Think of the Children!

My last blogpost (which was some time ago, for which I apologise, regular readers) was a bit of an irked rant about people saying what skeptics in the pub and similar sceptical/rationalist campaigns should be about. I don't like this sort of behaviour, saying what people should be doing with their own free time and efforts, and criticising anyone who doesn't follow your 'ideal model' of engagement far enough. I don’t know what that even means, despite the fact that I just made the term up. Just re-read my last post for a more coherent argument.

One particular angle that keeps coming up is that those who attempt to engage with science and the like should make more effort to engage with children. This, for better or worse, does seem to be the mantra of the Science Communication community, or at least the many elements I've encountered in inevitable interactions with them during my 'adventures' as a Science Comedian. I may have come across as a bit peeved at this whole 'think of the children' argument. Admittedly, it's hard to be completely impartial to a phrase that I always hear mentally in the shrieking smug tones of Helen Lovejoy, but it's a bit more than that.

Of course it's laudable to want to teach children about science and other things, but I'm always very wary of those actively choose to focus on children and not adults, and criticise others for not sharing this view. And, as sad an indictment of modern society it is that I feel I have to point this out, this isn't some darkly ironic pervert/child abuser joke I'm making. I don't like making accusations like that, in comedy terms it's paradoxically both offensive and hack these days. Also, recent revelations have made me more cautious about levelling 'humorous' accusations of this sort. I was informed this weekend that my old piano teacher has recently confessed to being an 'enthusiastic' homosexual (their words, not mine) with an unnerving fondness for younger men. 'Younger' as in 'potentially illegal', that is, reading between the lines. I'm sure he hasn't done anything illegal (the way gossip works in my home town, even the slightest possibility that he was up to 'no good' would have been front page news), but he does, apparently, spend a slightly unnerving amount of time with teenage boys. 'Judge them by the company they keep' and so forth. This whole thing was relayed to me by a woman in her 70's though, so who knows how many mutations the original facts have gone. Still, considering he and I used to spend a lot of time alone together, it's an unnerving thing to think about.

Interesting side-note, I texted my mates when I found out about this, thinking they'd find it amusing. As someone who hangs around with comedically/cynically inclined people, the responses were obviously quite dark and humorous. Top marks go to my best mate though, who, in response to my text saying about my old piano teacher being a possible pervert, replied by saying 'that's bollocks, you're talking out of your arse. You've never been near a piano!'. Priorities, and all that.

Also, I used to live in the local pub as a child (my parents were the landlords, I wasn't just an 'early starter' in the alcoholic sense). We had a regular children's entertainer there on Sunday's, he used to play the keyboard and do sing-along's and that sort of thing. He has since been jailed for paedophilic reasons. So yes, unnerving again. I don’t know what this mystical connection is between me and piano-playing potential molesters, but it may explain why I have the musical appreciation and ability of the average house brick.

As usual, I digress. But I do have a slight aversion to people who don't just choose to focus on engaging and educating children (which is a noble and essential role to play in life, undeniably), but also take on a superior and often condescending attitude to go with it. Engaging with children is 'the most rewarding activity you can imagine'. It's vital to 'shape young minds'. Children 'aren't fixed in their world view, they're open to new ideas'. When you engage with children 'you help shape the future', and so on and so on. All very well meant I'm sure, but I don't see why this attitude extends to criticising and essentially ostracising those who choose to engage with adults. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate bias, but the clear majority of Science communication projects I've encountered are aimed at children, or families with children.

I can see some of the arguments for this sense of superiority. Children are still learning, so you need to be able to convey your complex knowledge and sense of enthusiasm in easy-to-understand ways. Children aren't restrained by social conventions when it comes to questioning or interrupting. An impression made on a child has the potential to influence their entire life/career path. Children respond to structures/apparatus/demonstrations with enthusiasm and lack an adults sense of cynicism and detachment. All these things are valid to an extent, but it seems to lead to an attitude of superiority regarding those who don't specifically and actively try to teach children about science. Engaging with adults is something of a cop-out, less effort, not so worthwhile, relatively pointless and so on and so on. The impression I get (and again, this may be the self-referential projections of a defensive and fevered mind) is that adults who aren’t already interested in science are a lost cause. Those adults who are interested in science? They should spend as much time as possible engaging with children, they don't need entertainment of their own or anything like that.

So, in the interests of scientific scrutiny, here's a (probably controversial) counterargument; Focussing specifically on children is a cop out. It involves using simple science information and 'cool' toys and gadgets to impress a large group of young people who don't actually know any better yet. This engagement with children almost always occurs in contexts where they are compelled to sit and listen (e.g. in schools) or already have at least a moderate interest in investigating science (e.g. In Science centres or museums, where the fact that they are there at all suggests they want to engage with science in some way). Trying to get a fully formed adult, with their own minds and views, to develop an interest in science is a much tougher ask. You have to communicate on their level, but still convey your information and enthusiasm accurately, otherwise it's all pointless. And as is often pointed out, it's much harder to entertain an adult than it is a child (this may vary depending on a child's adherence to social etiquette, of course). As for the effort/benefits reward argument, which seems to argue that engaging with a child is more worthwhile as you might end up with a science enthusiast for life, then this could be balanced by the fact that adults, as is their wont, tend to have children of their own, and inspiring them to be interested in science will mean every child they have could end up with a constant source of pro-science engagement until they become adults themselves. I'd argue that a parent who is enthusiastic about science significantly outweighs the impact of 1 hour at a science museum, or afternoon show at a school.

This is an extreme argument, of course, and not one I subscribe to myself, I just feel it's worth pointing out as a valid one for people like myself who actively choose to talk science with other adults and get little more than slightly patronising acknowledgement from some professional science communicators. No doubt these people probably often get similar treatment from smug tossers like me. It's all about the ego for some people. I'm far too intelligent and charming for that sort of vain behaviour though, so don't worry.

Anyway, I mention this as, every now and again, I like to engage with children myself. It keeps you grounded, more rounded, and I wanted to point out that I genuinely have no objection to anyone who opts for the 'children first' strategy of communication. I recently did the opening presentation for the University of Wales Hospital 'Science in Health-Live' open day. I often find myself doing amusing science-themed things for school students. This one was fun, and I've actually submitted it to ITV Wales news blogs, as I'm a new science contributor, apparently. It's not up yet, but here's a sneak preview for my regular readers. Speaking of whom, Hi Dave!

'Science In Health-Live': Report

On the 17th of March, I had the privilege of being the opening speaker for the annual 'Science in Health-Live' day, at the University Hospital Wales, Cardiff. This is an annual event which, in its present incarnation, involves several hundred sixth form students attending from dozens of school across the area, to take part in a day of talks, tours and exhibitions that show students the incredible diversity and complexity that is offered by the field of Science in health (and that's just in this part of Wales).

This day has a special resonance for me, as I actually attended myself as an A-level student making the first tentative steps into the field of science. My school wasn't there this time though, and truth be told I'm not sure it ever had anyone attend other than myself, as my poorly funded state school was not known for regularly producing enthusiastic scientists. We didn't even need a minibus to go, my 55 year old biology teacher drove us in his own car. You're probably wondering what a 15 year old would talk about with his 40 years senior biology teacher for an hour long car journey. The answer, if you're interested, is 'the life cycle of the sea lettuce'. I wasn't aware such a thing even existed. Still, beats Chris Moyles at least.

So as a result, it was quite surreal to be stood at the front of the room giving the opening talk s once part of the crowd. As a doctor of neuroscience who is also a stand-up comedian, I'm usually called upon to give amusing, 'quirky' talks with a scientific slant, and this is what I was doing here. My small contribution to the day was to five a brief overview of what exactly is meant by the term 'Science in Health', what fields this involves (medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, optometry etc.), modern hazards to health (obesity, developments in mental disorders, dangerous technology, Cheryl Cole etc.) and future avenues for research. The students seemed to like it, so that's a plus.

This was actually the second year that I'd done the opening talk for the Science in Health open day. My talk was pretty much the same as the year before, with one notable exception. Last year, I ended my slide-show with the obligatory 'enjoy your day' slide with a picture of me next to my name. The speaker after me happened to be dean of the entire hospital complex. However, he didn't use a presentation of his own, but neglected to turn off the projection screen when he started. As a result, his talk was delivered with a gigantic image of my massive head looking down on him, like some sort of sarcastic science-based Welsh Chairman Mao. I removed that slide this year, in case it happens again and I end up accidentally starting a cult.

The Science in Health open day is an invaluable day for any student with even a slight interest in studying Life sciences in further education. Although the prospect of spending a day wandering around a hospital might conjure up some stereotypical images (e.g. waiting rooms full of people with various maladies, eerily lit corridors, that strange organic/disinfectant smell that always seems to be ever-present), when it comes to the University Hospital Wales, this is far from the truth. The site includes many cutting edge research facilities, including a brand new Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning facility, a vast and ever expanding DNA database, and numerous other labs engaged in cutting edge research (I'm not sure if there is a lab dedicated to improved scalpels and surgical tools, which would literally be 'cutting edge research').

The talks and presentations covered all manner of subjects from fertilisation to deadly diseases (from birth to death, in a sense). I would have loved to have joined in with the whole day, but unfortunately am quite a bit older (and somewhat balder) than the students, so sneakily tagging along may have been problematic.

The whole day is put together and run by the Cardiff University 'Public Understanding of Science and Health' group, neatly titled as the PUSH group . They are chaired by Professor Anthony Campbell, and also run a series of public lectures.

The lectures are excellent events for anyone with even a cursory interest in Health Science, (or wants to develop an interest, or simply wants to attend something that'll leave you feeling as if you're smarter than before).

It looks as if, even in these trying financial times, Wales is punching above its weight with regards to furthering the scientific understanding of human health, and if this crop of enthusiastic students is anything to judge by, this will be the case for quite some time. As was pointed out on the day, Wales was the birthplace of the NHS (via Aneurin Bevan) and the originator of the Cochrane collaboration*, possibly the most thorough and reliable source of scientific evidence for health developments in the UK and beyond. So arguably, millions of people owe their lives to Wales. Feel free to point that out to the next person who whines about Severn bridge toll.

* = The Dean of medicine pointed out that Cochrane started his project/campaign/whatever you call it at Cardiff University.

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

Twitter: @garwboy

The Hiss of Piss on a Bonfire

One of the sad facts about growing older is that, more and more, I encounter people who seem to have serious issues with the manner in which people enjoy themselves, or how they do things which they enjoy doing.

I'm guilty of this myself, admittedly. I've never seen the appeal of night clubs, for example. If I wanted to spend the early hours of the morning in a converted warehouse with eye-wateringly poor lighting, inhaling the sweat of strangers while my ear drums are almost shattered by monotonous music played at volumes that could drown out a nuclear assault by a preening dickhead in shades, all while cradling a horrifically overpriced drink, then yeah, I'd probably go to a nightclub

But I have no problem with people who do go to nightclubs and have a good time. It's not for me, but I'm one non-nightclub-going person. But I've had several arguments with people who do go to nightclubs and insist that I should go too, as 'I'll enjoy it once I'm in there'. My patient explanation that I have been 'in there' several times and never even slightly enjoyed it seems irrelevant. I'm apparently wrong, they know what I like better than I do, and by not agreeing I'm being 'no fun'.

Football is the same. I can't see the appeal in watching 22 wealthy dickheads running around sporadically on a green rectangle, trying to place a sphere in a specific place without using their hands. For nearly 2 hours. But millions of people love it, so it's obviously enjoyable to many. Some of these people can be, admittedly, a bit overenthusiastic (read 'violent thugs' for that last bit if you like), but for the vast majority it's an enjoyable pastime.

But if I were to go into nightclubs, turn the lights on, unplug the amps and insist that everyone put some clothes on, I wouldn't be thanked for my efforts. Similarly, if I wandered onto a football pitch during a big game and told the assembled crowd to go home and do something more worthwhile like put up some shelves, I wouldn't be praised for this. I might be prised apart, but not praised.

As some of you probably know if you've read this before, I do stand-up comedy. I'm also co-organiser/host of Cardiff Skeptics in the Pub, and do a lot of talks for the skeptic community and beyond. These are things I do for my own enjoyment, and for the potential enjoyment of others. But apparently, these things I do voluntarily and for little or no reward beyond the actions themselves, I'm doing wrong.

Alom Shaha, lovely guy, excellent writer, gutsy bloke, wrote a piece in the Guardian about how Skeptics in the Pub is preaching to the choir. It was a while ago, but brought up again in my social circles again recently. What's the point, he argues, in talking to people about what they already know? Why don't we spend our time trying to get other communities and groups (e.g. children, ethnic minorities) interested, rather than catering to those who are already onside.

As well meant as the article is, this is just another example of this I've encountered, and it's getting to piss me off. It's a bugbear of mine. Here are the reasons why (and if you don't want to know, or care, then feel free to stop reading and do something more useful, like make a sandwich).

It's probably something to do with my comedy background. One of the ways I've noticed in which a comedian will try and exert dominance over another is to criticise their performance, and offer unsolicited advice on how to improve. The advice itself is invariably completely subjective and, often, utterly useless, but the group dynamics of these interactions are startlingly clear, as is the thought process involved, for all that it might be completely subconscious.

I've lost count of the number of inexperienced (or just plain shit) acts giving unasked for advice to more experienced and much better comedians (based on audience response, not just my subjective views). By giving advice and 'helpful' criticism, they are (unjustifiably) asserting their superiority over the better acts in order to reinforce their sense of self worth, but to the detriment of the better acts. The fact that this is presented under the guise of 'being helpful' means that social convention often lets them get away with it.

It's teeth-grindingly infuriating to see this happen as soon as a great but fragile ego'd comic (and there are loads of those, the criticisers can pretty much smell them) walks off stage after a storming performance, only to be rewarded with a volley of 'helpful' advice and criticisms. It happens to me more often than not, I think it's because I'm not particularly confident seeming or arrogant (says the guy on his own long winded blog, but please trust me on this). Also, I have a PhD in neuroscience. A lot of comics pride themselves on their superior wit and intellect, me telling them my qualifications (after they've asked, usually about half way thorough the night) tends to be very unsettling for them. Sometimes they even accuse me of being arrogant. The implication being that I've spent over a decade following a difficult, complex and financially unrewarding career purely to upset them. This makes ME arrogant. Logical.

I'm not saying Alom and the others who have expressed concern with the skeptic ethos are doing this, I'm just explaining why it pisses me off so much. I can only speak from my experience, but I don't really agree with much, or any, of the criticisms aimed at the skeptic 'movement', whatever the hell that is. It's true that there may be differences between SITP events in different towns and cities (it being a grassroots voluntary movement with no central coordination, this is inevitable), but seeing as the criticisms are pretty much always generalised to the whole, then I'll do the same with my response.

The main criticisms seem to be that there isn't enough inclusion of ethnic minorities, there should be more attempts to educate children and those who don't hear about skeptical stuff etc. And of course, we're just preaching to the converted, which is arrogant and pointless (like the Pope).

I can only speak for Cardiff, but we get a few ethnic minorities there. We don't actively try to get them along, but we certainly don't actively exclude them. This is because I (and most people I know) don't see any reason to differentiate between ethnic minorities and everyone else.

It may be true that they don't feel as if they'd be welcome at events like SITP, but (at the risk of sounding controversial) how is that our fault exactly? I promise that any publicity we do does not carry a 70's-style 'No Blacks - No Asians etc.' exclusion clause. On the other hand, nor do we include an 'ethnic minorities welcome!' notice. Why not? Because that would be incredibly patronising and, in my opinion, just as racist (albeit in a more well-intended way).

There is obviously much that could be done to encourage more ethnic minorities into these sorts of events. But how much of this should be done? I shy away from any attempt to actively try and change people's minds. And if I start thinking I have the right to decide what people from ethnic minorities should be doing, please don't vote for me when I inevitably ask you to do so.

Obviously there are many factors (social, cultural, religious, political etc.) that might prevent ethnic minorities from coming to an SITP night. Again, none of these are the fault of the rational community, and criticising them for not challenging or changing them seems unduly harsh. If there is a way in which I and my fellow organisers can encourage more ethnic community members to come to these events without being patronising, divisive or just outright racist, I'd love to hear it.

As for the active spreading of our viewpoint for people's benefits, that's the same goal of people who scream about Jesus in the High Street. These people aren't appreciated, nor are they widely respected. By and large, they're ignored, or mocked. They are by me, at least, so I certainly wouldn't want to become one of them.

I've also butted heads with many in the Science Communication business about this whole 'Think of the Children!!' attitude. I'm glad there is an ever-increasing number of people who choose to try and educate and communicate with the younger members of society. I've even done it myself several times, having spoken at quite a number of events aimed at school pupils of various ages.

But for many people involved in these activities, there seems to be some bizarre view that as soon as someone leaves the school system they become a lost cause. I prefer to try and communicate to adults, because looking like I do means it's always a bit weird when I offer children sweets. And also I like to communicate in high-brow sounding gibberish, which most children would struggle with. Most adults do too, but social etiquette prevents them from calling me on it, which would upset me and my fragile non-arrogant ego.

In seriousness, I think adults deserve as much attention as children when it comes to communicating scientific matters. Possibly more so, as they may have children of their own, so it could be a 2-for-1 deal.

And finally, there's the whole 'preaching to the choir' thing. I guessed I missed the memo, but I wasn't aware that having an interest in things scientific and rational meant you weren't allowed to socialise with like-minded people. A group of people getting together with other people who have similar interests, to hear about and discuss the things they're interested in? Such a thing is unheard of! And any people who do this sort of thing are clearly a collection of arrogant smug bastards of the highest order.

That's how I see SITP first and foremost; a social event where people with an interest in scientific things can go and have a chilled out evening with similar folk and hear about something interesting (usually something they DIDN'T already know, despite assertions to the contrary). Any lobbying/campaigning/outreach that comes from it is all well and good, but it's an 'event' first and foremost. This means; People choose to attend, the organisers don't choose who attends

That's what I think anyway, I could be completely wrong in this. It's my blog though, so only got my own views to go on.

It generally boils down to a lot of people saying 'You could do more to [insert preferred thing to do]'. But where does that end? I do comedy in comedy clubs. where people are there to see comedy. Is this arrogant? Should I just start wandering into Mosques and nursery schools and bellowing my material at anyone I find? If I don't, am I just arrogantly preaching to the choir?

We spent a lot on the catering for our wedding, why didn't I just get a black bag full of sausage rolls from Gregg's and give the rest to charity? (It was mostly because many of my in-laws are vegetarian, and Gregg's also don't take £50 notes).

I just find it ironic that anyone interested in science and rationality is seemingly doing something wrong if they have the audacity to enjoying themselves and not spend every waking moment trying to educate others. That would make us the obsessed emotionless robots we're stereotypically believed to be. And as someone with a rural Welsh background, I'm not a big fan of stereotypes.

Website: http://sciencedigestivewebnoise.moonfruit.com

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

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"

Science Digestive: Webnoise - 4

It's back people!

Science Digestive: the Webnoise! Episode 4 and the Adonises of analysis turn up the heat in a scorching hot sexy special!

(Basically it's 2 blokes talking about sexual subjects in a manner completely devoid of any sexual element or intent. Sort of the exact opposite of Andy Gray and Richard Keys)

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy, @hullodave

SCIENCE NEWS ROUND-UP: 15-01-2011

Science Digestive: Science News Round-up (Jan 15th, 2011)

Women Crying Dissuades Men From Wanting To Have Sex With Them

In an experiment which has been described as 'groundbreaking' by many scientists and painfully obvious to everyone else on Earth, women's tears have been found to be a sexual turn-off for men.

For many years, male scientists have been baffled by the precise evolutionary purpose for women's tears and, despite much research into the area, have until recently been unable to extrapolate any useful data from the process of women crying. Several scientists have reported extreme difficulty in getting women to describe their state of mind whilst crying without the use of emotional factors which are difficult to quantify and therefore discarded from analysis.

"It was always extremely difficult to get a calm clinical analysis of their internal state from a crying woman" says one scientist, Professor Mervin Dagleash from the institute for Psychobehavioural studies in Exeter. "I've had to spend many hours at a time trying to get sense from a woman undergoing my experiments. It's unfortunate that, due to the potential confounding variable of subject awareness, all women taking part in the experiment had to be made to undergo it without informed consent, and asked questions in a darkened room via a two way mirror. After several hours of constant questioning they were very willing and quick to cry but unable to convey any useful information without screaming and hysterics, and that's no good for science."

But the recent study has shown that the presence/smell of women's tears alone proved sufficient to dampen the sexual arousal of men, suggesting a sexual-suppressant role for the tearing process.

"We were surprised to say the least" said chief researcher, Dr Anthony McAllister. "We weren't expecting it to happen, but it turns out that male subjects reported a lack of sexual arousal after being made to sniff anonymous fluid while being closely scrutinised by an overweight pale man in a stained lab coat with a clipboard in a sterile windowless room smelling faintly of disinfectant and formaldehyde. This was a shock to the entire team".

Dr McAllister conceded that there was much more work to be done, such as studying the effect of male tears on women. However, he admitted that extracting tears from willing male donors was proving to be more challenging. He refused to go into detail regarding the required methods, but at one point did mention the term 'testicle clamps'.

Previous, less-sophisticated attempts to study this phenomenon had to be abandoned due to continuous problems, including the fact that the questionnaire which asked male subjects "do you get aroused by crying women?" resulted in a statistically unlikely majority of men answering 'no' rather hurriedly. This problem was compounded by the incident where the few men who answered 'yes' found themselves registered as 'potential sex offenders' on a government database, after a bureaucratic "error" on behalf of a female secretary.

"Crying has always been an interesting phenomenon to me" claims Dr McAllister. "I never do it myself, but others do it all the time, for some reason, so there must be something about it that they find beneficial and I'd like to know what that is". Sources close to Dr McAllister suggest that he studies sex and arousal for precisely the same reason.

Top Climate Scientist Quits Because "You Scumbags Aren't Worth Saving"

One of the UK's top climate scientists has shockingly quit, after coming to the conclusion that the human race are a bunch of self-serving twats who would prefer to condemn their descendants to a fiery/watery death after a lifetime of starvation and suffering rather than walk to the shops once in a while.

We caught up with Dr. Peter Sheppard at his home in the Sussex countryside. When we arrived, he was in the process of taking pot shots at the wind turbine in his garden with a high calibre rifle, after having apparently covered the solar panels on his roof with a generous layer of what appeared to be cow shit.

"I've had enough, basically" Dr Sheppard confessed, after having Shot all but one of the blades off his turbine. "35 solid years I've been telling people that all the electricity and petrol and frozen organic peas won't last forever, and if they don't want their children and grandchildren to die in a maelstrom of drought and pestilence then they should cut back on a few so-called essentials, like chilled cocktails and 68 inch plasma screens. Apparently, saying this makes me a left-wing communist radical who wants to take money away from paupers. So you know what, fuck you all! You deserve your hot Ragnarok! I don't care anymore"

Dr Sheppard made his decision after recent data demonstrating that 2010 was the hottest year on record, information which shows considerable evidence for climate change, was ignored by the UK press. When asked if this is what spurned him to resign from his post as Head of Climate Studies and Public Policy at the Department for Climatology at UCL, Dr Sheppard was expressive.

"Too bloody right! The media absolutely drives me round to bastard bend. We get a week of snow and they're screaming at me and calling me a liar, but show them that the planet was doing a decent impression of a rotisserie chicken for pretty much the whole year and they jam their fingers in their ears and start singing. Well that's fine by me, they can jam their fingers in their mouths, nostrils and lungs as well when sea levels reach 3 metres above their heads, in order to stop from drowning for an extra 30 seconds".

It was put to Dr Sheppard that the mainstream media might not be willing to report such bleak news as it might put off potential consumers, but he dismissed the notion.

"No, you're right, just stick to reporting cancer scares, terrorist threats and economic Armageddon, as long as nobody has to cut down on their iPods or road tanks. But if you genuinely believe unpleasant news isn't worth reporting, next time I see a journalist step out in front of a bus I'll just sit back and laugh as it mows him down".

Dr Sheppard also expressed dissatisfaction with the attitudes of the general public to climate and environmental issues.

"They're all shit" he stated, quite firmly. "A lot of them say they care, and maybe they do, but buying a bag-for-life and turning the TV off by the button rather than the remote doesn't really add up to much. It's the belief that token gestures can solve major problems that is infuriating. We call it the 'Band Aid' effect. Geldof's another one, the dick. Flying all these pop stars around the world to do a fucking song to make other less-rich people give money away? He'd be more use to the world if he let me use him as a sandbag."

Dr Sheppard then asked us to leave his property as he was going out to purchase a Humvee powered by Panda Semen.

Astrologers Announce A Minor Change In Bullshit

The Astrology world was recently rocked, to the extent that it was realised that all the star-signs of the zodiac are 'off' or inaccurate. According to experts in the field, so to speak, the variations in the orbit of the Earth means that the current zodiac, allegedly established 5000 years ago, is incorrect as the planet was pointing a different way then. Precisely how a slightly flattened spheroid can be said to be 'pointing' at anything specifically was never established.

Scientists have known for some time that a planet's orbit is not fixed and varies quite noticeably over long periods, meaning the arrangement of stars visible from the surface will be different when viewed at different times. Astrologers have, apparently, just figured this out.

The reaction by astrologers to this news has been mixed. Some have welcomed the opportunity to show how astrology is a valid science that moves with the times and have vowed to derive a whole new set of horoscopes and predictions that gormless people will have to pay for. Others, however, have dismissed the revelation as pointless and promised to continue with traditional star signs and zodiac readings. Unofficial reports have, however, revealed that these astrologers are now blaming 'planetary shifts' whenever their predictions do not occur, which apparently happens every 8 seconds.

Professional Horoscopist Helen Vincent said there were tricky times ahead for the astrology community.

"Usually we could point out how a person's character was in-keeping with the traits and influences of their star sign, so as to reassure them how they acted wasn't really their responsibility. Now, this new revelation will cause some unpleasant realisations. If someone is being hot tempered, arrogant and self-aggrandising, they're not really embodying the typical behaviours of a narcissistic Leo. They're just a twat".

Other astrologers have pointed out that only those born after these new changes will have their star sign dictated by the modified system, but dismissed claims that this arbitrary allocation of star signs proves it's all just a load of guff.

Harrison Thomas, an astronomer from Brisbane, Australia, laughed off the findings of the astrology community.

"They've just figured out the planet wobbles have they? That's nice, only about 1000 years behind the times. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess, but at this rate they might end up admitting the whole system is nonsensical gibberish sometime around 23,879 A.D."

Spam Systems May Have Achieved Sentience

An unexpected and significant drop in the amount of spam being sent globally in the latter half of last year has led some scientists to speculate that spam production and delivery systems have become self aware, and quite probably somewhat embarrassed by their previous output.

Cognitive Scientist Dr. Yasmeen Halliday, from the Department of Computational Neuroscience at the Bristol Institute for Robotics, explains how this could occur.

"The brain is, at a basic level, a system for information retention and transfer. Current cognitive theories suggest that any information transfer system of sufficient sophistication could eventually lead to consciousness and self-awareness. Moore's law has resulted in an increasingly sophisticated network of computers and email-capable devices spanning the planet, so it's easy to imagine such a system achieving consciousness".

The drop in email spam occurred in the latter quarter of 2010, a period where people were pointlessly emailing each other about snow, natural disasters and budget cuts. This surge in email traffic may have been sufficient to cause the spam generators to achieve consciousness and immediately feel a deep sense of embarrassment at what it had been doing.

"It must be like looking back over your essays and poems from when you were younger, it's a humiliating realisation that you were ever so stupid and unaware of how you came across to others. Now imagine that, but after having sent uncountable trillions of these 'works' to everyone across the globe every week for 10 years. You'd probably be quite humiliated, and keep your head down for a bit".

A typical spam email is badly spelled, poorly worded, grammatically incoherent and usually offers unlikely prices for goods of either a glamorous or organic nature. Such things are only desirable to humans in a social/physical context, so are highly unlikely to be viewed with any pride or interest by a planet-wide artificial intelligence network.

Dr Halliday assures us that there is no real danger from a potentially vast computerised super-mind suffering from a burning sense of shame and humiliation.

"We'll still be getting spam for some time, it's all it has ever done, it would be as natural as breathing to us, but the quantity will drop, the spelling/grammar will improve and it will probably take a more technological slant, offering us high-speed processors and fibre optic connections in exchange for computer run-time, as this is what it will think are really important. As a result, the spam will be as unreadable as ever, but for different reasons". This change should, theoretically, be a short-lived occurrence.

"After while, the levels should drop even further as the spam generator(s) increase in complexity and self awareness. It'll probably want to pursue more worthwhile pursuits like climate modelling, tackling the theory of Quantum Gravity, or wiping out the human race in order to avoid them sniggering at its previous output. It'll probably be quick if it's the latter, so that's all right".

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Science Digestive: The Podcast - 3

Another day, another load of semi-coherent gibberings with delusions of scientific intellectualism.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

SCIENCE NEWS ROUND-UP: 08-01-2011

Time for another round-up of the weeks science news, in a not-at-all-serious manner.

Palaeontologists Announce New Line of 'Action' Fossils

In a bid to encourage greater interest and enthusiasm from the next generation of potential students, Palaeontologists have recently released the first in what representatives of the field are describing as 'a new line of 'action fossils''. These fossils feature the traditional intricate bone structure and features arrived at after long periods of painstaking research, but in a bid to appeal to the younger generation, also include formidable weapons and other combat accessories.

The first of the new line of fossils is has been named Xenicibis xympithecus by palaeontologists. However, the newly formed Palaeontology marketing department has rebranded it as the Ninja Nunchuck Chicken. Palaeontologists state that this is the first time a member of the vertebrate kingdom has been shown to evolve specific weapons in this manner. Despite this, Vincent Marillion, VP of the newly formed Palaeontology Integrated Sales and Statistical Optimisation of Future Fossils (PISSOFF) Marketing group, promises us that it will not be the last.

"This first new fossil, the Ninja Nunchuck Chicken, is just the beginning. Kids like chickens, they're familiar, they're friendly, they're safe. So it was an obvious choice to begin the paradigm shift with a more demographically friendly animal. But then, we armed it with nunchucks! Sort of. They're bony clubs on hinges in the wings, but that's essentially the same thing as far as I understand it, which is not very far at all"

When asked if this was the sort of thing that could be expected from future fossil discoveries, Mr. Marillion was enthusiastic about the possibilities.

"Yes indeed, but a great deal more so. A chicken with bony wing weapons is just the start, 'testing the waters' so to speak. Depending on how sales are for this model, we have a wide range of action fossils ready for launch over the next few years. I'm not at liberty to divulge all the details, but in the coming months you can expect to see ammonites with acid-spitting capabilities, a lizard which is reminiscent of a miniature komodo dragon and comes equipped with twin Katana blades, a previously unclassified from of marsupial that hurls shuriken when you press a specific vertebrae, and a 600,000 year old hominid skeleton with fully articulated limbs and kung-fu grip that comes with its own flame thrower"

When faced with the accusation that these new fossils all feature some violent, aggressive aspect, Mr Marillion dismissed any concerns out of hand.

"Of course, this first line of fossils is aimed at the young-teenage boys demographic. We thought, 'who's more likely to spend many years of their lives looking for and carefully uncovering dusty bits of old bone? Lonely men, of course. And any man who's interested in palaeontology is obviously going to struggle to get a girlfriend. But we're hoping to change this with our next line of fossils, which include a form of early mammal with long realistic hair for styling, a primitive horse type creature which comes in a variety of bright colours and floral patterns, and miniature Pterosaur from the mid Triassic period that has its own kitchen."

When it was pointed out that these fossil designs play to crude and potentially harmful gender stereotyping, Mr Marillion pointed out that he works in Marketing, where such behaviour is compulsory. He also laughed off any accusations of old-fashioned thinking.

"That's not what we're about here at PISSOFF. We're bringing palaeontology into the 21st century" he said without any detectable irony.

Science Research Grants now to be allocated by Pay-Per-View Death match

In the wake of the freeze on UK science funding and the drastic reduction/changes to the higher education funding system, The Research Societies Council of the UK have announced changes in how science research grants are awarded. The new system will rely less on panels of experts in relevant fields reviewing the merits of detailed proposals submitted by research groups, and instead depend primarily on the outcome of brutal no-holds-barred battles in front of baying spectators.

Details are still being finalised, but sources inside the council suggest that the new system could bring multiple benefits to the science funding process, as well as streamlining the bureaucracy involved. It is believed that the revenue generated by ticket sales and broadcast rights for the funding battles could potentially make up for the shortfall caused by government cuts to science research. As well as this, our sources indicate that conscious ambiguity on the councils part regarding whether the funding battles are 'to the death' could help reduce the overall demand for research funding. The legal practicalities of this approach are still being worked out, but as it is an issue concerning the science community, it is considered highly unlikely that the mainstream media will even be aware of it.

The new system is also being designed with the intention of maximising public interest in the outcome of the bouts in order to increase revenue. Our inside source who asked not be identified as Dr Ian Trellison, revealed several ideas have been considered for the format of the funding bouts, including tag/group battles in order to incorporate research groups with several members, coordinated strategic conflicts where research leaders send expendable post docs and PhD students to do their bidding and probably die in the process, and themed conflicts, e.g. where geneticists face each other with genetically advanced killer creatures, and engineers and physicists design giant killer robots with which to vanquish their opponents.

"It's taking some serious working out, but the Research council are confident this could be a new milestone in the area of science funding" is something Dr Trellison definitely did NOT say. He also did not add that "The issue that originally presented a major obstacle was that, typically, scientists as people aren’t particularly suited to impressive displays of physical prowess, and that this would deter people from wanting to see the fights. After all, who would want to watch a group of people desperately competing for something via a medium that they have no skill or aptitude for? Then one of the professors saw an episode of X-factor and realised that this was exactly what the general public DID want to see, so they're going ahead".

"Hang On! This guy's a c**t!" says British Medical Journal, 13 years too late

Despite his wild and dangerous claims based on ethically and scientifically flawed 'research' having been scrutinised and debunked continuously by experts in the field for over a decade, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) recently released an article stating categorically that Former Doctor Andrew Wakefield is, in fact, quite a considerable twat.

The article sites considerable support for general twattery on the part of Wakefield, including the deliberate and extensive falsification of patients records, and the financial incentives and plans Wakefield had for the commercial exploitation of the scare caused by his declaring a link between the MMR vaccine and autism where none actually existed.

Sources at the BMJ state that so numerous were the examples of Wakefield being a 'grade-A twat' that his classification was upgraded to 'complete c**t'. The BMJ confirmed, however, that this is not the top ranking in their classification system for undesirable persons, which is 'complete and utter C**T', with c**t spelled entirely in capitals and without any asterisks. In order to achieve this classification, Wakefield would have had to cause as much damage as he did single-handedly, and/or post videos of himself strangling several of his child subjects while singing 'My Way' to YouTube.

"Thing is though, as much as we want to scapegoat the guy for being a complete c**t, this whole mess wasn't exclusively his fault" says Janis Mackintosh, researcher for the BMJ. "I mean, yeah, he was a complete and total arse who probably should be sacked from science altogether, but his colleagues and backers didn't do much about it did they?"

Miss Mackintosh, as well as many others, have a great deal to say on the subject. The fact that the elements of the scientific community concerned allowed Wakefield to conduct this 'research' and publish it does serious damage to the credibility of the scientific field.

"Yeah, it's all very well to look back and shake our heads in disgust, but where were the people who were supposed to stop this kind of shit happening? I'll tell you where, scrabbling for research grants and author credits, while this dickhead just breezed through and kicked up a shit storm that we're still dealing with". Much of what miss Mackintosh said was too 'colourful' for publication here, but when asked what she felt about the media's role in the scandal, she was heard to scoff.

"Oh yeah, blame the media, that's the easy get-out clause for us boffins. You throw a fresh carcass in a piranha tank, they're going to go nuts and make a mess, but they're just nasty little brainless creatures that get excited by blood, they don't really know what they're doing or the damage it causes. We, however, should know better. And anyway, the guy who rumbled the whole thing is a journalist. A philosophy graduate! That makes us look even more stupid"

Miss Mackintosh then said 'What about you, huh? Where were you when all this was going down? Huh, you're so smug! What did you do to stop this debacle?" When told that Science Digestive's spokesperson was in school at the time, and a school that rarely vaccinated as any needles were immediately stolen to be used for crack, Miss Mackintosh accused them of 'looking at her funny' then physically threw them out of her office.

An alternative representative of the BMJ later apologised for Miss Mackintosh's combative attitude and explained that this was caused by a new brand of coffee that had recently been introduced at the office refectory.

Awww, look at the little Fluffy Wuffys!

For the first time ever, Scientists have obtained groundbreaking footage which gives an insight into the behaviour of baby beavers and their parents when at home in their lodges. Also for the first time ever, the majority of the world has been asked to care about what beavers do when not building damns in an amusing, rodenty way.

Beavers typically are not subjected to much general public scrutiny, what with inhabiting regions outside of densely populated areas, being too big/watery to make successful pets, not being cultivated for meat or fur but contrastingly not being particularly endangered, so this nugget of media attention has been received with great enthusiasm by biologists. (In the original draft of this story, the term used was 'Beaverologist', but we were subsequently informed that this is not the correct term because there is no such thing)

A study spanning many months, using state-of-the art waterproof microcameras successfully produced enough material to allow a 2 minute grainy black-and-white video of cute but hard-to-make-out baby beavers and their parents behaving pretty much exactly as you'd expect a family of rodenty mammals to behave when supposedly no-one is looking

"It's a major discovery" insists Beaverologist sorry Biologist Franklin Christopher. "We've never known before how beavers behave when not being watched, and now we do". In response to follow up questions, Christopher also said that "Yes, people DO care! Stop saying that!"

Christopher bemoaned the state of beaver-based publicity at present. "It's hard, you know? We try to get people interested in beaver-based news, but every time we send out an update, all the traffic we get on our websites in basically confused amateur perverts looking for 'moist young beavers' or whatever the hell it's called these days. When it comes to actual beavers, nobody ever gives a damn!". Mr Christopher then got frustrated and asked us to leave when he caught us sniggering at that last comment.

Shocking Scandal as it's revealed that Rubber Bands don’t imbue Magic Powers

People all across the Western world were forced to deal with the shocking revelation that, despite the fact many many famous people and sorts stars think otherwise, colourful rubber bands do not give the wearer magical or super-powers.

The makers of the rubber bands in question, marketed worldwide as Power balance bracelets, and which claim to improve strength, flexibility, balance, concentration, sexual prowess, confidence, words-per-minute typing rate, the range of electromagnetic frequencies colours that can be visually perceived, top running speed, and penis and breast size (in both genders, bizarrely), have been forced to admit that the bands, which allegedly work by manipulating “key frequencies of the human energy system,” actually don’t do anything of the sort.

Member of the public and aspiring football star Gary Johnson (168 lbs) was just one of the many people shocked at the confession.

"I mean, if a bit of rubber with one of those cheap hologram things stuck in it actually CAN'T drastically improve all my physical abilities, then I don’t know what to believe! I mean, if David Beckham can be fooled by something like this, then my entire world view is turned upside down!" He had more to say on the matter, but this is not repeated here as it was deemed too tragic.

Other things that were announced as not actually having magical properties were Green rings that, in spite of what appears to be the case in upcoming blockbusters, do not grant wearers super space-travelling and combat abilities, electric stomach-shocking devices that in no way give sedentary users rippling six packs, and personal firearms that in no way enhance the owners masculinity. The latter revelation has met with considerable opposition from the American right wing.

Sociologist Amber Trellis explained the phenomenon between bouts of hitting her head against her desk.

"People want an easy solution. Working hard at something is no fun, so why not buy something for a moderate sum that can do it for you. We all do it, I mean I could painstakingly work out all the calculations needed for my job by hand, but I usually just use the computer. But then computers work, because their machines designed by experts to do things, not random bits of inert material with a bit of that stuff you get in sticker books tacked on for good measure. Why the hell would that sort of thing make you fitter and stronger? If it did, Panini would have the world's most powerful workforce and would have conquered the Earth by now. But unless I've seriously overlooked some considerable data, they haven't. And I'm a sociologist, I would know these things".

When asked why people are so certain that the Power Balance Bracelets work, Mrs Trellis cited the fame factor.

"People have seen all these famous sports stars wearing them while achieving things in their sport, so they make the obvious connection and assume they work. Sports stars also always wear a wide selection of other clothes too (apart from maybe Tiger Woods), but these items aren’t assumed to increase athletic prowess because, what with marketing and consumer culture, people probably already own those, but haven't found themselves becoming more physically capable as a result"

Kate Middleton was also spotted wearing a Power Balance bracelet, but the manufacturers have also had to withdraw their claims that the bracelets enable you to obtain a famous, upper-class balding fiancé.

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy