Wankers live longer

I was reading the Mirror today and saw one of those 'scientific' reports. You know the sort I mean, the kind that prove women are genetically better at folding sheets or that gay people don't exist. Anyway, this one comes from the scientific laboratories of Dr Emmanuele Jannini who previously "discovered the G-spot" and has done no doubt worthwhile research into "female ejaculation".

In other words a tabloid friendly scientist rather than a finding useful things out scientist. As an aside I've always been curious about the way tabloids attack university courses on doctorates in Harry Potter or whatever and lap up scientific reports on whether women are funny or large breasts are interesting, which is surely just as much a waste of intellectual resources... but anyway, back on topic.

So, Jannini has discovered that having lots of sex makes you live longer. Good news for various historical Popes, less good news for Cliff Richard.

Actually it turns out there's a couple of caveats. First of all the research is about men despite the fact that the Mirror just says having lots of sex is good for you. Presumably all their readers are men, in which case that's perfectly reasonable.

It also turns out that it's based on the fact that if you cum a lot (men) you produce more testosterone which, apparently, leads to all sorts of health benefits (which I'm not sure is true but anyway). So the headline could just as well be "wankers live longer" leading to doctors proscribing the five knuckle shuffle.

The second caveat is that it has to be proper married sex not naughty extra-marital sex. No, no really, this is apparently the claim because "unfaithful men do worse because they are "also coping with the increased stress of their infidelity"."

Are we sure that unfaithful men are more stressed than faithful, or single, ones? They *might* be, but what's the evidence for this? How can I be sure that I'm not just reading a ready for tabloid pseudo-science report that says exactly what the tabloids want it to say reproducing their fetid ideology? Oh, I can't.

Science is vital

The Liberal Democrats and their coalition partners are embarking on a large number of cuts, as we know. We also know that these cuts will significantly effect almost every aspect of government spending - and many of these cuts will, in fact, be false economies that end up leaving us far worse off financially than if we'd left the investment in place.

You can see this extremely clearly with the cuts to science funding (eg Doc Richard) which doesn't just undermine the UK's ability to rake in Nobel Prizes, it also undermines our ability to capitalise and build on scientific research that is done all around the world. It will place us, economically, in a massively disadvantaged position for a generation if we allow these cuts to take place.

Vince Cable may think there is a sharp dividing line between the economically profitable bits of science funding and the esoteric mind-bending theoretical stuff, but in the medium and long term you need deep thought as well as work on more efficient micro-processors because the dividing line between the two is not as strong as you might at first think.

More than that if we are to move to a more ecologically sustainable society new technologies are going to be absolutely at the heart of that. Not because we can carry on as normal with a few funky gadgets but because if we don't develop viable energy alternatives to coal, for example, then we simply don't have a hope of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions either quickly or substantially enough.

CASE and the science is vital campaign is part of that fight to prevent the science cuts, although am I alone in thinking that Patrick Moore's claim to "support the Science Is Vital campaign 200%!” is not the most well judged way of expressing his support for scientific endeavor!

Certainly I think it would be great if readers asked their MP to sign EDM 767 on the need to safeguard scientific research funding, as well as signing this petition yourselves. You might also like to attend the lobby in the House of Commons tomorrow (Tuesday) 3:30 – 4:30pm in Committee Room 10.

News flash: "mephedrone deaths" not drugs related

Yes. You heard that right.

Those two poor lads whose deaths caused the almighty drugs panic around mephedrone had not even taken the drug (what I said at the time was wait for the scientific analysis before jumping to conclusions here).

The BBC reports;

Toxicology tests have shown that two teenagers whose deaths were linked to mephedrone had not taken the drug.

The deaths of Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, in March 2010 sparked concern about the synthetic stimulant, which was then legal.

The Labour government banned the so-called "legal high" in April, making it a Class B drug alongside amphetamines and cannabis.

But tests have revealed there were no traces of mephedrone in their blood.

It is thought further tests are being conducted to try to establish what, if any, substances the pair had taken.

Mephedrone - also known as Meow, Bubbles and M-CAT - is derived from cathinone, a compound found in a plant called Khat.

Humberside Police, which carried out the initial investigation into the teenagers' deaths, said in March it had "information to suggest these deaths are linked to M-CAT".

Its statement went on to say: "We would encourage anyone who may have taken the drug to attend a local hospital as a matter of urgency."

At the time, police believed the pair had been drinking and had also taken methadone - a similar-sounding but completely different drug to mephedrone.

On Friday, a spokeswoman said the force could not confirm or deny the results of the toxicology tests.

She said: "The pathology report, which includes toxicology findings, is prepared on behalf of the coroner and is not yet complete.

"The findings of the report, once completed, will be forwarded to the coroner and may be discussed at any inquest and will not be disclosed without the authority of HM Coroner."

North East Lincolnshire Coroners Court has refused to comment ahead of the inquest.

Mephedrone has been implicated in the deaths of 34 people in the UK - 26 in England and eight in Scotland.

But so far, the drug has been established as a cause of death in only one case in England, that of John Stirling Smith.

I expect you'll see a load of MPs (and ex-MPs) retracting their ill thought out drugs nonsense any day now....

More Star Letters

Another letter in the Morning Star in response to my wise, wise thoughts. This one is utterly brilliant!

I would like to congratulate you on the recent article by Jim Jepps (M Star November 2) describing the degradation of the relationship between science and the new Labour government.

However this article does not sit well with your news subs' policy of describing all scientists, from archeologists to zoologists, as "boffins." Come on Star, leave that patronising language to Murdoch.

Bill Atkins
Powys

You might also like to know that today's paper also had one of mine - this time on why men ought to be grateful for feminism. Do keep those letters coming! lettersed@peoples-press.com.

Day Three: Evidence based policy

One theme of this conference has been to start the urgent task of reviewing our rather inadequate and at times embarrassing science and technology policies. There were three main events of note on this. The first a motion on geo-engineering, the second a fringe on what treatments should be available on the NHS and lastly today we had a fringe launching the science and technology working group.

The geo-engineering motion, although well intentioned and certainly containing good points, made very robust claims on inadequate evidence. Conference soundly rejected it on the advice of outgoing policy supremo Brian Heatley (although it's an interesting area and I'd like to see more discussion on this). I think the fullness of the motion's rejection is partly a growing seriousness when scrutinising detailed scientific policy.

NHS treatments

The NHS fringe was extremely well attended and Stuart Jeffrey, health spokesperson, ran the session really well essentially handing over discussion to the floor and just giving it a guiding nudge when need be.

I and others put forward a radical proposal, that treatments that claim to be of some benefit to a patient should all be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and scientific testing no matter what heading they come under. I don't care if it's chanting, injections or crystals if it's meant to make you better let's see the proof - if you can't show it works then let's not treat people with it.

Currently our policy is a little out of step with this giving alternative therapies a lower standard of proof to 'conventional' medicine. I don't think that's necessary. I'm not going to reject acupuncture or other treatments out of hand, but I just believe we need a level playing field when it comes to assessing the evidence.

Thankfully the meeting gave a clear mandate for change. It was not unanimous, there were some comments about people being allowed to choose the treatments they receive for example, but the mood is there. I actually think we should explore patient choice, but I'm not paying taxes to fund your essential oils.

Sci-tech launch

Lastly we had the science and technology working group launch today. Cathryn Simmons has been taking a lead on this and invited freelance science journalist Martin Robbins to talk to us about his experience researching the Green Party's science and technology policies during the Euro election. I don't know how he felt it went but I thought it was an extremely productive session.

Martin gave a very measured description of a number of things. Firstly, the things he found when researching our policy. Some of it would make your hair stand on end. Secondly, the official response from the party when he approached them with a number of questions. Thirdly, he outlined the basics of what he thought evidence based policy might look like, particularly in regard to moral questions. Essentially if you want to argue that all animal testing is ethically wrong that's fine, but don't try to back it up with bad science - even if only to prevent yourself from undermining your own arguments.

I thought he had a very strong case and whilst it was a bit of shock at the time his article came out in the long run he has done us a massive favour by letting party members know that there are sections of our policy that simply do not adequately reflect the way we think. I think any urge to shoot the messenger has to restrained because the fault is entirely with the weak parts of our policy.

He's going to put his talk online so I wont cover the whole thing here, but the fringe certainly felt he made good, persuasive points and there was little dissent. There was much talk about what we were to do to put things right though. That process has already begun, although rightly with all policy making a radical overhaul will take time.

The health group is already assessing its policies and I hope we'll see something on stem cells and alternative medicines at the February conference (as well as the longer term commitment to overhaul this policy chapter). The science and technology group, which I'm involved with, will hopefully be moving motions in February addressing the pledge I talked about before.

I'd also like us to pass something that might be a bit of a token of good faith. A symbolic statement that says 'technology is an indispensable part of the solution to the problems we face'. Greens should be, and usually are, about embracing new technologies whether it's smart metres, renewable energy sources, or energy saving devices to name a few. I think we can find a way of accommodating the sensibilities of the deepest greens without having to retreat away from enlightenment values and the scientific method.

Science pledge: just say no

Well the science pledge poll results are in and, I can proudly announce dear readers, that you're wrong. Or rather 63% of the people who voted in the poll are. It happens, don't feel bad about it.

Should a pledge be introduced for scientists and technologists to promise to respect the Earth and life upon it? Selection Votes Yes - absolutely! 35% 46 Yes - could be a good idea 28% 37 No - although I'm sympathetic 10% 13 No - I hate the idea 25% 32 Not sure 2% 2 130 votes total

I'm assuming 'foul play' but I could be wrong. I'd just like to raise some of my problems with a pledge specifically for scientists (which is currently the Green Party of England and Wales' policy).

1. Why single out scientists? Why not make industrialists or hedge-fund managers take a pledge?
2. What happens to them if they don't? When some poor sap working in theoretical physics, wrestling with an algebraic leviathan, doesn't want to 'respect' anything without the prefix 'nano-' attached does he lose his job? What does that do to academic freedom?
3. Why do we have to rely on moralistic mechanisms like pledges? Don't they substitute for the more difficult process of actually persuading people? What's wrong with making environmentally damaging practices illegal?
   

I personally believe that such a pledge feeds into the idea that all Greens are anti-science. Well, that may be true of some but I reckon they're the minority and I hope to prove that in March by taking out our policy to make people swear oaths to Mother Nature or whatever.

NB next week is Green Party conference and the whole 'Is science naughty' thing is going to get aired formally at two workshops, hope to see flocks of sensible Greens there.

3 pm Friday Stuart Jeffrey is leading a panel on "science and health care - what treatments should be available on the NHS?"

12 noon on Saturday We have a workshop billed as setting up the science and technology working group, although actually it's going to discuss some of these issues around policy in a bit more depth.

New Poll: Vow of Science

We all agree that we want a more sustainable society and that we all have a part to play in making that come about. Well, most of us do anyway.

Do scientists and technologists have a special responsibility to the planet? After all it's their work that has enabled the creation of some of the most environmentally damaging practices in human history.

What would you think of an attempt to campaign for scientists to vow not to do ecological harm by pushing for, specifically, a "pledge to be introduced by which all scientists and technologists will promise to respect the Earth and life upon it."?

I'd like to find out your views so I'm launching a poll (which you can find in this post and in the right hand column) and I'd consider it a favour if you'd take a couple of seconds to let me know what you think.

I'm going to stay out of this conversation because I'd like to know your views without skewing them, but feel free to discuss the idea in the comments as well as voting. Thank you.

Should a pledge be introduced for scientists and technologists to promise to respect the Earth and life upon it.?

Yes - absolutely!Yes - could be a good ideaNo - although I'm sympathicNo - I hate the ideaNot sure

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Science Friction

Scientific study is the best way human beings have found so far to try to grapple with how the world and the universe actually works. Whatever branch of scientific endeavor we look at it is the collective social attempt to understand facts in a systematic and provable fashion.

We've tried other methods before like holy texts, drug induced visions, folk lore or simple reiterations of current common sense understanding but none of them slapped men on the Moon, built the Empire State building or gave us the iPod. Science has concretely proven its ability to deliver the goods, literally, in a way that spells or what our forebears handed down could not.

What science isn't, of course, is the unmediated truth just our attempt to get at the truth. Science is not finished, nor is it ever likely to be, and some accepted ideas today will have to be discarded tomorrow. That's part of how scientific advances are made, by building on and critiquing what has gone before.

Likewise science tells us how we can do things but it is not necessarily a useful guide as to whether we should. The same technological advance that allowed humans to make the first stone tools did not determine whether we would produce flints to make fire, or blades to kill one another. These were social decisions (or anti-social ones).

Much of the world was rightly in awe when human beings first reached space (although dogs did get there before us, RIP Laika) but Gilbert Scott Heron's Whitey on the Moon shows with sledge hammer clarity that scientific advances reflect the priorities of the society that gave them birth.

Great leaps forward for some can actually signal just how ignored and far behind are the others. As Einstein once said "A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem."

Of course scientists can and do help guide whether certain courses of action are dangerous, counter productive or risk unintended consequences. The obvious example of this is climate change. The body of evidence is now overwhelming that man made climate change is having a profound impact upon the Earth's ecological systems which will inevitably lead to a dramatic shift in the way human beings will be living a hundred years from now. They even guide us on what we need to do to prevent such a catastrophe.

Sadly what they can't tell us is how we re-gear society. Individual scientists will disagree. Some will say we all need to go vegan, others that we need to reduce the population levels, others that we can create technological fixes that allow us to live the same kind of lives as we do today. These are social and political problems, the body of scientific work can influence our responses but it certainly cannot determine them.

If you believe that masturbation is forbidden by God there isn't much that Heinz Wolff (right) can do to put you off the idea, if anything his image might only entrench your determined anti-Onanism. To my mind a society run by scientists would be just as much a dystopia as one without science.

You certainly don't have to be a primivitist to reject the way scientific advances are sometimes put to use. Whether it's the social bullshit of gene theory or GM crops it would be quite wrong to confuse opposition to particular uses of science with an opposition to science itself.

Because the world is complex, changing and interconnected the implications of any technology are not simple and certainly not just a matter of being pro- or anti- the scientific understanding that brought that technology within reach. As Richard Feynman is meant to have said "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."

Yet it doesn't stop some claiming that a religious devotion to "science" in the abstract is possible, admirable and gives them automatic insight into every social question imaginable. At the heart of the scientific method is doubt, not certainty.

Robert Oppenheimer drew our attention to this disjunction between the project of scientific advance and the uses to which these are put when he said that "When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb. "

Economic, social and moral questions are not resolved so simply when, in a capitalist society, production and even ideas are owned. The social forces that determined who had the A-bomb were never neutral bearers of an inevitable linear advance of civilisation. In fact they heralded the possibility of social collapse. Chillingly Einstein told us that "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

I guess all I'm trying to say is that science is part of society. It's our way of looking for truths, not the truths themselves. The 'white heat of technology' isn't an unalloyed, uncomplicated advance. Whilst rejecting science is utterly backwards, to uncritically worship it is itself a rejection of the scientific method. We should always ask what science, in whose hands and to what end.

To be continued...

The secret of financial success? Give people the finger.

Yet another vacuous study coming to bizarre, unhelpful, pointless, unsupported conclusions that we can't do anything about. The papers report that tax payers' money has been spent studying the fingers of city financiers. Those with the longest ring fingers are the most successful it seems, which is naturally down to surplus testosterone turning an ordinary arsehole into an alpha arsehole of the most gargantuan proportions.

Quite how scientifically valid this research is when it results from the examination of forty four, count them forty four, city gents and their whithered grasping claws, I'm not sure. It seems a rather small sample size to start making wide pronouncements on the genetic secrets of fiscal probity over the whole of mankind.

The researchers say baldly; "Our model suggests a roughly even split between the contributions of biology and experience; biology in this case being the organising effects of pre-natal androgens on an individual's body, brain and behaviour." Right, OK, so you've just sorted out the entire nature nurture debate right there have you? It's about equal is it? Sure, I'll remember that bit of stunning evidence for future reference.

In addition to this the news reports forget to record how much misery the chill touch of these long fingered misanthropes has caused, nor do they venture an opinion on whether their criminal psychosis has impacted on their general well being as well as their off shore bank accounts and tax dodging trust funds, because none of that is "success". All you need to remember is testosterone = finger = money = success.

I mean obviously these people have finished curing cancer, fixing the hole in the Ozone layer, perfecting renewable energies and so on, so in their spare time they've taken it on themselves to gaze longingly into the eyes of these most bloated plutocrats for the opportunity of holding their hands, all under the thinly veiled ruse of scientific research. Question the nature of the city? That's not science, science is just there to tell you why these people are so wonderfully rich.

If only these Cambridge researchers would come round my gaff. I have a finger for them. Two in fact.

---

Finger watch; How long is his finger? Or his? Or theirs? Or his? How long was his? Where do they put their fingers? Where did he put his? Oh no - everyone's fingers are shortening!

Meet our Minister for Science

Once upon a time we had a Minister for Equality who was a member of the anti-equality outfit Opus Dei. Those days are long gone - but stepping up to receive the Ruth Kelly award for "Ministers appointed to surprising posts" we have Lord Drayson, Minister for Science.

As a PhD in robotics you'd have thought he was amply suited to sit in a New Labour cabinet but according to the interview he gave in The Sunday Times he thinks science is all about "magic" and "mystery"... oh... well, I suppose it is... in a way. However, he then goes on to say;

“I do believe in God. I think faith is a very strange thing. You don’t necessarily believe in something just because you’ve got the evidence to prove it,”

Yes. Evidence isn't all it's cracked up to be is it?

He must have learned that as Minister for Defence Procurement when an official would say "But Minister we have evidence these weapons will be used to suppress internal dissent," and he'd simply say "Evidence? Well, that's hardly proof is it? Throw in some free landmines!"

He then goes on to explain that he has a sixth sense that has enabled him to know in advance what was going to happen without knowing how. That must be a useful talent in any profession I suppose, even science.

Soma anyone?

Holy shit, have you seen this report on the BBC? "Trust drug may cure social phobia", oh my Lord - save us.

You didn't know there was such a thing as social phobia did you? Well there is, and it's the thing that stops you giving money to people you already know will rip you off or disbelieving bullshit science reports on the BBC. Well saints be praised your misery of having a survival instinct will soon be at an end.

"Drug trials are under way and early signs are promising say the scientists...We found that oxytocin has a very specific effect in social situations. It seems to diminish our fears. Based on our results, we can now conclude that a lack of oxytocin is at least one of the causes for the fear experienced by social phobics. We hope and indeed we expect that we can improve their sociability by administering oxytocin."

According to the report, by sociability they literally do mean our susceptibility to being conned. They also go on to say that this would be really helpful to people with autism. Because that's what vulnerable people really need - a drug to make them more vulnerable. As if autism is just an extreme introversion you can cure with a chemical version of Babycham.

What could improve the world more than a trust drug (or "cuddle drug" as it's referred to at one point in the article)? Possibly having a don't trust drug perhaps? A leave me alone I'm thinking drug? If we put this in all the water supplies so everyone just goes round trusting that it will work out just fine they'd be no need to monitor all our calls and emails I suppose. Not that they'd do that round here, our government loves us.

Mauricio Delgado, a psychologist at Rutgers University, said: "While a degree of wariness may protect one from harm, being able to ''forgive and forget'' is an imperative step in maintaining long-term relationships. The reported oxytocin finding could provide a bridge for potential clinical applications."

Being forced to forgive and forget (in a completely untargeted way) is not a healthy substitute for coming to terms with the way things are in your own time. I can't be the only person to shudder when I read that this sort of thing has moved one step closer towards "clinical applications". A drug for every social ill makes for a very sick society.

PS: It's Carnival of Socialism time again, the next edition is due out tomorrow here, rush your emails to Dave with your suggestions if you've spotted a good left post that you think should be included in this edition.

Sexual messages

Noticed this interesting item on the F Word. Science Daily has a piece on Why College Men May Hear 'Yes' When Women Mean 'No' which argues that "Faulty male introspection may explain why men so often misinterpret women's indirect messages to stop or slow down the escalation of sexual intimacy". Hmmm.

The study's argument is that men find it more difficult to understand that when a woman says 'its getting late' she doesn't always mean 'let's go to bed'. I think there are a whole number of unwarranted assumptions going on here. Just to raise a few thoughts.

Do these men "misinterpret" women, or do they just do what they want to do?

> I think this plays into the idea of sensitive but weak women and masculinity being about goonish strength. Where's the proof?

> If a man wants to touch someone up whose too polite to say no thanks some men may find it more convenient to just go ahead only stopping when explicitly told because they don't regard the woman as an equal human being but an object to be pawed.

> Why not go the whole hog and say that men "can't help themselves" if you're going come out with that sort of thing? Doesn't this attempt to absolve men of responsibility for their actions?

> When a man goes beyond where a woman wants to go there are lots of other explanations that don't seem to have been explored. Perhaps they think they can persuade a woman to go further? Perhaps they think the pleasure they'll gain from such an act out weighs any unpleasantness the woman may feel? Why assume this is a question of "misinterpretation"?

Does a multiple choice questionnare of 90 college students really give you the authority to start publishing conclusions?

> Hardly a large number of respondents.

> Are college students a reasonable cross section of society? It seems to me that this is the age when people are maturing sexually and often make mistakes that they make less frequently later in life.

> By using multiple choice questions the researchers have already skewed the survey results. It looks to me like they've designed their survey to get the answers they desire.

> By relying on men's conception of themselves you are inevitably going to screen out answers that basically say "I'm an arrogant idiot."

> Where's the context? A couple who've been together twenty years may have have very different communication difficulties than people who are having casual dates. Yet the "conclusions" are all about men in general.

Basically this sort of thing should never be published by anything that has the word Science in the title as the "study" amounts to nothing more than a potentially interesting bit of froth. I mean look at the conclusions that this far from extensive research reaches.

• Men need to be aware of the many ways that women may say "stop" without using the word "stop."
• When a man asks himself during intimacy, "Why did she say that?" he should not try to answer the question by imagining what he would mean if he said the same thing.
• When in doubt, ask. "So it's getting late; does that mean we should stop?"
• Women should use direct messages.
• A woman who cannot be direct should at least work a direct message into the indirect one: "It's getting late, so I'd like to stop."

I have a different set of conclusions for both sexes based on no pseudo-scientific data what so ever. Say what you mean and try not to be an arsehole.

More pointless propaganda for genetic determinism

Did anyone else see this piece of utter tripe in the Independent on Sunday? According to "scientists" the British sense of humour is in our genes. OFFS, as the kids might say.

"A survey of more than 4,000 twins suggests that humour regarded as typically British – sarcasm and self-deprecation – is linked to genes found in British men and women, but not shared, for instance, by Americans.

"While telling jokes and looking on the bright side of life – which researchers dubbed positive humour – is common to both sides of the Atlantic, only in the UK did they discover genetic links with negative humour – biting sarcasm and teasing. Experts admit that the results have left them baffled."

Baffled are they? Let me help them - could it be that their "British" subjects shared a "British" sense of humour and their "American" subjects didn't - and there also happened to be a common genetic trait in those "British" subjects that was not found in their "American" cousins. This does not add up to a genetic predisposition to finding toilets funny or laughing at old people slipping on icy pavements (or is that sidewalks?).

This is the news?

"They [sciencedudes] say it may explain why the British like aggressively sarcastic or denigrating humour such as Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and, of course, The Office. He [scienceman] highlighted the difference between Ricky Gervais's dreadful character David Brent and his much less embarrassing US counterpart played by Steve Carell. "

"The British may have a greater tolerance for a wide range of expressions of humour, including what many Americans might consider aggressively sarcastic or denigrating: like Fawlty Towers and Blackadder. In the North American version of The Office the lead character is much less insensitive and intolerant than in the original UK version," he added.

"...negative humour – teasing and ridicule, as well as more offensive, racist or sexist forms of humour, together with self-disparaging humour – appeared to be genetically linked only in Britain."

Was the qualification for taking part in this "research" a science degree and watching too much TV? Is there any evidence that Brits enjoy racist jokes more than Yanks? Could there be any historical reasons that the English have had a long tradition of telling jokes about stupid Irish people or the garlic eating French (a tradition that has certainly declined in my lifetime)? Could there have been any tensions in the past between these great nations that may help explain any of this more satisfactorily than "our genes made us do it"? Apart from all those wars and that nasty Imperialism business that is.

Did they stop to think that TV either side of the Atlantic is not a direct product of genetics but a cultural, economic and historical product. To divorce Friends or Monty Python from everything except some unproven genetic makeup of the extremely mixed populations of the country who first watched those shows is... what's the word... oh, I don't know... let's go with hogwash.

"Self-defeating humour tends to be highly correlated with neuroticism. People who tend to be more negative, depressed and anxious tend to use that kind of humour." That's the Brits is it? Definitely? Like, is that a scientific fact? wtf? Are we just taking cultural stereo-types at face value now - and saying it's hard wired into our oh so different brains?

What annoys me the most is that, because you can write an entertaining story about the research the "news" gets reported straight, without even the attempt at any sort of critical analysis. They wouldn't dream of treating a press release from the Tories in such an uncritical manner - but scientists, well now we are in the realm of proven facts. Apparently.

For instance, we could question how come there is a common genetic heritage to "British" people that is not shared by "Americans". Just who did these researchers define as Americans? A random cross section of the population? White people? How many Jews, how many Native Americans, how many Eastern European immigrants? The same goes for the British. The idea of a single British genetic stock is not politically neutral, nor is it uncontested - but it is an unquestioned assumption in this "story".

We might wish to ask ourselvs how could it be that people descended from the same genetic pool have a different genetic makeup? Was a self deprecating sense of humour an evolutionary disadvantage in the Wild West? I could see how that might work in a shootout;

"Draw!"... "Oh no, I couldn't possibly... after you." BANG!

Or perhaps the Plymouth Brethren left blighty because they were sick of being teased by their genetically crueler counter parts? I don't think so. Having some qualifications in genetic research does not allow you to make sweeping statements about the nuances in cultural difference between two places with such diverse populations. Well, that's what I reckon anyways.

Curing the common cold - I say don't do it!

Scientific press releases are often a bit dodgy. Take today's news that sniffling mice may herald the end of the common cold.

Firstly, as is the nature of these things, we get the sensation of break throughs around the corner when, as it stands, we're talking about the first step on the ladder.

Boffins (I love that word) have genetically modified mice to catch colds and they hope they will be "a valuable test-bed for potential new medications." In other words the news is they can begin research - not that they have nearly discovered a cure. I'm not downplaying this - it's an impressive scientific feat to identify a particular gene and then alter it in a mouse, I've tried and failed a hundred times or more - but the headlines imply a cure where there is none.

Secondly Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council which funded the study, has the best name ever. Bar none. Oh, sorry, that's not actually a point is it? The fact still stands, it's a great name.

Thirdly, has anyone asked the question do we want to cure the common cold? I'm not sure we do. Have we learned nothing from MRSA and our increasingly ineffectual antibiotics? Surely all a "cure" will do is to give us humans temporary alleviation of one of our milder ailments whilst also providing a trial by fire for cold germs eventually creating medication resistant colds. Great. A generation of people who's first proper encounter with a cold is the one that kills them.

Personally I think we already know the best way to deal with colds, and that is to live a healthy lifestyle maintaining a good immune system. Nah, sod it, let's just develop a pill, colds are inconvenient and we could be back on the production line a day or two earlier.

It's like the story that prisoners are to be provided diet supplement pills in order to try to quell their aggressive urges. Note: slop plus pills equals a proper governmental policy, decent food and treating people like human beings does not. Behave yourself - eat your cod liver oil. What are we, Victorians?

Brave New Twit

Oh, what nonsense is this now? Human species may split in two, according to the BBC, dividing into a bunch of retarded knuckle draggers and bright and beautiful supermen.

We are to "peak" in the year 3,000 and go into steep decline due to a "dependence on technology" according to Oliver Curry of the LSE. Curry's neighbours will develop into "ugly, squat goblin-like creatures" who could "come to resemble domesticated animals" whilst Curry's descendants will be "tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative" all no doubt getting scholarships to a top British university.

It takes a particularly bright person to be so thick sometimes.

I'd like to ask what the evolutionary advantage of being a stupid, stunted runt is? Anyway, the good news is that men will "look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises" and women will have "pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features"... sounds lovely doesn't it (unless you end up as golum that is).

However, he doesn't seem to have cottoned onto the fact that ugly and beautiful are socially constructed ideas and a square jaw, pert breasts and even a big penis are not universally recognised indicators of attractiveness throughout history. In fact he seems particularly unable to grasp that this moment in time and place is not the template for all future human evolution.

I thought the quote of the bunch was that "Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food." What? We're going to eat processed food for thousands of years are we? Would the good professor care to think about what indicates that we are likely to have an unchanging diet over the next thirty years, yet alone for the entire millennium. A thousand years of TV dinners... shudder.

"Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams." At least it will give the Daily Mail something to write about though wont it. I mean, really, you used to be able to leave your front door unlocked until these twisted malevolent puke monsters started roaming the streets.

Let's spell this out for our academic friend. Human history is the history of social change. Sometimes that change is slow and sometimes it is fast and very surprising. Things that seem natural to one age are revealed to be socially determined with the passage of time. Even technologies come and go. We will not all be playing on the playstation wii for a thousand years to come. Some of these technologies that we have developed may not simply whither our intellectual faculties but may wipe out 90% of the Earth's human population. Alternatively something nice might happen. The only constant is perpetual change.

You can't take chavs and middle class ubermensch and say that's evolution that is. He might feel like he is surrounded by the great grandparents of a generation of hobgoblins but that is something he needs to seek caring, professional help for. It is to be regretted that the LSE has played a cruel practical joke on this fellow by pretending to take him seriously and give him a job as the resident court jester.

Who knows where evolution will take us? Will we even get the chance to develop further as a species? We may need to develop gills at some point, or immunity to nuclear fallout, or we may abolish universities and Oliver Curry may have to get a proper job instead of churning out this vapid, social chauvinist tripe. Right now the answers to these questions are just unknowable.