An animated Bruce Hood. Creative Commons licensed picture by Dave Fayram
The holiday season is upon us which means it’s time for the Royal Institution Christmas lectures. This year the lectures are on the meaty subject of how our brains work and are delivered by psychologist Professor Bruce Hood from the University of Bristol [1,2]. Broadcast over three episodes at 8pm on BBC4 (27th, 28th and 29th December) the talks will also be freely available online afterwards, see trailer. Here’s the blurb on the first episode: What’s in your head?
Why does your brain look like a giant walnut, how does it fit in enough wiring to stretch four times around the equator and why can a magnet on your head stop you in mid-sentence? In the first of this year’s Christmas Lectures, Professor Bruce Hood gets inside your head to explore how your brain works. He measures the brain’s nerve cells in action, reads someone’s mind from 100 miles away and reveals how the brain ultimately creates its own version of reality.
The second episode is titled Who’s in charge here?
Your brain is constantly being bombarded with information, so how does it decide what to trust and what to ignore, without you even being aware? Professor Bruce Hood leads us through the second of this year’s Christmas Lectures – testing the limits of our memory, finding out how we learn, how our brain takes shortcuts and why multi-tasking can be dangerous. Bruce will make you say the wrong thing and fail to see what’s right in front of you. Can you really believe your eyes? Possibly not.
The final episode is Are You Thinking What I’m Thinking?
Have you ever seen a face in a piece of burnt toast, or given your car a name? Why do you feel pain when someone else is hurt? Why are people so obsessed with other people? In the last of this year’s Christmas Lectures, Professor Bruce Hood investigates how our brains are built to read other people’s minds. With a little help from a baby, a robot and a magician, Bruce uncovers what makes us truly human.
This will (probably) be the last post of the year at O’Really, so if you’ve visited, thanks for reading during 2011. It’s been an eventful twelve months, with not much time for blogging, maybe that will change next year…
Wherever you are, whatever you’re up to, have a happy holidays and a prosperous 2012.
References
Hood, B., Willen, J., & Driver, J. (1998). Adult’s Eyes Trigger Shifts of Visual Attention in Human Infants Psychological Science, 9 (2), 131-134 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00024
Curryology, the branch of science that deals with curry, is an established discipline with a long and distinguished history. The myriad ingredients of curry, such as curcumin (in turmeric), capsaicin (in chilli pepper), cumin, coriander and many others have been a topic of considerable scientific research [1,2,3,4,5].
Like many large British cities, Manchester is blessed with a large population of people from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. All this means there is a bewildering array restaurants and eateries serving delicious curry, and Mancunians are spoilt for choice when it comes to spicy food.
Visitors to, and residents of the city often ask:
“Where can I get the best curry in Manchester?”
After more than fifteen years of extensive and exhaustive scientific research in restaurants around Manchester I’m pleased to report on what, in my humble opinion, is the best* curry house….
Conventional wisdom dictates that some of the finest curries can be found on the curry mile, a mile long strip of neon and spice in Rusholme, South Manchester. While Rusholme curries are good, you’ll find it hard to beat This and That Indian Cafe on Soap Street, Shudehill, Manchester M4 1EW. Tucked away in a humble side street, this place really is a hidden gem. What makes it so good?
Excellent value for money (see menu), a crucial factor in these economically challenging times
No nonsense service from friendly staff (see picture above)
There is a charm to This and That which comes from being hidden down a dodgy looking side street, off the beaten track. Somehow, if it were in a more obvious location, it wouldn’t be quite as appealing.
Delicious curry (omnomnom) gorge yourself on gorgeous gargantuan ghee dishes
A diverse clientele, you’ll rub shoulders with anyone and everyone from elite BBC hacks like Justin Rowlatt, policemen, taxi drivers and Joe the sparky from the local building site, who are all regulars.
What more could you ask for from a curry house?
References
Parthasarathy, V. A., Chempakam, B., and Zachariah, T. J. (2008). Chemistry of Spices (Cabi), ISBN:1845934059. Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International , first edition.
Bettaieb, I., Bourgou, S., Wannes, W., Hamrouni, I., Limam, F., & Marzouk, B. (2010). Essential Oils, Phenolics, and Antioxidant Activities of Different Parts of Cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58 (19), 10410-10418 DOI: 10.1021/jf102248j
Silva, F., Ferreira, S., Queiroz, J., & Domingues, F. (2011). Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) essential oil: its antibacterial activity and mode of action evaluated by flow cytometry Journal of Medical Microbiology, 60 (10), 1479-1486 DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.034157-0
Ringman JM, Frautschy SA, Cole GM, Masterman DL, & Cummings JL (2005). A potential role of the curry spice curcumin in Alzheimer’s disease. Current Alzheimer research, 2 (2), 131-6 PMID: 15974909
Bode, A., & Dong, Z. (2011). The Two Faces of Capsaicin Cancer Research, 71 (8), 2809-2814 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3756
Why can’t the English just say what they mean, dammit?
Stephen Fry’s Planet Word is an entertaining romp through the English language. It provides a timely reminder as to why people don’t always say what they mean, see the episode on uses and abuses of language for some entertaining examples. Talking of the divergence between what people say and what they actually mean, reminded me of this handy British / American English translation key (which comes via the good people at OpenHelix).
What the British say
What the British mean
What others understand
I hear what you say
I disagree and do not want to discuss it further
They accept my point of view
With the greatest respect
I think you are an idiot
They are listening to me
That’s not bad
That’s good
That’s poor
That is a very brave proposal
You are insane
They think I have courage
Quite good
A bit disappointing
Quite good
I would suggest…
Do it or be prepared to justify yourself
Think about the idea, but do what you like
Oh incidentally/ by the way
The primary purpose of our discussion is…
That is not very important
I was a bit disappointed that
I am annoyed that
It doesn’t really matter
Very interesting
That is clearly nonsense
They are impressed
I’ll bear it in mind
I’ve forgotten it already
They will probably do it
I’m sure its my fault
It’s your fault
Why do they think it was their fault?
You must come for dinner
It’s not an invitation, I’m just being polite
I will get an invitation soon
I almost agree
I don’t agree at all
They are not far from agreement
I only have a few minor comments
Please re-write completely
They have found a few typos
Could we consider some other options
I don’t like your idea
They have not yet decided
All human languages have the facility for the kinds of little white lies shown above, not just English. Life would be quite different if people always said precisely what they meant, and the English would have less fun confusing Americans with their ludicrous limey language.
Job satisfaction is like a complex mathematical equation that needs to be balanced. There are many factors that contribute to the mix, both good and bad. Hopefully the good things about a job will outweigh the bad. But what are the good things that contribute to the elusive but crucial job satisfaction?
Daniel Pink, argues that motivation is key to job satisfaction. If you provide the right motivations to people in an organisation, not always large financial ones [1], then their job satisfaction is more likely. According to Pink, the three key motivations are:
Autonomy: The desire to be self-directed.
Mastery: The urge to get better at doing things and be recognised for it
Purpose: The sense that your work makes a difference and maybe even makes the world a better place somehow.
Pink explains how these factors work in another one of those beautifully animated RSA videos below:
So if like Mick and Keith, you can’t get no (job) satisfaction [2], it’s probably worth aiming for more autonomy, mastery and purpose in your work.
References
Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large Stakes and Big Mistakes Review of Economic Studies, 76 (2), 451-469 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00534.x
What caused the summer riots of 2011 in the UK? Many reasons have been suggested and a long list of possible causes has been drawn up over the summer. The baby boomer generation should be added to the list of suspects. It is the baby boomers, those born roughly between 1945-1965, that caused the riots – it’s mostly their fault [1].
Arson and rioting in Tottenham, August 2011 (AP Photo/PA, Lewis Whyld)
UK riots: a long list of suspects
Who or what can we blame for the UK riots? It’s complicated but we could…
Blame it on the government. Twenty years of Labour rule under Blair/Brown followed a year of Cameron’s coalition. Depending on your political persuasion, it is all the current / previous governments fault the UK is falling to pieces.
Blame it on the parents or lack of them. Irresponsible parents let their children run riot, if you believe what you read in the newspapers.
Blame it on the recession, high unemployment and grim job prospects for everyone, but especially those aged 16-24, the NEETS, not in education, employment or training.
Blame it on the baby boomers, they stole their children’s future and they’re not giving it back. Just ask David Willetts MP, he’s written a book all about them [1]. In a nutshell, the book describes how the baby boomers took all the houses, jobs, cheap education, welfare, free health care and decent pensions. To add insult to injury, they undervalue the claims of future generations (Generation X and Generation Y) by spending their kids inheritance (aka S.K.I.-ing). Should it be so surprising that their disgruntled sons, daughters and grandchildren were rioting on the streets?
It is hard to conclusively prove that any of these suspects are guilty as charged because the causes of rioting are complex. However, it seems likely that the unequal wealth and influence of baby boomers was a contributing factor in the UK riots. You can read all about it in Mr Willett’s intriguing book [1,2].
Fighting the lore of wikipedia is an increasingly futile battle but there are people who resist using and improving the online encyclopedia. The remarkable thing is that some of this resistance comes from the scientific and academic communities, two groups of people who are supposedly concerned with the dissemination of knowledge.
Wikipedia is the lore
With around 300 million visitors each month, wikipedia is firmly in the top ten of most trafficked websites in the world. But you don’t get 300 million visits without attracting some critics, many of whom object to wikipedia’s inaccuracies and the anonymity of some its contributors. What many critics object to is that wikipedia is the lore. That is not the law, but the lore, as in folklore. Like folklore, wikipedian knowledge often comes handed down by word of mouth, copy-and-paste and other questionable practices. The trouble with lore is, it can sometimes be unreliable, based on hearsay, gossip and urban myths rather than hard facts and knowledge favoured by scientists and academics. To some people, wikipedia is a lore which should be fought in every way possible.
Fighting the lore of wikipedia
Professor Neil Waters is one of many examples of an academic who has fought the lore of wikipedia. Water’s students were infamously told that they can’t cite wikipedia in their work [1]. They are still free to use it, but are forbidden to cite it, because of the lack of academic rigour. Wikipedia, the argument goes, is a “tertiary source” rather than a primary one and therefore not suitable for serious research.
But people like Patricia Dooley have pointed out that academics fighting the use of wikipedia is hypocritical. In a small study published [2], she found that some university faculty members (the “two-faced professoriate” [2]) depend on Wikipedia in their teaching and published research despite the fact that they often discourage their students from using it. Are critics of wikipedia in the academy hypocrites fighting a losing battle?
Has the lore of wikipedia won?
As with many keywords, if you Google just about any scientific term, wikipedia will be in the first page of results. Here are some examples, taken from by Darren Logan’s why wikipedia is important in science:
At the time of writing, 90% of the search terms above have a wikipedia page as their very first Google hit. So, when it comes to accessibility and visibility, the lore of wikipedia is winning.
Improving the lore of wikipedia: Don’t fight it, edit it
So wikipedia is winning but many articles with scientific content are incomplete, inaccurate or just plain wrong. What should scientists do about it? Rather than discouraging students to use it, wouldn’t it be better if academics and scientists encouraged their students to correct it? Fusing the lore of wikipedia with the law of science in this way is perhaps, the “greatest ever opportunity for public engagement”. Ornithologist Alexander Bond is the latest in a long line of scientists arguing exactly this case [3]. Where wikipedia is wrong, he suggests that scientists have a duty to make sure that it is accurate and up to date:
“Regardless of the academy’s views on Wikipedia, it will remain a resource used by students, researchers and the public for the near future. Academics should appropriate Wikipedia as a teaching and outreach tool, resulting in higher quality information, more engaged students and a better-informed public.”
So if you’re a scientist or any other kind of academic, there is plenty of help and advice on hand [4] and many different wiki–projects to get involved in. Don’t fight the lore, edit it.
References
Neil L. Waters (2007). Why you can’t cite Wikipedia in my class Communications of the ACM, 9, 15-17 DOI: 10.1145/1284621.1284635
Patricia L. Dooley (2010). Wikipedia and the two-faced professoriate WikiSym ’10 Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration DOI: 10.1145/1832772.1832803
Alexander L. Bond (2011). Why ornithologists should embrace and contribute to Wikipedia Ibis, 153 (3), 640-641 DOI: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2011.01135.x
Darren Logan, Massimo Sandal, Paul Gardner, Magnus Manske, & Alex Bateman (2010). Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. PLoS computational biology, 6 (9) PMID: 20941386
Science, is a big word that gets used and abused with reckless abandon. Virtually any discipline can award itself extra kudos by adding the magic S word at the end. For example, which sounds weightier, sports studies or sports science?
This phenomenon has been noticed many times before, for example, the philosopher John Searle once remarked that:
“Science has become something of an honorific term, and all sorts of disciplines that are quite unlike physics or chemistry are eager to call themselves ‘sciences‘.
A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that anything that calls itself a science probably isn’t.” –see [1,2]
So let’s make a list. Starting with thingsthat probably aren’t a Science because they call themselves one:
So are maths, physics, chemistry, biology etc real sciences™ too? Using Searle’s definition, it’s difficult to say. To avoid confusion, it might be a good idea to use a subjects non-scientific original name (“biology” rather than “life science”) that way, we know (paradoxically) they are real sciences. Probably.
References
John R. Searle (1986). Minds, Brains and Science (1984 Reith Lectures) Harvard University Press ISBN:0674576330 (see also audio from the BBC Reith lecture archive) not Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.ISBN:052109626X (as originally stated in the first version of this post)
Fuller quotation: “Science has become something of an honorific term, and all sorts of disciplines that are quite unlike physics and chemistry are eager to call themselves ‘sciences’. A good rule of thumb to keep in mind is that anything that calls itself ‘science’ probably isn’t — for example, Christian science, or military science, and possibly even cognitive science or social science. The word ‘science’ tends to suggest a lot of researchers in white coats waving test tubes and peering at instruments. To many minds it suggests an arcane infallibility. The rival picture I want to suggest is this: what we are all aiming at in intellectual disciplines is knowledge and understanding. There is only knowledge and understanding, whether we have it in mathematics, literary criticism, history, physics, or philosophy. Some disciplines are more systematic than others, and we might want to reserve the word ‘science’ for them.”
Well it’s that time again. The annual sweaty fist-fight for supremacy between the scientific journals, as measured by impact factors, is upon us. Much ink (virtual and actual) has been spilt on the subject of impact factors, which we won’t add to here, other than to say:
Hey look, the “European” journals might be catching up with the “American” ones. [1]
* The Naval Architect is included here for reference as it has the lowest non-zero impact factor of any science journal. A rather dubious honour…
** The Cancer Journal for Clinicians is the highest ranked journal in science, is included here for reference.
[Creative Commons licensed picture of Khmer boxing picture by lecercle]
References
Karageorgopoulos, D., Lamnatou, V., Sardi, T., Gkegkes, I., & Falagas, M. (2011). Temporal Trends in the Impact Factor of European versus USA Biomedical Journals PLoS ONE, 6 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016300
Ah Sunday, a day of rest, recuperation and roasted food…
Unless you’re a scientist, that is, in which case you might be working. If that’s you, this one goes out to all you committed high-calibre, driven scientists [1,2,3] who are spending this Sunday working at the laboratory bench. The amusing little ditty below is written by biologists Michael Elowitz and Uri Alon, and performed here by Uri Alon.
I kissed my wife and kissed farewell
I must go down to run my gel
I’m going to spend another Sunday at the lab
My wife said “Uri, you’ve got to promise,
you love me more than doing Science”
I said “Honey, can we discuss this another day?”
I’m going to spend another Sunday at the lab
My mum said “Son, don’t waste your life,
go home and spend time with the wife
you must have heard this from your father
why can’t you be more like your brother?
No son of mine spends Sundays at the lab.”
My dad said “Son, you need a shrink”
The shrink said son “you need a drink”
Those Rorschach spots reminded me of blots
He said “Oh God, you obviously have an obsessive compulsion
to spend all your Sundays at the lab”
My wife she left me
My mum disowned me
The shrink pretends he doesn’t know me
Because I can’t be myself
Without some buffer on the shelf
So if you need me, you can phone me at the lab
I’m going to spend another Sunday
I’m going to spend another Sunday
I’m going to spend another Sunday at the lab
References
Elowe J (2010). Workaholism: between illusion and addiction. L’Encephale, 36 (4), 285-93 [Boulomanie : entre illusion et addiction] PMID: 20850599 DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2009.12.002
Overbaugh, J. (2011). 24/7 isn’t the only way: A healthy work–life balance can enhance research Nature, 477 (7362), 27-28 DOI: 10.1038/477027a
O'Really? 