Simon Singh (Source: wikipedia)

I recently pointed out an extensive review of the evidence for and against chiropractic treatment that showed that the claims that Singh objected as unsupported, are unsupported.

Another survey of the research literature for chiropractic treatments, that of Ernst (available free from the British Medical Journal), has an extensive collection of follow-on letters. The author, replying to the early letters, points out that neither his article nor the libel case are about safety; in moving onto safety in his reply, he concludes: “Applying the precautionary principle, one should therefore not recommend chiropractic but warn patients not to use this form of therapy.”

Surely any sincere business would respond by simply pointing to evidence backing their original claims. Not so the BCA. The BCA was offered an opportunity to write a rebuttal in the Guardian (the newspaper that published Singh’s original article), but declined, seemingly preferring to legally bludgeon the writer, rather than reaffirm readers of the accuracy of their claims and the validity of the particular chiropractic practices referred to. (Or withdraw them.)

I am not familiar with British libel law, but others indicate that companies there can choose to respond to claims that their product or service is unsound by sidestepping that the objections raised have an evidenced basis to make the focus on if the company (or association) had known of that evidence.

The trouble I have with this idea is that surely it amounts to not taking responsibility for their own specialist area? It’s as if the BCA wish to argue that ignorance of evidence contradicting their practices would make the practices sound and immune to objection. You’d think that medical associations would be responsible for knowing about the evidence for or against the practices they offer…

In any event, science ought to be settled on evidence, not legal muscle. As Sense About Science says in their slogan: “Keep libel laws out of science.”

Still on the subject of chiropractors, and closer to home, a local chiropractor  who runs a weekly advertisement for his practice declares that most drugs don’t help (see page five, bottom right: use the ‘+’ button to zoom in to read the advertisement). Even if he were right and the examples not misrepresented, cherry-picking a few and presenting them as if they represent all drugs is a fallacy. Sigh. Maybe for another post… Never minding his claims maybe he ought to read Bronfort and colleagues’ paper (PDF file) and check his own backyard first.

Here’s hoping that Singh’s efforts will move all this (chiropractic and, separately, libel cases in the UK) to a more wholesome state. I’ll also hope that it extends to a wider sphere that takes note of “lesser” “alternative” remedies and their practitioners. And that other countries like New Zealand take note.

HT: ArsTechnica.

Other articles in Code for Life:

An horrific case of natural health treatment of cancer

Chiropractic libel suit snagged by its own ruling body?

Homeopathic remedies in NZ pharmacies

The End of Chiropractic?

Deleting a gene can turn an ovary into a testis in adult mammals

Homeopathy check-up: Not in the health system, disclaimers on labels

The inheritance of face recognition (should you blame your parents if you can’t recognise faces?)

Although the Pacific Fibre website is short on technical details, it does a great job of conveying the essence of the idea simply. Some details are available on their news blog, e.g.

The current proposed cable configuration would be 13,000 km long, and have two fibre pairs with 64 wavelengths (lambdas) each at 40 Gigabits/sec per lambda. The maximum lit capacity initially would be 5.12 Terabits/sec, but would be upgradeable to over 12 Terabits/sec as the emerging 100 Gbit/sec per lambda technology becomes reality. The newer cable and repeater technology that Pacific Fibre proposes to use will be substantially more easily upgradeable than that of existing cables.

They say they aim to have this ready for 2013 and that it is expected to cost around $NZ900M. Whatever the details, I am sure this will have internet users in NZ talking for some time and hatching new business plans. (For example, it would be interesting to learn if this would affect the idea that NZ can act to exploit that it is ~12 hours out of cycle of most of the bigger Western nations to deliver overnight service efficiently.)

It has been noted that those academic researchers whose data transport problems are solved by KAREN, a new network may not be needed. (From what I understand KAREN still has plenty of capacity: anecdotally I’ve heard figures of 5-10% of capacity being used. Viewing their excellent near-live “weather map” is worthwhile, try it.)

For those who need fast networking outside of this high-speed academic network, which is most of us, I’m sure this initiative will be widely viewed very positively. It is great to see people taking the lead on these things and pushing for it to get done.

For my personal situation, I need to learn more about it first: my position is more complex as in principle I can gain access to the large databases I use through other means, but being able to deliver large volumes of data may open up new opportunities for me.

Interested readers can follow the Pacific Fibre twitter discussion. Here are a few replies that might be worth others’ reading (comments in square brackets are mine):

• @kuahyeow Current estimate is under $900m [I presume this is in response to an estimate for the costs.]
• RT @ronanq: Best of luck. Great fibre connections is one of the reasons Google, Amazon, Paypal, Microsoft, Facebook and IBM are in Ireland
• @sam_DPS we will sell to ISPs and major corporates. We are aiming for prices which will let them fulfll the uncapped high speed mandate
• @samfarrow just international – we are focussing on just that one part of the problem. Others are working on the rest.
• RT @Pete_Robson:As a former “Senior Product Manager” of the current SouthernCross Cable, I can safely say that there’s $ in that Awesome job

Peter Griffin, writing at idealog, has more detailed coverage.

Among his popular science books are Hiding in the Mirror (2005) and The Physics of Star Trek (1995). Hiding in the Mirror is subtitled: The Quest for Alternate Realities, from Plato to String Theory (by way of Alice in Wonderland, Einstein, and The Twilight Zone), which will give readers a better idea of what it’s about!

Don’t be mislead by this to thinking he is a lightweight populist, he’s a serious physicist who has received many awards. According to wikipedia and his on-line biography he is “the only physicist ever to have been awarded the highest awards of all three major US Physics Societies”.

He is also a recognised science publicist, with his awards noting this in alongside his physics contributions. With the credentials he has in science communication, I have no doubt that he will be an excellent speaker.

Below are the blurbs for the two lectures cut’n’pasted from the advertising poster (with permission):

Science, Non-Science, and Nonsense: From Aliens to Creationism

Monday 15 March 5.30pm to 6.30pm

St David Lecture Theatre

The distinction between science and fiction and between sense and nonsense has become blurred in popular discourse, most recently manifesting itself around the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. In this lecture Professor Krauss will use examples from government and the media to explore what science is, and what it is not. The lecture will be part “tour” through the fascinating world of modern science, part fun-filled examination of video clips, and part sober discussion of the various dangers facing modern society if we fail to learn the lessons science has taught us about the world.

An Atom from Dunedin

Tuesday 16 March 5.30pm to 6.30pm

University of Otago College of Education Auditorium

We are all star children. Every atom in our bodies was likely, at least once and probably many times, to have been inside the fiery inferno of an exploding star. In this lecture Professor Krauss will trace the biography of a single atom – one that will be in a glass of water sitting on the stage at the beginning of the lecture – from the beginning of the Universe, before atoms themselves existed, until the end, as we currently envisage it. Its story will also lead us to confront some of the most exciting new discoveries as well as the greatest outstanding puzzles in physics, cosmology, geology, and biology, as well as some lessons about our own place in the Universe.

Sponsored by the Department of Psychology

HT: Thanks to Genetics Otago for bringing this to my attention.

Molecular biology in museums

137 years of Popular Science back issues, free

The inheritance of face recognition, so should you blame your parents if you can’t recognise faces?

Homeopathy check-up: Not in the health system, disclaimers on labels

Preconceptual science, the dismissal-ness of it all

Media thought: Ask what is known, not the expert’s opinion

A event making it’s way around the internet again was a lecture by Sir Ken Robinson at Vancouver, Canada, in the latter part of last year speaking about stifled creativity in education.

After writing this post I saw that scibling Fabiana Kubke pointed to this lecture in December. I’d like to persist with it, as I’m thinking of another context again. As you shall see, while Sir Robinson was talking about (high school) education, my thoughts strayed to research institutes.

Jump to about 16 min if you want to cut to the chase. You’ll miss a lot of good banter, though. For example, Sir Robinson describing maths theses: “Page after page of math.” [Pause.] “With equals at the end.” (It doesn’t come across well on it’s own; the delivery is very dry.)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s my summary of the closing few minutes of his presentation, with extensive paraphrasing:

He defines creativity as “the process of having original ideas that have value” then points to a number of misconceptions he feels people have about creativity:

• that creativity and intelligence are different things.
• only special people are creative. (He says everyone is creative, the trick is to cultivate it.)
• creativity is about “special things”, e.g. the Arts. (It’s equally Science as Arts.)
• that there is not a lot you can do about your creativity. (The notion that you are either creative or you are not.)

He suggests we need to move from an industrial model of education to an organic model, with an allusion to gardening. You don’t make things grow. The plants grow. You create conditions in which they might grow.

At this point my thinking segued from education to research with the thought that you can’t make scientists succeed. You could look at the people, try understand the conditions that particular person needs and provide those conditions. Is the current approach to research too—to borrow his term—industrialised?

He goes on to say that where there is no creativity present doesn’t mean there can’t be any, using an analogy to to rain bringing life in Death Valley. The “missing” life was not dead but dormant. The seeds were there, able to bloom if the conditions were right.

A parallel to research might be that making science work (well) is more than about giving money, or providing a room, but providing the conditions in which creativity might occur.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not asking that scientists need to be mollycoddled or sheltered.

I’m wondering what style of management of science and scientists brings out the best research or, alternatively, what approaches repress creativity.

Another view might be that in a sense science is self-managing, that scientific group leaders are a little like self-employed people or people running micro-businesses. If so, is this the best approach? If that doesn’t suit someone, should that mean that their ability in science itself be discarded since they don’t “fit” the current regime?

I’m not intending this to be a platform for me to bore you with my thoughts on “how it ought to be.” That would most likely would reflect what would best suit me. I can just mull about that on my own! (Admittedly it is part of a point I’d like to raise: different people need different conditions and I’m not convinced this aspect is well catered for.)

Just as the TED lectures are about spreading ideas, I’d like this post to be about encouraging discussion of ideas. Not enough of that happens around here…

What conditions do you think would help good research to occur?

Discuss!

Other articles on Code for Life that might interest readers:

Peter Lawrence’s Kafka tale of research grant funding

Gluckman on science in small countries, part I

Universities and (lack of) showcasing use of science degrees

Study of where academic careers lead

More inclusive re-entry to encourage departure to businesses?

Forgetting older science

While on blogcation,¹ biologist-artist Jessica Palmer continues to write posts to her blog, bioemphemera.

Canterbury Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand. Note the early power poles. (Source: wikipedia.)

Recently she pointed out a conference on presenting modern modern science in museums, quoting from the call to contributions. It’s a lengthy “call”—almost a treatise!—so I will present only the initial portion (interested readers should read read the full account):

The 15th biannual conference of the European Association of Museums for the History of Medical Sciences (EAMHMS) will be held at the University of Copenhagen, 16–18 September, 2010.

This year’s conference focuses on the challenge to museums posed by contemporary developments in medical science and technology.

The image of medicine that emerges from most museum galleries and exhibitions is still dominated by pre-modern and modern understandings of an anatomical and physiological body, and by the diagnostic and therapeutical methods and instruments used to intervene with the body at the ‘molar’ and tangible level — limbs, organs, tissues, etc.

The rapid transition in the medical and health sciences and technologies over the last 50 years — towards a molecular understanding of human body in health and disease and the rise of a host of molecular and digital technologies for investigating and intervening with the body — is still largely absent in museum collections and exhibitions.

As a consequence, the public can rarely rely on museums to get an understanding of the development and impact of the medical and health sciences in the last 50 years. Biochemistry and molecular biology have resulted in entirely new diagnostic methods and therapeutic regimes and a flourishing biotech industry. The elucidation of the human genome and the emergence of proteomics has opened up the possibility of personalised molecular medicine. Advances in the material sciences and information technology have given rise to a innovative and highly productive medical device industry, which is radically transforming medical practices. But few museums have so far engaged seriously and in a sustained way with these and similar phenomena in the recent history of medical sciences and technologies.

Several number of years ago the Canterbury Museum, pictured above, was seeking a new director.

Diorama of white herons (kotuku). The birds in the front are mounted taxidermy specimens, the background is painted. I recommend viewing a larger-scale image to better appreciate the detail. (Artist: Raymond Jacobs. Source: Canterbury Heritage.)

My grandfather, Raymond Jacobs, worked at the Canterbury Museum. My association with the museum through him and others in my family is part of why I eventually became a scientist, a story I may relate some other time.

For a few days I had fun daydreaming that I would apply for the position, succeed (you never fail in your daydreams) and revitalise the place I remember the place I explored as a kid.

The call for papers bioemphemera pointed to reminded me that for those few days I thought about how you might present “modern” biology in museums, given that you can’t see things at a molecular-sized things directly, and how you would place these exhibits alongside the existing, older, material. These same questions appear in the call for papers in the conference bioemphemera points to.

It’s an interesting challenge to think about.

For things that are physical—mounted insects, artefacts from earlier cultures, samples of phosphorescent rocks—you can’t go past having the “real thing” in front of you. Museums are great for that. You are seeing the thing (or a decent replica) for yourself, not looking at a photograph or image on a computer.

Is that true for the science of the last 50 years?

Compacted DNA within the cell is packaged into dense fibres (the 30nm fibre). Shown are several models of a fibre with different repeat lengths using data derived from physical experiments and mathematical modelling. (Image source: wikipedia.)

You can’t see directly, with your own eyes, the DNA sequence of a genome, the atomic structure of enyzme, or even the detailed structure of parts of a chromosome, like that in the illustration above. You can indirectly visualise them, as researchers do, but not in a way that the public could “see for themselves”: they’d be looking at images that they’d have to take other’s words that they represented whatever they said they did.

Understanding things by indirect observations or measurements is a large part of modern science as our senses can’t directly record what we typically want to observe today as was more often the case for scientists, say, 150 years ago.

I wasn’t satisfied with the idea of “just” setting up computer screens for people to interact with. While some of these exhibits are now excellent (like those shown on the WWW from the Marian Koshland Science Museum of the [American] National Academy of Sciences), it bothers me whether there is there enough difference compared to what someone might do from their computer at home.

There is scope for interactive screens (e.g. touch screens) and other display technology that most home users don’t have, but perhaps the days that these are a point of difference may be ending. What bothers me, I guess, is that for some of these exhibits of modern science it’s the presentation technology that is the point of difference, not the thing on display itself. Perhaps this doesn’t matter? In one philosophical sense, perhaps elaborate display technology is the modern-day diorama, like those my grandfather made.

Large-scale model of Tobacco Mosaic Virus. Originally from the Franklin group, Birkbeck College, London. (Source: LMB website.)

I like models, like those from the Laboratory of Molecular Biology such as the model² of tobacco mosaic virus to the left, but I wonder if they mean much to the public and they can feel dated.

Everyone has seen structures of DNA for decades and structures of proteins I suspect more often bewilder with their complexity than educate.

Physical models do have the advantage that you can walk or peer around them, inspecting them from different sides. They also take up space.

A bigger disadvantage is that they are static: it’s hard to convey that molecules move and are parts of dynamic processes if you present them as static exhibits.

Worse still, these models by themselves don’t connect well with the larger settings they work within.

Then there are molecular interactions. High-throughput genomics, proteomics and all the other ’omics.

In parallel to this are the technologies used; these I think aren’t such a problem: they’re gadgets in the end and can be explained like most other gadgets.

Part of my concern is the same as the organisors of this meeting: I’m suspect that most of the general public doesn’t have a particularly good idea of what modern medical biology is doing. (And the limitations, too. I confess to getting a little exasperated fans of ‘omics, for example, that don’t seem to want to consider the limitations honestly.)

Hooking conceptual elements onto topics that the visitor can relate to is an obvious way to try make a “connection”, just as I might for a reader of my blog. Visitors might be expected to have a vague notion of the genome projects, perhaps the gist of personalised medicine, tracking human migrations, neuroscience, or other topics that have been in the media.

Visitor looking for patterns in the human genome. (Source: Koshland Science Museum.)

For more detailed molecular interactions, I wonder if presenting the larger three dimensional structures within the cell, for example chromosomes, nuclear pores, photosynthetic reaction centre complexes, or the whole nucleus would provide a framework for the public to identify with. They’re more holistic in a sense and might provide a framework to relate the more detailed elements and convey some of the complexity without visitors having to grapple with the minutiae.

A theme in much of this is that so many of the “discoveries” (findings is more modest) are conceptual. Concepts are less easily demonstrated in a physical way.

Displays, ideally interactive, that illustrate the principle of a technique or concept (say, DNA sequencing or determining a model of a protein structure) through a simpler conceptualised equivalent, along with material that relates that a bit closer to the actual process appeal to me. There’s a point, though, where I worry that the simplified version can be too patronising for adults or too distant from the reality.

I’d be interested in hearing about examples you have seen that explain molecular science well in museums. Give it a go, even if you don’t know much molecular biology.

Footnotes

1. While bioemphemera is still writing articles, she is avoiding comments and writing much more than pointing at interesting articles elsewhere.

2. Although the scale is not clear from the image, the model of TMV is quite large. Each (polystyrene foam!) “blob” representing a viral coat protein is roughly 70cm in length (possibly larger), from memory. (Not that I trust my memory that well!)

Other articles on Code for Life:

Royal science

The inheritance of face recognition (should you blame your parents if you can’t recognise faces?)

Tracking disease and human migration through genetics

Positive encouragement for vaccination

Rubella, not a benign disease if experienced during early pregnancy

Map shows New Zealand with lowest death rate on earth in 1856, over 11 in 1000 dying

Deleting a gene can turn an ovary into a testis in adult mammals

]]> http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/09/molecular-biology-in-museums/feed/ 2 http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/08/an-horrific-case-of-natural-health-treatment-of-cancer/ http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/08/an-horrific-case-of-natural-health-treatment-of-cancer/#comments Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:30:43 +0000 Grant Jacobs http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/?p=1611 Some of my local readers will have seen last night Lorelei Mason of TVNZ (Television New Zealand) present an horrific case of an iridiologist treating a skin cancer on the scalp which went on to invade the patient’s skull, eventually requiring major surgery.

(Source: wikipedia.)

You can read a text account of this news presentation, with comments from readers, or view the TV presentation on-line. (If you are viewing the video, you will need to wait for the advertisement to complete. Those squeamish about viewing exposed brains, may wish to avoid the appropriate parts of the video.)

Dr. Swee Tan, interviewed in the presentation, says that natural health practitioners ought to be registered. Some commenters offer that registration will not solve the problem.

My own thoughts, as a non-medical person-on-the-street, are that in one sense registration might legitimise the more moderate use of “remedies” like iridology, which grates given that many, if not most, of these remedies are nonsense under any use, but on the other hand registration offers some control over the worst extremes of misuse by obligating practitioners to adhere to guidelines.

Despite my unease at giving practices that lack evidential support credibility, my initial thoughts are that Swee Tan’s suggestion makes some sense: clients approaching someone offering medical remedies—of any kind—should have some assurance that the practitioner is being held to at least some basic responsibilities and at least some basic level of education in medicine. Ideally I would like to see unsound ‘natural remedy’ practices gone, but realistically this is unlikely to happen any time soon. Registration might be a good compromise in the meantime. Personally, I would like to see these guidelines also include some level of control over use of remedies that are not backed by evidence.

Quackwatch regards iridology as nonsense. (This site also contains the confessions of a former iridologist.)

For those wanting a more formal approach, a short, readable medical review of the evidence for iridology is available free on-line (Archives of Ophthalmology: Ernst 118(1)120-121, 2000). None of the controlled, investigator-masked studies found supported iridology. The final two paragraphs are worth quoting:

Might iridology be doing any harm? Waste of money and time are two obvious undesired effects. The possibility of false-positive diagnoses, ie, diagnosing—and subsequently treating—conditions that did not exist in the first place, seems more serious. The real problem, however, might be false-negative diagnoses: someone may feel unwell, go to an iridologist, and be given a clean bill of health. Subsequently, this person could be found to have a serious disease. In such cases, valuable time for early treatment (and indeed lives) can be lost through the use of iridology. No data are available on how frequently such problems occur. Thus no firm judgments are possible as to the damage done by iridology in real life.

In conclusion, few controlled studies with masked evaluation of diagnostic validity have been published. None have found any benefit from iridology. As iridology has the potential for causing personal and economic harm, patients and therapists should be discouraged from using it.

[My emphasis added.]

Perhaps we might add to the author’s list of harms: when an iridologist continues to treat a serious illness rather than referring their client to a medical practice?

The case Mason presents is a clear illustration of a source of harm in using natural remedies that has been raised in the context of other remedies on Sciblogs (2 links): delaying medical help. In some circumstances this delay will allow an illness to progress to a stage that it requires major treatment that could have been avoided, or delay it too long so that it cannot be effectively treated.

Disclaimers

I am not a medical practitioner. The views expressed here are only opinions.

Other articles on Code for Life:

137 years of Popular Science back issues, free

The inheritance of face recognition (should you blame your parents if you can’t recognise faces?)

Homeopathy check-up: Not in the health system, disclaimers on labels

Tracking disease and human migration through genetics

Positive encouragement for vaccination

]]> http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/08/an-horrific-case-of-natural-health-treatment-of-cancer/feed/ 2 http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/08/137-years-of-popular-science-back-issues-free/ http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/08/137-years-of-popular-science-back-issues-free/#comments Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:07:15 +0000 Grant Jacobs http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/?p=1595 One-hundred and thirty-seven years of back issues of the monthly magazine Popular Science are now available on-line free.

Popular Science cover, October 1977. (Source: Google books)

You can either search the Popular Science archives, or access issues via Google books. It does not appear to be possible to download copies to read them locally, as some might prefer.

Popular Science was first published in May 1872 with quite substantial editions, over 100 pages in length.

With it’s long history, it will appeal to many different readers.

Those on a short budget will like the free access last year’s editions. Some will enjoy exploring the historic “science”—not all of it would be considered science today—of the editions from the late 1800s. Others might prefer the early colour illustrations. Fans of old advertising will be in for a treat, too.

Popular Science was intended to address the non-scientific public, as explained in the Editor’s Table of the first edition, to “contain papers, original and selected, on a wide range of subjects, from the ablest scientific men of different countries, explaining their views to non-scientific people.”

Before I continue I should confess I’ve never read Popular Science. My own science reading tends more to the research literature, books or blogs.

I’m going to limit this article to mainly the first edition, partly in the interest of time, and partly as what drew my attention to this resource being made available was access to early attempts to bring science to the wider public.

Early issues often open with a portrait with little explanation as to why they are being presented. Initially I took these to represent leading figures of the day, a sort 0f hero worship, but their biographies suggest they commemorated their recent passing. (Later I realised that the obituaries are within the Editor’s Table section.) Featured in the first edition is a portrait of Samuel Finley Breese Morse bedecked with medals, best known for the Morse code and development of the telegraph in the USA. (An article on the telegraph features in the November 1873 edition.)

The first edition opens with The Study of Sociology (by Herbert Spencer): the first subsection of this subtitled ‘Our Need of It’. While this article starts well be becomes so wide ranging and rambling that I quickly moved on to the second, The Recent Eclipse of The Sun (by R. A. Proctor, B.A., F.R.A.S.), which I found more compelling. It notes, for example, that “flames’ on the solar surface  “are not, properly speaking, flames at all, but masses of gas glowing with intensity of heat.” Like Spencer’s piece it is in longhand style but more interesting for discussing all views on the issue what the corona consisted of, both from competitors and colleagues. In it is illustrated an early photograph of the corona (below).

(Popular Science archive and Google Books.)

Following this, the Reverend T. W. Fowle (the name seems ripe for terrible jokes) follows with Science and Immortality referring to the immortality of the soul, as a religious person might. This was a period when religious leaders directly offered their thoughts on religion in popular science publications, some offering science, others objecting and some offering compromises.

Other articles in the first issue look at the measurement of man, disinfectants, the natural history of man,  dyspepsia (indigestion), women and political power (presented by a male promoting equality: “The most vital point in my present argument is that woman must be regarded as woman, not as a nondescript animal, with a greater or lesser capacity for assimilation to man.”), the early superstitions of medicine (we still seem to be stuck with some of them courtesy of some ‘natural remedy’ practitioners), prehistoric times (with some lovely illustrations; I’ve just learnt a celt refers to a kind of axe), literary notices (book reviews and the like) and a miscellany (in this first edition one refers to tips for house-building).

Popular Science, September 1917. (Google books.)

Don’t miss the Notes at the end of the early issues, some are delightful titbits of history. For example, the final note of the November 1873 edition records that “MR. BENJAMIN SMITH, of London, has sailed for the North Pole in the yacht Diana.” Or, a few notes above: “The Russian Government is about to construct a railroad from Njini-Novgorod on the Volga, to the Japan Sea, about 4,200 miles.” I would need to do further to research, but it is possible that this is the beginnings of construction of the Trans-Siberian Highway (not to be confused with the better-known railway of the same name), which was officially completed in 2004. Sections of it remain unpaved. (For fans of long-haul travel, there is 15-page travelogue in National Geographic Adventure.)

Articles in the early issues frequently take the form of long-hand lecture notes, a style that seems quite odd today, although it has the advantage that you can imagine the lecture.

Many of the earlier colour cover illustrations look more science fiction than science and are very war-like during the period of the world wars. The 1950s covers seem obsessed with automobiles, with a brief respite for ‘U.S. Scientist sets timetable to the Moon’ featuring a scientist and the Moon. October 1977 features the PET computer, for $US595 (Shown above).

Whatever your interest in Popular Science, the back issues are there for the reading. Enjoy them!

HT: @jswiatek via @BoraZ via twitter.

Other articles on Code for Life:

The inheritance of face recognition (should you blame your parents if you can’t recognise faces?)

Map shows New Zealand with lowest death rate on earth in 1856, over 11 in 1000 dying

Explore ancient science books on-line

Observing neurons and 1960s sci-fi geeks

Three kinds of knowledge about science and journalism

Deleting a gene can turn an ovary into a testis in adult mammals

“Paul Revere”—not a real name—at Effect Measure has presented a graph from CDC data showing childhood deaths to H1N1 (aka “swine flu”) over the past few years. It shows a distinctly higher peak for 2009.

Science writers have for years been commenting on the decline of print newspapers.

GrrlScientist presents a hilarious video from “Onion News Network” of a media discussion of How Will the End of Print Journalism Affect Crazy Old Loons Who Hoard Newspapers?

What will they stack when all the print newspapers are gone? What will publicity-seeking kidnappers use for random notes? What will teachers use to make papier mâché sculpture for the kids?

Brian Switek of Laelaps has an article New Study Confirms That “Ida” is Not Our Great-Great-Great-Great-Etc. Grandmother explaining further evidence why the recent fossil “Ida” is not a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens.

(In case anyone is confused, this is Darwinius masillae, not Ardipithecus ramidus that I’ve pointed to previously.)

The scholarly kitchen is hosting a video of Penguin’s ideas on what their books might look like on the iPad. (I wrote previously about the iPad, in particular how it might impact on the textbook market.)

Looking at this video, you can see some of the possibilities for books on a touch-driven screen like the iPad. What you see is a blend of book, interactive website, and interactive software. It’s interesting to think about and think how you might take the general ideas seen there further towards the textbook market, as opposed to the children’s market that this their main focus in this presentation.

The media has finally started reporting YouTube’s “new” captioning feature that I reported in November 2009…

Hey, guys, it’s great news but it’s old news… (They ought to have been paying more attention to the blogosphere…!)

According to the GCC’s “What is the GCC” page, “it is a criminal offence for anyone to describe themselves as any sort of chiropractor [in the UK] without being registered with the GCC” and that one of their aims is to “set the standards of chiropractic education, conduct and practice” (my emphasis).

I’m no lawyer, but on the face of it the BCA have two obvious choices: pull out of the libel case against Simon Singh as a consequence of the GCC’s findings, or part ranks with the GCC and sue their own ruling body in order to be consistent with continuing with their suit against Simon Singh.

Although (highly) unlikely, particularly as they are almost certainly legally obligated to work within the constraints of the GCC, the latter option would be an entertaining dog fight.

The news of the GCC’s findings originate from an article from the Guardian by Martin Robbins that scibling Alison Campbell emailed me and earlier reported earlier tonight. In his article, Robbins claims that an up-shot of the law suit against Simon Singh is that:

A staggering one in four chiropractors in Britain are now under investigation for allegedly making misleading claims in advertisements, according to figures from the General Chiropractic Council.

The details for the interested are in Robbins’ article, but the essence is that the BCA is swamped with claims and it’s costing them.

I’d like to draw readers attention to these two paragraphs near the end of Robbins’ article:

Now even the General Chiropractic Council has disowned the claims of the BCA – the same claims that lie at the centre of its libel action against Simon Singh.

In a new report, it has attempted to clarify the assertions that chiropractors can and cannot make, backed up by a systematic review of the evidence. Notably, the report concludes that the evidence does not support claims that chiropractic treatment is effective for childhood colic, bed-wetting, ear infections or asthma, the very claims that Singh was sued for describing as “bogus”.

At most readers would realise, the ruling body has undermined the British association’s case. As far as I can see, they’ve obliterated it.

The article referred to, by Bronfort and colleagues, is available on-line (PDF file) for those who wish to draw their own conclusions. I would suggest, though, that you first read the original evidence which examines these claims that Alison Campbell has listed in her blog article. (The short article by Ernst is particularly worth reading and, I feel, may be easier for many to follow.)

Bronfort and colleagues summarise their findings in several tables, by region of body or symptom: spinal, extremity, headache or “other”, non-musculoskeletal, noting the kind of intervention tested. Claims tested are listed by level of evidence—high, moderate, or inconclusive—and the outcome the nature of the evidence: positive, favourable, inconclusive or negative.

Evidence that is inconclusive or negative cannot be used to support a claim.

From their tables, symptoms that they list as having inconclusive or negative evidence for treatment by any of the treatments examined are:

Asthma, Colic, Otitis media, Nocturnal Enuresis, Premenstrual syndrome, Hypertension, Pneumonia in Older Adults, Fibromyalgia, Myofascial Pain Syndrome, Miscellaneous Headache, Morton’s Neuroma, Hallux Limitus, Hallux Abducto Valgus, Ankle Sprains or fractures, Knee Arthroplasty Rehabilitation, Hip Arthroplasty Rehabilitation, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Rotator Cuff Pain, Shoulder Pain, Sciatica / Radiating Leg Pain, Coccydynia, Mid Back Pain

The GCC rejects many of the claims many of it’s practitioners make, including the very claims that the BCA have objected to Simon Singh objecting to.

The only treatment they report as showing positive support at a high level of evidence was treatment for chronic low back pain using spinal manipulation /mobilization.

They offer mixed ‘moderate’ support for other spinal conditions: some have ‘moderate’ support under some treatment regimes, but are inconclusive under other treatment regimes.

Other, non-spinal, symptoms are listed as having ‘moderate’ support under particular treatment regimes. (The full list is too long to re-iterate here: interested readers can read them in the PDF copy of the article linked earlier.)

The authors point out that the ‘moderate’ standard of evidence is limited by:

The number, size, or quality of individual studies.

Inconsistency of findings across individual studies.

Limited generalizability of findings to routine practice.

Lack of coherence in the chain of evidence.

They conclude their description of the ‘moderate’ standard of evidence, stating:

As more information becomes available, the magnitude or direction of the observed effect could change, and this change may be large enough to alter the conclusion.

As such, ‘moderate’ support should be taken as tentative. With this in mind, the only tested treatment by chiropractic with full evidential support according to their study is treatment of chronic low back pain.

A key concept here is that treatments offered should be based on claims that can be substantiated, as also lies at the heart of the issue with other remedies such as homoeopathy and “treatments” for autism based on unsound ideas.

It will be interesting to watch the impact has on the BCA’s libel case against Simon Singh and if the public exposure of these unsupported remedies encourages people to move on to sounder practice. Let’s hope so.

Other health/medicine-related article in Code for Life:

The inheritance of face recognition (should you blame your parents if you can’t recognise faces?)

Enabling deaf people to text emergency calls to 111

Homeopathy check-up: Not in the health system, disclaimers on labels

Rubella, not a benign disease if experienced during early pregnancy

Lancet formally retracts Wakesfield paper

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: $10B towards vaccines

Homeopathic remedies in NZ pharmacies

Deleting a gene can turn an ovary into a testis in adult mammals

NZ a tsunami breakwater for Australia?

This excellent graphic of a preliminary calculation of the tsunami potential from NOAA’s West Coast and Alaska Warning Center been circulating the internet:

(For the full-size original, try the original source.)

I don’t want to be accused of mixing making fun of tragedy, but when I first saw this graphic at Pharnygula what caught my attention—beyond how well this graphic conveyed it’s message—was the remark of one commenter, presumably an Australian:

I knew there was a reason we left NZ were it is. A breakwater against Chilean Tsunamis. Thanks NZ.

Looking at the graphic, it does give the impression that NZ acts as a breakwater for most of eastern Australia for tsunamis coming from the southern Chilean coast. The Pacific Islands, running in a line north of NZ (Kermadec Islands, Tonga, etc.), also appear to play their role in this effect. (This is the point that some bloggers would end the entry with “Discuss.” You’re welcome to.)

Then again, if there is a big earthquake off the west coast of New Zealand, the Australians won’t have anything between it and the source…

Those disconnected teenage brains…

I read this on twitter, via @BoraZ, Rebecca Skloot—author of The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks—pointing to an article by Richard Knox on NPR (National Public Radio):

Scientist xasperated w/son studies teen brain growth, finds region responsible 4 decision making not fully connected http://bit.ly/bU70m3

We all know where this is heading…!

There is a podcast if you prefer to listen it. (For myself, as someone who is hard-of-hearing / deaf, I’m glad it’s offered in print.)

In New Zealand, the government has recently announced it’s intentions to raise the driving age. One of the examples of disconnected thinking in this article is… teenaged driving. (Nothing again teenagers, I swear, it’s a just coincidence I couldn’t miss pointing out.)

On a more serious note, this article is another reminder that rather than control the length of a neuron (for example Kukbe’s recent article on synchronising the timing sound input from either ear within the brain), the transduction properties of the neuron can be varied too.

The science and technology of airport traffic control

If you’ve ever wondered what is behind air traffic control at large airports, Arun Reddy has a four-page article up at ArsTechnica. This one was nicely timed to appear just before the recent JFK airport fuss over a controller’s kid reading out the calls.

Footnotes

For: NZ a tsunami breakwater for Australia?

NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The commenter in question offers a blog linked to his name, but on following it, it proves not to exist.

Other articles on Code for Life that might interest you:

The inheritance of face recognition (should you blame your parents if you can’t recognise faces?)

Enabling deaf people to text emergency calls to 111

Undiluted humour: If Homeopathy Beats Science

Preconceptual science, the dismissal-ness of it all