christmas as is the norm with dustmen, but as I rarely ever encounter the postmen I have no idea how I would go about doing this, and it still isn't really an excuse to damage my documents.

4: The postman responsible can't actually read: It's feasible that the postman who delivered the document damaged it because he couldn't read the instructions telling him not to. However, if this is the case, then he would also have been unable to read the much smaller and less clear information regarding the address, so usually just guesses which items should be delivered where. In this situation, the fact that I actually received the document addressed to me at all should be considered an occurrence so unlikely that it actually constitutes a miracle. If you find the postman in question, can you ask him for a guess regarding this week's lottery numbers? At the very least, contact the Vatican so he can be canonised after he dies.

5: The postman is blind and could not see the letterbox: If this is the case, the argument from the previous possibility is just as valid, if not more so. But it begs the question of how he knew to fold it to fit into the smaller hole, if he is blind? I can only hope that he wasn't the one driving the van if this possibility turns out to be correct.

In summary, I received a highly important, legally essential and long overdue (but the latter was nothing to do with you) document that was specifically labelled with instructions to treat with care and specifically not to bend, which was treated with no apparent care, bent rather severely and inserted into an already rather full mailbox.

The certificate is, after all this, intact. I could feasibly leave it under some heavy books or iron it in some way and it would be usable, but I shouldn't have to do this and it is quite scuffed after the delivery. This certificate, which took me an incredible amount of time, effort and expense to obtain, would usually be displayed quite prominently in my home (or, as is more likely, my mother's home) for the for the rest of my life, but it was damaged before I even saw it thanks to the manner in which it was delivered.

I don't really anticipate much being done about this, but I felt it necessary to lodge a formal complaint in case it happens again. I have several friends who work in medicine, and if they were to be sent important but delicate patient scans which were damaged in this manner, it could cost some their life.

Actually, I can't think of any circumstance where crucial patient scans would be sent to a doctors home via Royal mail, so please ignore that previous attempt to introduce some gravitas to this complaint.

I sincerely doubt anything will actually come of this complaint beyond someone being told not to do it again. But I feel I should let you know that this has also been posted to my bizarrely popular blog so that people know it is something that can occur when they send potentially important packages. It's a final, bitter irony that, as a result, it's almost certain that more people will read this complaint than will ever read the thesis that got me the PhD (and subsequently the certificate) in the first place.

Yours sincerely

Dean Burnett"

My THIRD application for a job as a Homeopath

I really should stop doing this, I've tried it twice already.

But then, NHS Tayside (or possibly Dundee in this case, it's not clear, Scotland at any rate) are persisting with squandering the ever-diminishing supply of public funds on homeopathy which, I think it may have been mentioned elsewhere, has a limited degree of effectiveness, shall we say.

This time they're after a Homeopathy Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS)

So, as a good scientist/skeptic, I feel duty bound to waste a bit of their time, if they seem so hell-bent on wasting so much of anyone else's, with yet another a mildly-amusing satirical application. Once again, when it comes to the statement in support of the application, this is genuinely what I've put. Enjoy.

Statement in support of application

I believe I would be an excellent candidate for the position of Homeopathic Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS), for the following variety of reasons.

Firstly, although I am not qualified homeopath (in the same way that I am not a certified Vampire Hunter), I am a qualified doctor of Neuroscience, which means I have an in-depth level of understanding of the central nervous system, which is also commonly referred to using the acronym CNS. Not only that, I also HAVE a fully functioning CNS. So I have a CNS and know all about the CNS, which would logically make me doubly qualified to be employed as a CNS in your department.

As you can see, I am also highly skilled at taking disparate pieces of useless information and connecting them with wild leaps of logic before stating them as undeniable 'facts', an essential skill for anyone working in the homeopathic field.

If my name seems at all familiar, this is most likely because I applied for a similar position in the department at NHS Tayside several months ago, and was short-listed as an extremely promising candidate. In fact I was highly desired by those awarding the position, and the only reason I wasn't awarded the post was because my substantial relocation costs were beyond that available in the budget for such things. I have no doubt that those in charge of hiring there would have to avert their eyes from my majestic awesomeness and immediately found a religion in my name, should I ever be in the same room as them.

Admittedly, I have no evidence at all for this claim, it's just what I think. This shows that I would fit in very well with the department and patients as a whole, and become a cohesive member of the no-doubt spurious team.

Although I am not actually a fully or even partially qualified nurse, in the many months since my last application for a homeopathic position I have consumed a substantial amount of water. Although this was not a conscious attempt to undergo self improvement on my part, more a sustained effort to stop myself dying from dehydration (which has worked so far, in case you were wondering). As such it is undeniable that, given how the water cycle works, the liquid I consumed would no doubt have passed through the bodies of many nurses, so the memories of their skills and abilities would have been integrated into my system, very potently as dilution makes things stronger, of course.

Of course, I am being facetious, in an attempt to show off my brilliant bedside manner and people skills. For my urine-based memory transfer to work, the original nurse would have to be succussed in some way. However, I'd wager that a few nurses in this country have engaged in some of the more fetishist leather-striking activities (especially if they know my uncle Greg), which should provide the same effect. Failing that, some patients can be quite aggressive (e.g. if they find out they're not getting the real medicine they're entitled to in their conditions), and most hospitals seem to place a Gideon's bible in the bedside cabinet (the bible has healing powers I believe, but only if used as a suppository), so I'll wager forceful contact can have taken place between said holy book and an unlucky nurse, thus allowing succussion and my urine-memory-transfer process to occur.

I know this isn't how memory really works, but I'm wagering that that isn't an argument you really want to get in to.

I am committed to the administering of evidence-supported homeopathic treatments to patients in need. I am especially committed to this as I can do it while hiding in a store cupboard, reading graphic novels or whatever bizarre publications I find in the waiting rooms. I shall compensate for this lack of direct contact with the patients where required by sending out positive vibes to the entire hospital, a procedure which has been shown to be equally effective as homeopathy in treating illnesses, with the added benefit that it can be administered to many patients at once. I would only require a marginal increase in my pay for providing this service, so you would save money overall were you to offer me the position.

Although I have no official experience in the homeopathic nursing of patients, I am in fact considerably experienced in all standard methods of treatments of illness via homeopathy, so would be able to effectively treat and manage all manner of patients, unless their treatment is something other than water/sugar and a nice chat. Admittedly, this scenario is highly unlikely, but I thought I'd best mention it.

I am committed the the principle of providing quality care to patients and useful advice to other health practitioners. If necessary, I am willing to do this by not showing up for work, thus increasing the overall quality of assistance provided by the department. I would also be committed to conducting essential research into effective treatments to the high standards set by the Homeopathic communities. Ergo, any patient that doesn't get better will be hurled out of the nearest window if a real doctor or scientist happens to pass by. Should anyone wonder why all the beds are empty and all the windows open, I will assume they are in the pay of pharmaceutical companies, and scream at them until they leave out of sheer embarrassment. This is the standard of care and quality I would be willing to commit to if you offer me the position.

I am unsure as to whether or not this position requires me to be a woman (it is not stated, but nurses stereotypically are). If this is an issue, rest assured that 50% of my sex chromosomes are the same as those found in women. If this seems like a low amount, when you compare it to the recorded effectiveness of homeopathy, it's quite substantial.

I feel that these qualities and more make me an ideal candidate for the position advertised. I am a highly trained and qualified scientist, but I struggle to overcome this failing every day, and would like the opportunity to do so in a professional capacity.

P.S. I put 'Dr' Nancy Malik as one of my referees. I've never met her and strongly suspect she would not be in favour of my application, I just saw her title and just assumed she would be supportive of my arguments. If you do contact her, I really hope the irony of this is not lost on her.

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Gillian McKeith, from Science" (No. 21)

Seems like it needs doing, following the what looks like a 'Blaze of Glory' strategy adopted by Ms McKeith and/or her spokespeople following a rather pointless and potentially libellous Twitter faux pas (detailed here by the legendary Jack of Kent, someone who knows what they're doing in this regard).

"Dear Dr sorryImean Ms McKeith

Hello. It's me, the anthropomorphic representation of Science. I'm not sure how you'll react to this letter, as I confess to being somewhat confused as to what your general opinion of me actually is. You present and describe yourself as someone who works closely with me, but you treat any question or remark from my people with extreme hatred and bile, usually ending with legal threats and accusations of conspiracy ties. This is the sort of behaviour I find baffling; it's tantamount to spitting in Mick Jagger's face and calling him a washed up sell-out despite making your living as the lead singer of a tribute band called the Stowling Rones.

I don't get where you're coming from, is the long and short of it. You want to be taken seriously as a scientist? Are you not familiar with the phrase that begins with 'Do unto others...'? I confess that I think that may be one of Religion's sayings. I usually hesitate to use anything he's touched, but to hell with it; he's always trying to take my stuff from me. Evolution? You swear I'd pushed a burning pile of it through his letterbox, the way he carries on about it.

I digress. I understand if you wanted to be respected as a scientist, but here's the catch; you have to earn it. You can't just buy scientific knowledge over the net in exchange for a few dollars and a return envelope. You claim you've 'studied' for many years, but that's not really how it's done either. Astrologers have been studying the stars for thousands of years, but they still seem to have no clue how they work, or even what they are. And if you are going to persist in dressing up in a white coat and wandering around wearing safety goggles on TV, I will be expecting some royalties (I invented lab-chic, you know).

So you need to really earn your stripes with study and, more crucially, understanding before you can call yourself a scientist. I've heard that your supposed 'university' got closed down? I would offer my commiserations, but I'm afraid I can't, as to me it was like having a boil lanced. It seems weird to me that 'professional naturopaths' were critical of it too, it's like Scientologists criticising Kabbalah for being 'too weird'. But don't worry, if you want a diploma of equivalent or even greater value to the one from your original 'university', there are many ways to get one.

But I confess I do find your belligerence, your attitude and your misunderstanding of the most basic principles of biology quite alarming. But seeing as I am Science, I feel duty bound to offer my help and expertise to help you, and I think I have stumbled upon a possible cause for all the aforementioned issues. Although my psychologists point out that a lot of your characteristics are almost textbook examples of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, I have a different theory (and I think you've been in enough books as it is)

You have mentioned in the past how chlorophyll-rich food will oxygenate your blood. Ben Goldacre, one of my Illuminati, has explained in depth about how this is ridiculous as (amongst many other things) there is no light in your gut for photosynthesis. But I wonder if there is an exception for you? You seem to have the demeanour and approach of someone who has their anal sphincter in a permanently clenched state. I would be willing to believe that you have caused such a high level of pressure to build up in your intestine that the gasses that reside within it have been forced to undergo cold-fusion.

Effectively, you may have a small sun up your posterior. This would obviously be uncomfortable and damaging, hence your bizarre appearance and angry countenance. It would also explain why you think photosynthesis can occur in the intestine, as in yours it can. And when you first showed professional scientists your diploma and they told you you could 'stick it where the sun doesn't shine', that message would have been completely lost on you.

It all adds up. But if you would consider an intestinal solarectomy, I would happily point you in the right direction.

So please, consider this, I only mean to help you. You surely don't want another twitter-based debacle? I understand you tried to just get rid of something you produced, but people picked it apart and analysed it and criticised you for it. What sort of awful person would do such a thing? Don't know where they'd get such an idea from.

Enough with the massive hints, but please consider my offer. My door is always open to you. But leave your lawyer's outside, you've seen what happens when people bring them onto my turf.

Love and kisses

Science (BA hons)

P.S. That title next to my name is a joke, but then you'd know all about that.

email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

The 'From Science' Letters, Volume 1.

Greetings all. Given the unprecedented popularity of my originally flash-in-the-pan idea of writing letters 'From Science', I've collected the series thus far in one easily navigable blogpost. if you're new to the seres, please peruse and enjoy at your leisure. If you're an experienced reader,please relive the classics. Or read them again and realise that they were crap all along, and vow to never read any of my output ever again. Your choice entirely.

And please, feel free to leave feedback and suggest subjects for future letters/articles, I'm think I've addressed most of the more obvious targets, but am happy to be proven wrong.

1. Dear Media, from Science

2. Dear Homeopathy, from Science

3. Dear Astrology, from Science (and not forgetting the incredible reply; 'Dear Science, from Astrology')

4. Dear Economics, from Science

5. Dear Apple, from Science

6. Dear Advertising, from Science

7. Dear 'The Pope', from Science

8. Dear Antivaxxers, from Science

9. Dear Teaspoons, from Science

10. Dear Alternative Medicine, from Science

11. Dear Women, from Science

12. Dear British Association of Homeopathic retailers, from Science

13. Dear Scientology, from Science

14. Dear Chiropractors, from Science

15. Dear Light-Speed, from Science

16. Dear 'The Pope' (again), from Science

17. Dear Hollywood, from Science

18. Dear Conspiracy Theorists, from Science

19. Dear Joanne the Tour Guide, from Dean (sort of a guest post, written from my actual perspective)

20. Dear Andrew Wakefield, from Science

There we go, 6 months worth of pointless ranting. Here's to many many more.

Dean

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

"Dear 'The Pope', from Science" (No. 7)

Had to be done, really

Dear 'The Pope'

Is that accurate, calling you 'The Pope'? I think the word is Pontiff, but whenever I try to write that I keep saying 'Pointless', which I know would upset you, as you don't usually like it when I say things which are accurate.
It's me, the anthropomorphic personification of Science. I doubt you'll read this, you've never read any of my previous works. Even though we both have a tendency to use big Latin words in order to confuse people, I don't think we share similar reading preferences. My books tend to include figures and graphs, not so much stonings and miracles.

Also, I know I never said thanks for agreeing that the Big Bang theory is accurate, but having you agree with me actually undermines my argument more than anything, so would you mind just not getting involved from now on?
Actually, that was the last one wasn't it? Or was it several Popes ago? It's hard to keep track of you guys. Are you a Time Lord? Or is it one of those 'Dead Man's Shoes' situations? Or 'Dead Man's sacred ruby slippers', or whatever the hell those things are.

Anyway, to the point. You've been saying that having your people legally obliged to admit homosexuals violates 'natural law'? Say what now? What do you mean by 'natural law'? The laws of nature, which usually involves being killed and eaten by a superior physical specimen. I know some Gay people like to work out, but what do you think they'll do to you? Bring you down like a Gazelle and gnaw on your carcass? Although a potentially amusing scene, that's not what Gay people do. Any of them (despite your propaganda)

I ask because 'natural law' sounds like something that's under my jurisdiction, not yours. You take care of spirituality and all that, I'll take care of the laws of nature. And everything else of any use and importance.

I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about physics, I really can't see a law enforcing human rights violating the fundamental rules that govern space time. Are you suggesting that this policy disrupts biology? That the instinctive revulsion you feel towards homosexuality is natural, ergo attempting to suppress it is a violation of 'natural law'? Fair enough, so the suppression of natural inclinations is fundamentally wrong? Said the Pope? The POPE! A Catholic would be bad enough, but the POPE! From what I hear about what some of your lot get up to with the choirboys, they clearly agree with you.
I'm impressed in a way, you do set yourself some incredible challenges. I'm trying to save the planet, determine the fundamental structure of all reality and provide unlimited clean energy for all of mankind, but stopping teenage boys from masturbating? I know my limits.

Homosexuality is natural, by the way. This is true, because it exists. If it served no purpose, it wouldn't exist, it's not exactly a hereditary trait is it. If they were, as you say, 'not natural', evolution would have caused them to die out centuries ago. To say homosexuality is wrong is like say evolution doesn't occur!

Oh, wait.... Ah, I see what I did there.

Thing is though, you say evolution doesn't happen, and if evolution is summarised simply as organisms developing over time in order to ensure the survival of their genes, the homosexuality could be seen as counter evidence to this. So homosexuality must be an act of God. So which is it?

Or have I mixed you up with fundamentalists? I can never tell you lot apart. Either way, you're wrong. We all know it, stop trying to dress up your prejudice with nonsense terms you creepy old freak.

You need to relax mate. What you so worked up about? What would happen if you did allow homosexuals into the catholic church? You've been doing it for centuries. I know it sounds bad, the church would end up as some institution where women weren't allowed and all the men hung around together wearing elaborate clothes.

Yeah, sounds awful doesn't it.

Long story short, this anti-gay vitriol is a bit rich coming from a guy who (allegedly), to get his job, has to have his testicles squeezed by another man, in front of everyone.

It's not natural what you do. Ergo, by your logic, you shouldn't do it.

I know there hasn't been much in the way of scientific analysis in this letter, but that's usually a complete waste of time when I talk to you.

Stay out of my yard!

Science (BA hons)

P.S. If having an authority figure telling you what you can and can't do is so wrong, would it be OK if I got back to my stem cell work, and stuff like that? I'll just assume it is, shall I?

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

A reply! "Dear Science, from Astrology" (No. 3a)

Believe it or not, someone wrote a rather extensive reply to my original letter to Astrology.

Although not adopting the anthropomorphic personification viewpoint, it's still an exhaustive reply as to why Astrology is not just equal to but BETTER than Astronomy and science in General. The main basis for his claim seems to be-

1. Astrology is very old
2. It deals with the world beyond physics.

So yeah, not exactly subscribing to the rational viewpoint, but gives you a gist of what to expect.

A particular highlight is

"Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really"

Not really much that can be done with that.

Anyway, enjoy! (Also, latest letter is to advertising. Please feel free to keep the questions, suggestions and feedback coming. Like most scientists, I am dreadfully insecure)

"Hello. I'm ******. I think in old times some people have had knowledge
about the signs of the sky, like the people in India in the Indus valley
culture. They have had knowledge about the two invisible Moon nodes,
which they called Rahu and Ketu. That shows that they must have done
astronomy work. But I don't think, that this stuff is an object of
Neuroscience.



Astronomers? Yes, people called that a sect, they have separated
themselves from Astrology. Now they have nothing but formulas.



All night it is dark; I do not knew what people think about eclipses.



Well, I do not see any cause on the movement of the planets or the Moon.
It is said: "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause)
and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence
of the first." But to my knowledge no one ever have shown, that the
movement per example of the Moon is caused.



Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a
good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is
used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really. As one can
recognize, the colour of the sky is not real outside, it is, as you may
know a reality in a living consciousness.


If one accept it as true, what seems to be real, but isn't real, he
maybe is on the level of science. This as an big impact, because objects
of time, space, logic, music, harmony, algebra, brightness or colour
can be defined as evident, but not ever observed by the methods of
physics. And if this is to be recognized as true, it makes no different
whether one accept the nature of logic or the nature of a language like
French as true.



Well that are a lot of points you have come up with from your own
individual personal experience, but mostly all is not stuff of science,
but rumour.



I will try to pick your points up.



There are moving objects on the sky (and suns which do not move) like
the planets of our sun system. Relevant for the astrology are only the
moving objects and our sun. The sun is not really relevant, it is the
moving and rotating earth on their way around the sun. Because all
objects have a mass, a moving like an oscillation of a planet with a
frequency is because of the Planck constant an energy [eV] and because
this holds for all interacting movements like the rotation of the earth
surface with peoples, one can be understand, that it makes a different,
whether a body is placed in the east or in the west. Science people know
this effect as Doppler Effect. Because evidence is only to be
recognized, but not to show, like physical forces, and this is accepted
in the logic, in the music, and all other forms of evidence like algebra
or geometry, it is also possible to recognize the core of the language
of astro_logy like other languages. And of course it is no valid
argument, that a logic of a language like French has no evidence,
because it cannot be proved by the methods of physics; only he, who has
learned the language of French or astrology can speak valid scientific
arguments.



Predictions. If you know the astronomical algorithm for the
Earth/Sun/Moon system, you can predict a planetary constellation or an
eclipse of the Sun or the Moon. That is simple, because J. Kepler has
found out the relations of the undisturbed timeless motion.



In the core, astrology do not deals really with predictions of events,
but with the evidence of geometrical patterns (like music), which was
learned from the cycles of the moving objects. These patterns are
connected with the occurrence of a special mentality of born peoples,
which can be learned as evident. It seems like a mirror, that the
planetary pattern mirrors the scope of the mentality and fate of a born
individual, like the identity of the DNA can lead to loads that person
have like the mother or the father. This is not a business of belief,
it is a business of science in that one study evidence relations beyond
the science of physics as the science of natural forces.



As mentioned above, objects of other sun systems as our are not relevant
for the astrology. But if you speak on the delay of light from far
distances, as it is evident also for the force of gravitation that
should rule the planets, one can see, that Mr. Keplers accepted formula
for the undisturbed motion includes not any time delay from
gravitational interaction, and this holds also for objects like Quaoar,
in a distance of 6 light hours one way. With other words this means,
that there is no causality of time or space. Once again this moves a
phenomenon from the interacting physics to beyond the nature of physics
in that area, which is called metaphysics and which is taboo for the
sect of astronomers.


Science. The discussion what science is, is not a scientific discussion,
but a political discussion or a belief war. Like truth no one can
define, no one can define science, because it is not to be shown, but
only to be recognized.



Theories. Your understanding of scientific work is based on your belief
system called 'science' and believes that there are must be theories
first. But this is only your own belief. Nature or the order of nature
exist well without theories, like you can find out the relations of
tunes of a string by dividing the string into other lengths. Like
Pythagoras has taken that, what is, without any theory, and J. Kepler
has taken that up again and have added the relations of integer ratio
numbers by dividing the 2 Pi circle of the ecliptic with its bodies in
harmonic angle distances, which are used as language of the sky since
the old days in India to learn and recognize the own self, there is no
need for a theory. Theories are connected to functions, and functions
are connected with cause and effect. That what is, is no function.



Claims. I think a discussion on claims is not a scientific discussion.
It is a war. I think there is an agreement possible on that, what is
and/or on that what is to be recognized as true. And if this is true,
there is never anything that is in the same time true and untrue. This
means that there is only one nature which is without contradiction.
There are no two truthes posible.



Layman. If one is an expert in Neuroscience, he is not necessary an
expert in Geology or an expert in Sanskrit or astronomy. The rules are
that he, who would discuss competent on a discipline, he must study the
discipline first. This holds for every discipline in science. There are
also rules, that he, who is a laymen to a discipline, hardly can ask
questions with the reason only to fight a belief war, whether temporary
disciplines on universities are superior to the things down in the county.



There is a big phantom power with comedians like you, because in real
there is nothing, that any science is called doing can show, except
physical forces. But beyond, this only finger touching world of truth
called physics there is claimed time, space, truth vs untruth as
essential evidence, but no one of this educated peoples ever have given
a proof for this 'objects'.


Philosophy. I think it is sensible to show the own experience instead of
make suggestions as layman in another discipline. But if this is the
purpose of a layman, I think it is senseless to discuss with on the
level of science. Because there is only one nature with living people,
who knows nothing where they come from or why they live here a fate,
born with AIDS or born to die as child.


Astrology is a tool that helps people to understand the world beyond
physics as this the Chaldeans coming from India 4000 years ago to
Babylon have lived for, as told by Diodor. The sect of astronomers have
nothing; no philosophy about the own consciousness. Empty they come in
this word and empty they leave this world"

That's us told!

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

"Dear 'Apple', from Science" (No. 5)

Wasn't even going to do one today, but if I'm going to claim to be satirical, might as well follow the fruit-based herd.

"Dear 'Apple'

It's me, the anthropomorphic personification of Science. Quite a long title that, I know. Was thinking of shortening it, to something like 'Sci'. I could apply it to all my stuff, I'd have a 'SciPhone'. And everything else could have 'Sci' in front of it so people would know I made it and be cool like me by association.

On second thoughts, that sounds stupid and incredibly pretentious. That's why I'm writing to you. I'm not sure you'll be able to read this though, it tends to be difficult to get enough light with your own head is so far up your arse.

This might sound ungrateful as a lot of the people working for me use your bloody tech. But I wish they didn't. I don't care what else they use, but I'd rather they didn't buy things from you. Because your things are 'cool'. And when scientists and engineers start worrying about being cool, what's the first thing they do?

They stop being scientists and engineers. So yeah, thanks for that.

We're not 'cool', us Science and Engineering types. Probably because 'cool' is non quantifiable and hard to measure (unless we're referring to low ambient temperatures, which I presume we aren't), and that's like fingernails down the blackboard of what would be my soul if I could empirically demonstrate that I have one. Thing is though, we don't care about 'cool'. Yet, it seems to be all you do care about.

You were one of us once, us techies, nerds and geeks, but now it's almost as if you've undergone some sort of... conversion. Yeah, it's like you've been... born again?

That doesn't sound like anything one of my lot would do, that sounds more like something else I know, something that doesn't like me very much...

Granted, the stuff you make does work. Very well by all accounts. I wouldn't know, I avoid all your merchandise to prevent contamination as I'm sure it's laced with halucinogenic crack. But answer me this; does the technology matter more, or is it just the fact that having the slickest tech makes you 'cooler'? My impression is that if the world decided tomorrow that wood was the coolest thing ever, you'd stick a glowing fruit on an abacus and sell it for several hundred a unit.

Speaking of which, well done on associating the well know fruit with advanced science and tech. Nobody apart from Isaac Newton has ever done that, but you've seemingly usurped even him. Now, many people believe that 'Apple' is the only way to get anything done, as if the 'Apple' grows on some 'Tree of All Knowledge'. Why does that sound familiar too...? Still, I'm sure that's just a result of being cool.

Now look, you've got me saying 'cool' far too much, and I hate saying things I don't fully understand! Bastard!

Yes, apparently you have the 'best' mp3 players, mobile phones, computers etc. But tell me, how many of those did you actually invent? None, wasn't it? Yeah, the first PC was an 'Apple', but wasn't that just an impressively conveniently packaged assembly of breakthroughs in processing that other people had made? I think it was. Sort of like an iPod. Or iPhone. Or what's that new one? The iCouldn'tcareless isn't it? You do make tech look trendy, but how important is it to be able to check your emails on a bus?

Now look, you've got me, Science, arguing against technological developments! Double bastard!

But I know there's no point arguing, people will swear that your way is the best, and all others are inferior and wrong. That reminds me of something again... Something else encourages that behaviour, what could it be...?

Speaking of which, what's up with the people who use your stuff? What do you do to them to make them like that? Wandering around all insufferably smug, always trying to encourage others to convert to their chosen way of life, pitying those who don't and getting enraged with those who question their views as anything less than absolute.

Again, that sounds familiar. Who else do we know who does that sort of thing...?

And those shops! Hospitals aren't that white and clean! It's like the inside of a fridge. All that bright open space, people tell me that when they pass they're tempted to walk in... walk into the light...

And that logo, it's a bit sinister isn't it? Alan Turing, brilliant inventor and analytical mind, basically invented the concept of the computer, but killed himself by biting a poisoned apple after his relentless treatment on behalf of the establishment for being gay. That's what your logo represents, I hear?

Sick, mate. I mean, what sort of people would emblazon all they make with a visual icon representing the manner in which the oppressed founder of their group was tragically killed? Can you think of anyone else who would do that? Anyone...?

I didn't even want to write to you, but I couldn't do any work today because the announcement of you releasing your new iSlab computer (or whatever) caused the Internet to overload, an irony which wasn't lost on me. What's with all the furore? All the anticipation? Your supporters are acting like it's some sort of... I don't know... second coming?

And on a more personal note, you might want to slow down. By my calculations, the human brain has an information capacity of 2,500 gigabytes. Sounds like a lot, but if Moore's law carries on, iPods will be able to store more than that, so that will sort of make them smarter than people, won't it? Then what? Society get's controlled by super-smart mp3 players? I'd hate that! I'm Science, I'm not good with music, you know that! Triple bastard!

Anyway, just a note to say some of us are worried about you. Hope you see it that way. Although I won't be surprised if you ignore my rational arguments in favour of knee-jerk bile and scorn. You're not the first to do that to me.

Rational debate and criticism. Remember that? I'll be here when you want to relive the good old days.

Yours very sincerely

Science (BA hons)

P.S. I'll admit that MSN is shit, but that's as far as I'll go.

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

Twitter: @garwboy