Science; learning how to re-engage

I’ve just watched this week’s Horizon titled ‘Science under attack’. And apart from some qualms over the amount of time the programme spent dealing with ‘Climategate’ and not properly explaining the scientific process and why it is trustworthy, it was a great programme highlighting some of the issues with getting scientific knowledge across to the general public. 

The main issue they reported is that it is left too much to the media and politicians, who don’t necessarily understand the whole science, or who are only after something sensational to fill a headline.

So here are my three ways in which I think the scientific establishment should start to address this gap in understanding:

1. Give, or ensure scientific reporters for all major news associations and political advisers have a thorough background or understanding of the scientific process.This would allow newspapers to be more impartial when airing the views of lunatic who think that evolution is a sham or the sky is a curtain with holes in it, or whatever else. It would ensure the consensus view of whatever is being reported is talked about in reputable terms, and that the controversy is explained.One example of where this was needed was during the furore over the MMR vaccination. Basically one rogue scientist found that there was a link between this and autism, and instead of following the rigorous scientific process that could have proved whether this was true or not and been verified by the scientific community, he decided to go straight to the press.

Obviously this was tested (and already had been prior to the vaccines widespread use) and discredited. But, as a result of the media hype surrounding this bad piece of science the number of vaccines being given went down, from 96% immunisation in 2002, to 84% in 2003, (down to 61% in some areas). Of course what followed? outbreaks of disease. Measels cases rose 10-fold between 1998 and 2006, and Mumps reached epidemic levels in the population. People became severely and permanently injured and there were even deaths, all because of sloppy journalism about a massively important piece of science.

Of course, saying that scientific journalists should know what they’re talking about is one thing, actually doing it another.

2. The second thing I think that should happen is that the scientific establishment needs its own PR wing. Scientific culture is seen by many as too elitist, articles are peer-reviewed and published in journals, scientific magazines then write up a summary of the articles and their place in the consensus view and their implications. Each piece of evidence is tested to destruction, all by the scientific community with very little input from the general public.

If there was some way to engage the public with what is going on in the scientific community, to let them view their opinions I think people would be a whole lot less untrusting of science.

Unfortunately as is stands people see the smaller but more ambitious things that science brings to society (potential cures for cancer, the moon landings), not the larger scale, but smaller things that fundamentally change society (vaccinations, technological advances). This is something that needs to change; science needs a way of entering a public forum and explaining the latest research or project and explaining why it is being done and what the potential benefit could be.

I think the internet gives a great opportunity for this kind of dialogue to happen, hopefully sooner rather than later.

3. The final, and probably smallest way in which science can bring back some of the trust it’s lost is for a simple updating of its vocabulary which would allow people to understand the scientific process with much greater ease.

In science an idea is called a hypothesis, this hypothesis is then tested, and verified by other scientists and published, if it fits with the existing evidence it is added to the existing consensus (or theory), if it doesn’t then the entire theory is called into question.

Once a theory has been established as fact by the great weight of evidence supporting it then… nothing happens.

In scientific history these well established theories used to become laws (the law of gravity, the laws of motion etc.) but for some mysterious reason this part of the process has been dropped, and it leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of science (how many creationists have you heard calling evolution “just a theory”). This way of labelling the process doesn’t make sense to most people without the last part intact.

The law of evolution, even to someone as nerdy as myself, sounds much more authoritative than the theory of evolution. I think this is a small step that would really help people identify understand and identify with science.

Anyway, that’s enough of a nerd-out for now, thanks for reading.

Shep

Review: White Lies - Ritual

White Lies
Ritual
Released 17th January 2011 on Fiction Records


White Lies are an odd band to try and categorise, like Placebo they have a wide appeal, NME seems just as likely to write about them as does Kerrang.

Following on from their superb debut album 'To Lose My Life...' Ritual finds White Lies developing their sound, experimenting with new ones and dropping many of the aspects that once saw them seen as a Joy Division rip off band. However, I suspect this new sound is going to alienate some of their fan base and drawing comparisons between the two records is going to be difficult.

'Is Love' opens the album, and by the time the song's finished it's apparent this album isn't going to be To Lose My Life 2.0. some interesting instrumentation is played around with on this one, but it's going to be a great live song and builds up to be quite anthemic.

Second track, 'Strangers', is quite straight-forward song, but even here the use of synthesisers is something that wouldn't quite have fit in on the last album. First single 'Bigger Than Us' is the first (and maybe only) song that would feel at home one 'To Lose My Life...', with some great music and the White Lies-esque lyrics of "I wanted to stay / and lights on the hillside don't take me this way / I want you to hold me, and I want you to pray / This is bigger than us" there's no question this is going to be a live favourite to sing along to.

Next up 'Peace & Quiet' starts off like a new-wave version of a slow White Lies song, but the chorus feels a bit too cheesy pop ballad for my liking, but hey, maybe it'll grow on me. 'Streetlights' starts off quite minimalistic in it's sound and has some pretty decent lyrics "I'm bored and I'm afraid I'm falling like rain for you / So tired of picking skin, just 'coz it's something to do", a shame then that the chorus kinda just bumps along rather than going anywhere or lifting the song to new heights.

'Holy Ghost' then picks the album back up a bit, possible single material this song is going to be another live favourite, and is a great example of the new sounds and structures they're experimenting with on this album (n.b. anybody else reminded of Boney M's 'Daddy Cool'with the bass line?).
'Turn The Bells' is notable for it's almost Nine Inch Nails-esque use of percussion (that said, they were using Nine Inch Nails producer), unfortunately however this is one of the albums weaker songs, it just doesn't do anything.

'The Power & The Glory' is the most enjoyable song on the album and likely to be the second single, or would be if I had my way, a slow-starter it builds up to be a beast of a song, perhaps White Lies most uplifting song to date, even with their pendant sinister lyrics intact "As empty handed leaving as I was when I came / Tip-toeing through the rubble / and running through the flames".

Shame then that it is followed by 'Bad Love', musically it's one of the heavier songs, but it's let down by some suspicious lyrics "I'm gonna write your girl a letter / It'll make everything better" and it just feels a bit generic. Last song on the album 'Come Down' is another good one, it's a really slow starter (it doesn't really kick in until it's over the 3 minute mark), but well worth the wait.

All in all Ritual finds a band who don't want to repeat past glories and have instead pushed hard to experiment with new ideas and sounds, they've improved alot as musicians in the last two years and vocally there is a vast improvement. Sure, not all songs are quite up to the standard of the last album and the new sound may alienate some fans, but it's a price worth paying for a band that wants to develop and get better at what they do. I recommend this album simply because when it's bad, it's mediocre, but when it's good, it's fantastic.

Check Out:
Is Love
Bigger Than Us
Holy Ghost
The Power & Glory

Avoid:
Turn The Bells
Bad Love

What America Needs Now...

Following the assassination attempt of US Senator Gabrielle Giffords on Saturday, the US needs to wake up to the danger of allowing free access to guns to almost all citizens without stringent checks, and needs to tone down the violent rhetoric in it's political debate.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution allows all citizens "to keep and bear arms", this has lead to a situation where a majority of Americans believe it is within their rights to own a firearm. Currently, for every 100 US citizens there are 90 legally owned guns.

Whenever there is a major shooting in the UK, the debate that follows is almost always on the control of guns and of the environment in which the shooting occurred, as seen with last years Cumbria Shootings and Northumbria Manhunt. But, because of the Second Amendment in the US the control of guns portion of debate is always missing, no politician will go near it, suggesting Americans should give up their guns is political kryptonite.

So, what should be done, I believe the senate needs to have an open and honest debate about the place of guns in society, with the aim of implementing Canadian-style gun control.

In Canada citizens are legally allowed to own guns but there are 4 steps to go through before being allowed a licence:
1. Pass a gun safety course
2. Provide three character references
3. Provide information on your marital status and financial affairs
4. Post this off and receive your licence within 4-6 weeks.

One other difference between the US and Canadian law is that in Canada self-defence is not a valid reason to hold a gun. This means that in Canada a much more reasonable proportion (22%) of households hold guns.

Now the other half of this debate is about the environment and glorification of guns, especially in politics. The Republicans (but to some degree Democrats too) have allowed a culture of violence to appear in their politics, instead of disagreeing in an open debate, senators have (literally) been making targets of those they disagree with, this simply has to end.

And no matter how you defend it, if your response to the shooting of someone you disagree with is to scrub your website of any inappropriate messages, then you have a guilty conscience, and for good reason.

Sarah Plain's map of senators who voted for a health care bill she disagreed with...

Glenn Beck being his usual opportunistic, hypocritical self:

Anyway, i'll leave you with this impassioned speech by Keith Olbermann on the shooting:




Shep

A Small Change...

On May 5th, The Coalition government will hold a referendum on replacing the current First Past the Post voting system with that of the Alternative Vote. This is an issue I am passionate about and will attempt to explain here the differences between the two systems, why there is such a debate going on about it, and hopefully convince you to vote Yes to AV.

So, what is First Past The Post.
First Past The Post  (FPTP) is our current voting system, voting itself is simple, for each constituency there are a list of candidates, we mark an X onto the candidate we most want to win in our constituency, from there all the votes are counted and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, seems simple enough. Only it's not an entirely fair system, if there are say 5 candidates in a constituency, it is feasible that the winning candidate could win with only 21% of the vote, meaning 79% of votes cast are wasted, leading to scenarios like this in 2005...

Because of this the system creates safe seats, where one party can keep control of a particular seat because of an above average number of their voters in that area meaning the rest of the population in that area have little chance of changing their MPs and can theoretically be ignored, not very democratic.

Other issues include the fact that smaller parties are excluded, especially if they have a support all over the country (rather than isolated pockets of support), in last years elections UKIP received roughly 1 million votes, compared to the Conservatives 10 million, but because the support they had was not enough in any one seat to get them an MP those votes are wasted, whereas the Conservatives currently have 306 MPs.

Tactical voting is widely used under FPTP, this occurs where voters vote for a party which they do not fully support in order to keep out a party they don't want to win, (I myself tactically voted Labour in an attempt to prevent the Conservatives taking my constituency), this blurs voting intentions and means many thousands of people in swing seats give up their preferred vote in order to give another party a boost.

The final issue with FPTP is that it only really works in a 2-party political system (such as that of the US), but in britain we're increasingly becoming a three or multi-party system. In 1951 only 3.2% of votes cast were for someone other than the Conservatives or Labour, skip forward to 2010 and that figure stands at 34.9%.


So, if First Past The Post is broken, what is the Alternative Vote, and why is it better?
The Alternative Vote (AV) (Also known as Instant-Runoff Voting), is similar to FPTP but improves upon its weaknesses, so instead of marking an X next to the candidate they want to win, the voter instead ranks the candidates in order of preference (if you only want to choose one you're still free to do so), from there all first choice votes are counted and if the winner doesn't have the vote of 50% of the electorate the candidate ranking last is eliminated and the second preference votes for that candidate are then counted and added to the totals of the remaining candidates. This process is continued until one candidate has over 50% of the electorates support.


Some benefits of this system are that it means MPs have to work harder to gain and keep their constituents support, the need for tactical voting is removed as voters can put an undesirable choice as their last preference (or not vote for them at all) under AV, removing the need to vote for a second favourite party in order to keep another out.

It also removes safe seats, so that all MPs have to work hard to get the support of the electorate. Another benefit is obvious, it gives the voter a greater choice to choose between candidates.

One of the nicer changes AV would bring is a drop in negative campaigning, a candidate is less likely to attack another candidate if they feel they may well end up receiving some of their second choice votes.

Many people who oppose the introduction of AV claim that it doesn't result in 'strong government' and leads to more hung parliaments, this simply isn't true, since 1910 Australia (which uses AV) has had two hung parliaments, whereas in the UK, we've had 4. If anything AV will help our electoral system as we move away from a two-party system and help prevent future Hung Parliaments.

Also remember AV is already used in the UK, Labour, The Liberal Democrats, and (yes) The Conservatives all use AV to elect their leaders, isn't it time the public got the same choice?).

I think i've laid out the facts here for you to make up your own mind (hopefully, like me you'll agree AV is better), but before I go i'd like to make one more point. This is not a referendum on either the Coalition or the Liberal Democrats, voting no to spite Nick Clegg may seem like a good idea, but it would delight the Tories and mean we lose out on this once in a generation opportunity to change the way our democracy is run,. as always, others say it better, so here's this weeks editorial for The Independent:

AV is a good change on its own terms. It ensures that voters have an equal chance to influence the outcome in their constituency, and to express their preferences honestly so that they can be counted, even if they do not support the winning candidate.

The alternative vote is not perfection, or a magic solution to the problem of disillusionment with politics. Yet it is an important step towards a better democracy that empowers the voter, and so deserves our wholehearted support.

Shep

Vote Yes on May 5th

2010 in Music...

I'm not a fan of nostalgia, but at the end of a year it's become something of a tradition to look back and self-indulge in a best of / worst of list, to that extent this is a play list of my favourite new songs of the year:



EDIT: If the above player isn't working please find the play list here

please note, if you know me you'll know I'm not exactly a conventional pop fan, so please don't expect to find the latest Take That song on here, this play list is self-indulgent and only reflects my most played songs of the last year.
If you have a similar taste in music to me I hope you'll enjoy it, if not I hope you'll find something you haven't heard before which you enjoy (if not there's always the skip button)

Shep