In praise of the somewhat shambolic

The Scienceblogs saga continues to rumble on, with more people quitting – the departure of Bora Zivkovic making perhaps the biggest ripples in this latest group – and now PZ Myers going on strike (see some discussion in the comments here).

[Note added: As I was finishing off this post, I saw one of my favourite Sb bloggers, Abel Pharmboy of Terra Sigillata, is going too. That only leaves Orac, of the Sb-ers I read regularly, still blogging at Sb]

Posts talking about the Sb saga have even been appearing here at NN, though I think most people around here are a bit wary of talking about Sb too much (remember what happened the last time).

Anyway, there has been so much discussion of the current and ongoing Sb saga in the blogosphere, including the lengthy posts that the departing bloggers have penned giving their personal reasons for leaving (e.g. from dual ex-Sb/NN resident GrrlScientist) that it was rather a surprise to see this in the Guardian Science online yesterday, written by Oregon-based freelancer David Appell:————————————————————————————————————————————

PepsiCo and the shame of the bloggerati

A real chance to call the corporation to account was missed when Food Frontiers was forced out of Scienceblog

“This month Seed magazine decided to introduce a new blog to its Scienceblog department, called Food Frontiers. It was sponsored by PepsiCo and was to be written by their scientists. Less than a day later Seed shut the blog down – before a word of substance had been posted – because of a backlash from its readers and other Sciencebloggers.

That’s how easy it is for the bloggerati to hound out undesirable opinions. This is a shameful response from nearly all parties involved. Suppression of free speech is never acceptable, no matter who is being censored or who is calling for it. That prominent science writers aided such suppression is even more problematic – and, in my opinion, even cowardly.”

————————————————————————————————————————————

Reaction on Twitter to Appell’s piece was, er, somewhat incredulous, with many commenting that it added nothing to the much more in-depth discussion that had already gone on on Sb (especially) and elsewhere. The comments thread after Appell’s article was also mostly negative. Here is my own little contribution:

———————————————————————————————————————————-

ACElliott

20 Jul 2010, 3:11PM

“Much too simplistic.

Apart from what GCday correctly states about opening the Sb bloggers to the “shill” accusation, a major issue was that Sb did this completely without warning, and without in any way “marking” the PepsiCo blog as “Advertorial” (or similar). It was also clearly the last straw for many of the Sb bloggers, building on long-standing gripes about lack of tech support and other stuff.

Speaking as the editor of a (admittedly non-retail) science magazine, I am astonished the Sb management hadn’t consulted the bloggers first, as in:

“Under what circumstances and safeguards would a paid-for blog written by PepsiCo scientists here be acceptable?”

I would suggest that if they had done that the exodus would likely have been far smaller. But blind-siding ALL their contributors at a stroke, and ignoring (or not knowing) established conventions of (US) journalism ethics about separating and marking journalistic and advertorial content, would leave anyone wondering if Sb have a clue.

Finally, as several people have said here, Pepsi have a similar blog on their own site; and there is also nothing to stop their scientists, individually or collectively, setting up on WordPress, or Blogger, or some other network. Which is what everyone else does.”

———————————————————————————————————————————————————-

And today a more serious response appeared in the Guardian, penned by one of the Sb émigrés, David Dobbs of Neuron Culture.

Anyway, I think the Interwebz way to say it is that Appell’s piece has been well and truly “pwned”. But one thing which I did find rather funny was that the Graun’s own contributors, and even Guardian science correspondent Alok Jha, seemed rather bemused by the appearance and tone of Appell’s offering. Here is Adam Rutherford:——————————————————————————————————————————-

Adam Rutherford

20 Jul 2010, 4:46PM

“I don’t think the bloggers hounded Food Frontiers out. They disagreed and then left to write somewhere else. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable and democratic protest: to chose not to share a forum with something they disagree with or do not wish to be associated with. [Sb publisher] Seed and [Seed CEO] Adam Bly buckled under this mass protest and migration pressure and Pepsi withdrew. You’ll have to point out how that is suppression, cos I must’ve misunderstood what the word means.”

———————————————————————————————————————————And here is Jha:

AlokJha

20 Jul 2010, 5:27PM

“David, have you read any of the careful debate that went on all over the blogosphere this past week about why Food Frontiers was a bad idea? Many people have addressed the same issues as you but have done it in a more constructive way that lays out why ScienceBlogs stumbled over PepsiCo’s blog. Yes Pepsi should have its say. But perhaps not in the sly way it was presented by editors at SB.

Start here.

And then there’s this – and this

——————————————————————————————————————

But I think my favourite comment of all was the following one, in which a commenter under the splendid “handle” of Dead Badger offered Appell a civics lesson:

———————————————————————————————————————-

DeadBadger

20 Jul 2010, 3:34PM

“Dear David:

Freedom of speech does not entail freedom from criticism.

You’re welcome.”

—————————————————————————————

In praise of the Grauniad – I want my newspaper a bit shambolic

Several of the science and Bad Science Twitterati tweeted yesterday with variations on “Why is the Guardian publishing this?”. Which is a fair question. But… actually, in a funny way, the whole thing encapsulates one of the reasons why, more than a third of a century after I started reading the Gruan, it is still my daily newspaper choice.

To whit:

Interesting and unpredictable daily mix of the excellent, the good, the OK, and the frankly dismal? Check

Inability to stick universally to a focused and consistent editorial line? Check

Disparate bits of the paper apparently not knowing what each other are doing? Check

Plenty of opinionated people sounding off? Check

Writers disagreeing and criticizing bits of their own paper publicly? Check

Lengthy arguments starting at the drop of a hat? Check

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

And there you have it. The Graun reminds me of… well, of a University.

And that, despite the Woo-friendly tripe that regularly appears in the “Lifestyle” bits of the paper, and also despite Simon Jenkins’ regularly idiotic broadsides at pointy-headed elitist scientists and academics, is why I am still a reader.

Posted in Annoyances, Grumbling, The Interwebz | 13 Comments

It’s a conspiracy – and you’re ALL in on it

An amusing sequel (in a masochistic and depressing kind of way) to my earlier post detailing how I got involved in one of those fruitless anti-vaccine debates over at a thread on the Guardian’s website.
It now appears that all the Nature Network bloggers who have commented there are part of a Dark Conspiracy of Sinister Vested Interests.

You can tell this, of course. Because we blog at Nature Network. We are therefore, I gather, under orders to puff Nature and NPG, and defend its output, presumably in return for inducements.

Now, one normally comes across this kind of argument in the form of the perennial / venerable “Pharma Shill Gambit”. I am not sure what this latest variant should be called. The “Nature Patsy Gambit”, perhaps? The initials are quite catchy. (Warning: that was irony there. Just so you know).

The start of this latest spat was when one of the most limpet-like of the anti-vaccine people, Clifford Miller, wrote:

(comment of 6 Jul 2010, 7:20AM)

“The “Nature” magazine bloggers remain silent – ACElliott, MSFo [Mike Fowler], scww [Stephen Curry]. It is a non “peer reviewed” “Nature” letter which prompted the Guardian’s “Genetics of Autism” “Story Tracker” in the first place. (italics mine)

I felt I had to point our that this wasn’t actually an accurate description of Letters to Nature – see my response at 10.04 am today, July 6th, noting what all scientists know, that such letters are actually peer-reviewed papers.

The response to that came a few hours later, at 12.50.  Among other things, it described me as

“one of Nature’s own bloggers.”

I don’t think it was intended as a compliment.

Now, as I am a polite sort of chap, I felt that I should point out that this was not really accurate, so at 2:11 pm I wrote:

“Nature Network is a blogging platform. Nothing more. Most people who blog there (like Stephen Curry, [Mike Fowler] and I) are not Nature staffers. We receive no money, or any favours in kind at all, from Nature Publishing beyond their hosting the blogs – just like on WordPress, or Blogger. The trade is that NN get to host our content for free.”

And that (or at least an hour later, at 3.13 pm) is when it became apparent that I was part of a Conspiracy. (If I’d only known, I’d have asked for a special pen. Or luncheon vouchers)
——————————————————————-

“Really?

There is a much closer relationship with “Nature” magazine than you suggest.

When the “Nature” bloggers’ posts were thought not to be going up on this Guardian forum fast enough, didn’t a “Nature” staffer offer to visit the Guardian offices to make enquiries?

That is not “just like on WordPress, or Blogger”. It is unlike.

And surprise surprise, it was the publication in “Nature” magazine which prompted this Guardian piece on “The Genetics of Autism”.

So a paid employee of “Nature” was so interested in lending a hand? Wholly unknown of course to the general public.

Which of you disclosed their interest in “Nature” when posting comments here then? scww [Stephen Curry] just posted in his profile his link to his blog on “Nature”. Nothing else from the other “Nature” magazine bloggers to disclose any form of relationship with “Nature” magazine.”

—————————————————————-

I was a bit puzzled by the reference to the “Nature staffer”, so I suggested:

“News to me. Did they offer to fly there in a secret black helicopter?”

At which point the Chief Conspirator was unmasked:
——————————————————————-

“No. “They” did it on your very own blog:-

“Hmm no still not up, and we have a pretty good connection here at Nature Towers. The Graun is round the corner, maybe I should pop over and ask? :)”

Posted by: Nicolas Fanget Jun 17, 2010

——————————————————————–

My reply is directly below. However, it is obviously fruitless, as I have been exposed (according to my attackers there) as having a Special Relationship with the Forces of Darkness and Suppression of Truth (namely Nature). Read if you dare.

The sad thing is that this little incident will probably be regarded, on both sides, as quite revealing.

The anti-vaccine people will be convinced – they clearly already are, if you read the comments, which have now reached new heights of vitriol – that it exemplifies once again that they are the victims of dark conspiracies. As one of them put it earlier:

“The Guardian,  Nature, Ben Goldacre and his Badscience forum followers all nice and cosy together.”

Next time they will probably add the NN bloggers too.

* sigh *

And I will, I guess, be taking it as another of those periodic lesson that you cannot pierce peoples’ crazier beliefs. All they hear is the little bits of what you say that can be read as having a meaning they decide on, and one that confirms what they are already sure they know.

The technical term for this is “Confirmation Bias”.

Put another way, people see what they want to see.

Finally, it is all a bit wearisome.

I’m trying to see the funny side of being told you have just been revealed as part of a non-existent conspiracy. For some reason I am reminded of a very famous (and very old) Monty Python joke from my youth. See if you can see the connection.

——————————————————————–

PS I also wrote, in one of my comments today, a slightly tongue-in-cheek Conflict of Interest disclosure statement. What do you think?

“I am a University scientist. My job is to think, teach and write about science. I do this in various places, including at Nature Network. I tend to believe scientific explanations of things, supported by scientific evidence. I tend to think scientists and doctors understand science and medicine better than anti-vaccine activists and other pseudoscience types do. I have been known to say this publicly, including on blogs and comments threads.”

Posted in Annoyances, Pseudoscience | 24 Comments

Watching football can damage your health

My second instalment from Physiology 2010.

At any large scientific meeting, with lots of things on at once, there are lectures that you feel you really have to go to, commonly because they are in your research area.

There are also lectures you look at and think you might go to.

For me, especially as I have got older and done more teaching, these latter ones are often lectures covering topics that I:

(i) have taught; or

(ii) teach; or finally

(iii) remember never understanding properly when they were taught to me.

Today (Wednesday) I was pondering whether to go to Professor Murray Esler’s Paton Lecture [1] on “The sympathetic nervous system through the ages”. The sympathetic nervous system falls into categories (ii) and (iii) above.

Anyway, I am glad I did decide to go along, because I learned a good deal that was new to me, including a load of things that I shall enjoy passing on to the students in years to come. For instance, did you know that Sir Christopher Wren was briefly a neuroanatomist [2]? I certainly didn’t. Of course, Wren soon found something else to do with his time.

Esler’s main theme was the role of the sympathetic nervous system in controlling the cardiovascular system. The most fascinating bit for me was when he dealt with “psychogenic” heart problems. There are many stories of people getting so stressed that they keel over with a heart attack, but Esler told us that hard evidence on such “psychogenic cardiac events” has been lacking until recently.

However, there is now good evidence, he told us, that fear and stress really can increase your risk of a serious acute heart problem.

One example – the one I started with an allusion to – was watching a crucial football match.

The study Esler cited in particular was this one from the New England Journal of Medicine. It looked at the rate of cardiac events – heart attacks, severe angina or dangerous cardiac arrhythmias – in German men attending hospital ERs/ A&E departments in the greater Munich area during the 2006 World Cup. Germany, the host nation, got as far as the semi-finals of the tournament where they were eliminated by Italy, the eventual winners, 2-0 after extra time.

Wilbert-Lampen et al Fig 1

[EDIT: The link to the Figure has gone dead. If you have access to the paper here, click Figure 1 to enlarge it]

Here is the key figure in the paper, which Esler showed us. The number of cardiac events is plotted against the date, with the years 2003 and 2005 shown as controls. Peaks 5 and 6 in the plot for 2006 are the days of Germany’s quarter-final with Argentina, which they won after extra time and a penalty shoot-out, and the semi-final with Italy. In the latter game Italy did not score until the 29th minute of extra time, after almost two hours of football. The authors also stated in the paper that most of the cardiac events occurred within two hours of the kick-off of the games.

So like I said – watching football can damage your health.

And should your team still be in the World Cup – especially if you are a middle aged male – try not to get too worked up on game days.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

PS In case you were wondering what happened to peak 7, which is down in the noise, it represents the day of the 3rd place play-off between the losing semi-finalists, Germany and Portugal. Most armchair football fans would tell you that no-one, apart from the players, really cares who wins the 3rd place play-off.

Notes:

1. The Paton lectures are named for Sir William Paton, long-time Professor of Pharmacology in Oxford, who you can read about here (with an interesting postscript here).

2. Wren was for a time an Oxford University colleague of the noted physician and pioneering neuroanatomist Thomas Willis.

Posted in Conferences, History, Humour, Medicine, Physiology | 13 Comments

Conference blogging (possibly) – Physiology 2010 (Updated)

In a moment of absent (weak?) mindedness, I have agreed to blog from a conference – the Physiological Society’s Summer bash, Physiology 2010, starting just about now.

This will be a first for me – though I have done conference reports (of which more later) I have never done any via the blogs.

The other slightly unusual feature for me is that this is happening on my doorstep, as Physiology 2010 is taking place in glorious sunny Manchester. Well, it was sunny until last night. The torrential downpour then, and the sporadic drizzle today, has arrived, according to one local physiologist, especially to make conference visitors feel they are getting the true North West of England experience. Actually, the forecast suggests the weather will be clearing up (I had my fingers crossed as I typed that last phrase one-handed!). And our garden was glad of the rain.

Conference season seems to be starting very early this year. Normally, once the students have left, we have a couple of weeks’ quiet at the University before conference season kicks in. However, this year the interlude has only been a weekend – just long enough to see England depart from the World Cup (but let’s not talk about that).

I must admit to being slightly unsure as to precisely HOW one “blogs a conference”. Most of my previous reports from conferences have been from the “impressionistic retrospective” school of meeting reports. The ones I can remember, all in Physiology News are listed below: the Tenerife one is probably my favourite.

34th International Congress of Physiological Sciences: from molecule to malady – Christchurch, New Zealand, August 26 – 31, 2001

Physiology News 45 p 8-13

Nachrichten aus Tuebingen: Joint scientific meeting of the German, British and Scandinavian Physiological Societies, Tübingen, Germany, March 15th-19th 2002.

PN 47 p 8-11

Tenerife Uncut – Phys Soc / Spanish Physiological Society Tenerife Joint Meeting Spring 2003.

PN 51 p 7-11

Bristol Revisited – Physiology 2005 Summer Meeting.

PN 61 2005 p 8-9

The point of listing these – apart from the shameless pimping of one’s own work which is a central feature of blogging! – was that they were all written a while after the actual events, with the benefit of hindsight. I’ve never done one “live” before, and just how live and as it happens this is going to be is open to some question. I think I shall aim for some impressions each evening.

The meeting site, by the way, now offers a “personalized meeting itinerary planner”. I’m not sure I’m organised enough to be able to use a personailsed planner – probably not – but I have picked my two personal top plenary lectures for the meeting. One is the annual Review Prize Lecture on Thursday by the amazing Roger Tsien, a long-time hero to me and many other physiologists who have measured things with fluorescent dyes. The other is the Physiological Society Public Lecture, given this year by Manchester’s own Prof Dame Nancy Rothwell FRS – who was recently announced as our next University President.

And with that, I shall sign off for now, as I have to go and chair a Physiology News editorial meeting. I will try and add to this post tonight with some stats on the meeting, and perhaps a word about the Phys Soc’s meetings through the years, from the mid 1870s, to when I started attending in the mid 1980s, to today.

Phys Soc Meetings – then and now

When I started in physiology as a PhD student in the 1980s, there were half a dozen or more Phys Soc meetings a year, varying in size from the large (usually the meetings in the Summer or in the couple of weeks before Christmas) to the small. Some years back the Phys Soc decided to concentrate on having a single main annual Summer meeting – of which Physiology 2010 is the latest – to cover all subject areas within the discipline, with all other smaller meetings throughout the year being specialist themed meetings.

Whilst I was picking up my conference badge this afternoon at the venue, I bumped into Nick Boross-Toby, the Phys Soc’s chief meetings person, who told me registrations for the meeting are just thirty of so shy of a thousand. With on-site registrations the figure is likely to top a thousand comfortably, which would make this the biggest standalone meeting the Phys Soc has ever run. The Bristol Meeting in 2005 (which I reported briefly in an article linked above) topped a thousand, but was a joint meeting with the Federation of European Physiological Societies (joint meetings always tend to increase delegate numbers).

Now, there are fans and non-fans of big meetings. But whichever category you fall into, a thousand registrants strikes me as impressive for a scientific discipline that, while long-established and central to organismal (including human) biology, tends to lose out in the modern “glamour value” competition to the molecular biosciences and cell biology. Last year my friend Patricia de Winter wrote in Physiology News about the way that the term “physiology” has remained amazingly popular with scientists describing what they do, even while departments of physiology have been rebadged, amalgamated or even closed. Anyway, a thousand people at a national society meeting suggests to me that the discipline itself is still very much alive and kicking. I hope it stays that way as the cuts in the UK science and University budget start to bite.

The Physiological Society must also be one of the oldest scientific societies still running meetings in the UK, excluding, of course, the venerable Royal Society. The Phys Soc has existed since 1876 (some history in a post of mine on Charles Darwin here, and more on the Phys Soc website) and has been running meetings ever since its earliest days.

Initially meetings consisted of only a few – sometimes only one or two – talks, or practical “demonstrations”, followed by a grand dinner. Meetings covered any subject within physiology and were held fairly frequently throughout the year – note that this tradition was still alive when I started, see above, and indeed went on until the start of the present century – which presumably helped to keep them small. For instance, at the meeting in January 1910 where AV Hill first described the Hill Equation (subject of a post here), there were only three talks, even though the meeting was in London and also hosted the Phys Soc’s Annual General (business) Meeting. The number present in Hill’s audience is not recorded to my knowledge, but seems unlikely to have exceeded a few dozen (at the time the society had precisely 253 ordinary members in total).

I would predict Hill would draw a bigger audience giving the same talk today. Though of course, given its theoretical nature (fitting curves to the results of other peoples’ experiments) and noticeable mathematical content, perhaps I am not so sure…!

Perhaps in a later blog I will address the subject of what scientific topics at Phys Soc meetings tend to draw the largest crowds…—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

PS The total number of presentations at the meeting comes to 529, by my count:

6 Plenary Lectures
85 symposium presentations
144 oral communications
294 poster communications – definitely a contrast to the three at the meeting in January 1910…!

Posted in Conferences, History, Physiology | Comments Off on Conference blogging (possibly) – Physiology 2010 (Updated)

Just when I thought I was out…

In case you’re wondering where I’ve been (and I’m sure no-one was): apart from grading a few essays, and servicing my growing Twitter addiction, I have done what I regularly swear I won’t and got involved in an argument with the anti-vaccine people.

This time it is in a thread on the Guardian website. The thread is a Story Tracker following the recent Nature paper on autism genetics and the media and blog reaction to it.

Now, you would think that the genetics of autism was relatively uncontroversial, but apparently not. The activists who insist vaccines can cause autism are not keen on other theories of autism causation, including genetic ones (no prizes for working out why).

In particular, they have been making a fuss by accusing the study’s lead author of undisclosed conflict of interest, since he apparently occupies a Chair endowed by GlaxoSmithKline.

(Again, you can try and guess why they insist this is a Conflict Of Interest, or simply click on over to the Guardian.)

The activists are also offended that the Guardian linked a blog which ridiculed their objections.

Which is where I came in. No, the blog wasn’t mine – it belongs to American surgeon/scientist/hyperactive blogger Orac – but I have been, er, debating a couple of the anti-vaccine activists in the comments under the thread. My first comment is at 5.41 pm, and there are more if you read down (You will probably have to hit “Show all Comments” or “Go to latest comment” )

Two things are perhaps notable.

One is that the activists object to the term “anti-vaccine”. One told me it was “libel-labelling” and “pejorative”. I suggested it was a statement of fact. Readers can probably make up their own minds.

The second is the habit the activists have of decrying “ad hominem” attacks and accusing their critics (like me and Orac) of “playing the man, not the ball”. This is usually accompanied by an insistence that they themselves never do this. I might disagree, as you will see from one of my comments.

Anyway, I know I should leave vaccine-related threads alone. This is partly because the main tactic of the anti-vaccine activists is to outlast you, and then declare victory when you are so bored that you give up. And they are always more obsessed than you are, so you can never win. Hence the resolution to keep clear….

…but… …sometimes keeping clear is difficult.

Which is why the title. The quote is:

“Just when I thought I was out – they pull me back in!”

For those that don’t know the source, some clips are here and here.

Posted in Annoyances, Medicine, Pseudoscience, The Interwebz | 34 Comments