Well, the fateful day is here again- Valentines day in all its sexed-up, loved-up, tacky glory. Rather than regale you with the 'love myth', seratonin levels, phenethylamine, animals that mate for life or depressing suicide statistics, I have chosen to offer a study which could help those of the single persuasion improve their chances for next year- or at least give them a good laugh. In 2007, Geoffrey Miler, Joshua Tybur and Brent Jordan published the provocatively titled "Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earning by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus?" Their chief aim is to disprove the standing theory that estrus- a phase of increased female receptivity, proceptivity, selectivity and attractiveness at the fertile peak of the menstrual cycle- has become hidden in humans: "to promote males provisioning and paternal care in long term bonded relationships" (translation: women got good at faking it so that they could get the best genes from the good looking bastards and and a safe relationship with a nice guy). Miller and co decided that lap dancing clubs were the best place to evaluate this because men can thoroughly 'evaluate' a number of women and because women can continue to perform during menstruation- leading to this gem of a quote "Dancers in these clubs perform topless but not bottomless; law requires them to wear underwear."
Their sample size consisted of 18 women who they used to test the hypothesis that dancers not on the pill would show an increase in earnings during the fertile phases compared to other phases and women on the pill.
They found that earnings for women increased significantly during estrus and dipped during menstruation if they were not on the pill but that no similar peak was observed in women on the pill (although they still earned less in the menstrual phase). The implication is, of course, that men can still subconsciously detect estrus and menstruation in females.
For those of you that have been convinced by this research, I can only advise sticking your menstrual cycle in your diary and planning dates and evenings out accordingly- anything that will automatically increase your attractiveness without involving large amounts of pain, time, effort or money is worth giving a go. For those less convinced I reccommend reading the article anyway- if only for the pleasure of reading a scientific description of what goes on in a lapdancing club.
The researchers indicate a desire to investigate this effect in other avenues of the sex trade. All in the name of science no doubt.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-4PS640T-4&_user=1495569&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1207468654&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000053194&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1495569&md5=8487da4918e600bab31ed9b6f2a88f08
Monday, 15 February 2010
Sunday, 7 February 2010
A little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing
We live in an age of information: the accumulated knowledge of our entire species’ history lies at our fingertips whenever we log on to the internet and it is no more difficult to find out what is going on in Chinese politics than it is to discover what happened at the last local council meeting. By rights we should be the most well-informed generation in history; the newspapers are full of information on political affairs, scientific research, economic developments and world news. Such information is no longer restricted to experts or those ‘in the know’ but freely available to the whole population. At first glance this seems like it can only be a good thing- people have a right to know what is going on and what their taxes are paying for, however it is arguable that the influence of modern media is currently more at odds with these rights than facilitating them. Global warming, swine flu, genetics, GM foods and stem cell research are all hugely important issues for our time but research and development is being blocked by the power of people extrapolating massively from the small amount information they understand, often with potentially dangerous consequences.
The big panic of 2009 was Swine Flu: a potentially deadly new virus that hit world headlines at around April and stayed there. From the start the press was full of death statistics and scare headlines- the sun lead one week with a story about the graveyards running out of space while the Daily Mail went with “Could Britain cope with a pandemic? Lack of preparation ‘could leave a million dead.’” The threat was real, but did it necessitate this kind of hysteria? It would appear not given the relative insignificance of the Swine flu ‘pandemic’ however, reporting like this pressured the National Health Service into sinking a substantial amount of money into stockpiling the vaccine. Now, the paper’s are decrying the waste of buying such a large amount of vaccinations and accusing the government of caving to pressure from the Drug Companies, when in fact it was most likely the panic-inducing media reports that caused the situation.
Media does not just influence the actions of those who should no better however, but also the minds of those who don’t; one clear example of this was the publication of ‘The God Gene’ a book by Dean Hamer that was picked up by the media at the time, most notably making the cover of Time Magazine in October 2004. Hamer, a geneticist, argues for genetic explanation to morality and religious belief, which is as fair a hypothesis as any, however although I have not read the book I cannot imagine that he is referring to a single gene controlling such a trait. Such traits, if they are indeed influenced by genetics, will be quantitative not mendelian, and since studies into the genetics of well-documented physiological traits such as height and obesity have so far only been able to determine genetic loci accounting for about 1% of overall variation, it is extremely unlikely that Hamer has documented demonstrable genetic additive effects for a cultural phenomenon. Unfortunately the complexities of such research appear to be lost on the media- who latched onto the idea of a gene for religion wholeheartedly. This sort of publicity is neither accurate nor useful especially in the current ‘battle’ against creationism, as it gives people an erroneous picture of the research which when (unsurprisingly) is proven to be false, reinforces people’s mistrust of science.
A similar situation exists with global warming, a topic whose intricacies are so vast that it would be impossible to address them here. Many papers are doing their bit to help things but others- principally the ultra right wing ones that would make Sarah Palin’s breakfast table (this being a woman who believes global warming is a scientific conspiracy though god knows to what end)- tell a different story. My personal favourite was another headline by the Daily Mail that wanted to know how Scientists can continue to talk about Global warming when we’ve had more snow this year than ever before. Can reporters really get away with doing this little research? Did their editor, someone who is supposed to pretend to some level of intelligence, not take them aside and explain gently the issues of glacial melt, currents and how global warming is the name not necessarily the description? Apparently they can, a turn of events that has given me very little faith in the science journalism of the current media. They are more interested in sensationalism than informing people on important issues and if global warming does reach us earlier than expected I will be the first to push the staff of the daily mail off of Cornwall to make more room for the rest of us.
If the media has too much influence over these issues, it is ably assisted by our belief in political celebrities, one case in point being Prince Charles and genetically modified foods. Genetically modified foods have the potential to solve world food shortages, and as we run out of space and climate becomes more unstable, they may provide the only solution. In an interview in the Telegraph however, he accused firms of conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".
There are many amusing soundbites from this article, in which Prince Charles seems to think all gm foods look like something out of Little Shop of Horrors however it is the final paragraph that seems to me to be the most significant “Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming and whether they will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.” Prince Charles’ view of the global agricultural situation just isn’t feasible any longer- his emphasis on the small farmer might seem idyllic but there isn’t enough land to support it and crops are going to need to adapt to changing conditions more quickly than currently seems likely. His very public dismissal of the value of research into genetically modified foods is doing a lot of harm.
Similar themes of scientists ‘playing God’ are what led to George Bush banning stem cell research in America despite the good it can do for people
(Wikipedia)
Many diseases could be cured by Stem cell research and while I would not want to devalue the pro-life argument, which does make some valid points, the good such research could do means that, like organ transplantation and blood donation, it should be optional. It is certainly not something that should be banned just to get the support of the bible belt in an upcoming election.
So has the media become a negative force, working against scientists? In many ways clearly the answer is a resounding yes- particularly in the newspapers. Selling papers is ultimately about sensationalism and sadly, most journalists are motivated by sales not a desire to inform people. However it is not all bad- campaigns about issues such as Breast Cancer and the HPV vaccination have been ably assisted by journalists from all spheres and dedicated science magazines such as the New Scientist, present the days issues with a minimum of drama. There is still the potential for science journalism to work alongside the field it targets and not against it, but the social attitude to science is going to be a big factor and until more figures like Barack Obama come out in favour of the big issues, science in the media is always going to remain contentious.
(To be Published in Triple Helix)
The big panic of 2009 was Swine Flu: a potentially deadly new virus that hit world headlines at around April and stayed there. From the start the press was full of death statistics and scare headlines- the sun lead one week with a story about the graveyards running out of space while the Daily Mail went with “Could Britain cope with a pandemic? Lack of preparation ‘could leave a million dead.’” The threat was real, but did it necessitate this kind of hysteria? It would appear not given the relative insignificance of the Swine flu ‘pandemic’ however, reporting like this pressured the National Health Service into sinking a substantial amount of money into stockpiling the vaccine. Now, the paper’s are decrying the waste of buying such a large amount of vaccinations and accusing the government of caving to pressure from the Drug Companies, when in fact it was most likely the panic-inducing media reports that caused the situation.
Media does not just influence the actions of those who should no better however, but also the minds of those who don’t; one clear example of this was the publication of ‘The God Gene’ a book by Dean Hamer that was picked up by the media at the time, most notably making the cover of Time Magazine in October 2004. Hamer, a geneticist, argues for genetic explanation to morality and religious belief, which is as fair a hypothesis as any, however although I have not read the book I cannot imagine that he is referring to a single gene controlling such a trait. Such traits, if they are indeed influenced by genetics, will be quantitative not mendelian, and since studies into the genetics of well-documented physiological traits such as height and obesity have so far only been able to determine genetic loci accounting for about 1% of overall variation, it is extremely unlikely that Hamer has documented demonstrable genetic additive effects for a cultural phenomenon. Unfortunately the complexities of such research appear to be lost on the media- who latched onto the idea of a gene for religion wholeheartedly. This sort of publicity is neither accurate nor useful especially in the current ‘battle’ against creationism, as it gives people an erroneous picture of the research which when (unsurprisingly) is proven to be false, reinforces people’s mistrust of science.
A similar situation exists with global warming, a topic whose intricacies are so vast that it would be impossible to address them here. Many papers are doing their bit to help things but others- principally the ultra right wing ones that would make Sarah Palin’s breakfast table (this being a woman who believes global warming is a scientific conspiracy though god knows to what end)- tell a different story. My personal favourite was another headline by the Daily Mail that wanted to know how Scientists can continue to talk about Global warming when we’ve had more snow this year than ever before. Can reporters really get away with doing this little research? Did their editor, someone who is supposed to pretend to some level of intelligence, not take them aside and explain gently the issues of glacial melt, currents and how global warming is the name not necessarily the description? Apparently they can, a turn of events that has given me very little faith in the science journalism of the current media. They are more interested in sensationalism than informing people on important issues and if global warming does reach us earlier than expected I will be the first to push the staff of the daily mail off of Cornwall to make more room for the rest of us.
If the media has too much influence over these issues, it is ably assisted by our belief in political celebrities, one case in point being Prince Charles and genetically modified foods. Genetically modified foods have the potential to solve world food shortages, and as we run out of space and climate becomes more unstable, they may provide the only solution. In an interview in the Telegraph however, he accused firms of conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".
There are many amusing soundbites from this article, in which Prince Charles seems to think all gm foods look like something out of Little Shop of Horrors however it is the final paragraph that seems to me to be the most significant “Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming and whether they will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.” Prince Charles’ view of the global agricultural situation just isn’t feasible any longer- his emphasis on the small farmer might seem idyllic but there isn’t enough land to support it and crops are going to need to adapt to changing conditions more quickly than currently seems likely. His very public dismissal of the value of research into genetically modified foods is doing a lot of harm.
Similar themes of scientists ‘playing God’ are what led to George Bush banning stem cell research in America despite the good it can do for people
(Wikipedia)
Many diseases could be cured by Stem cell research and while I would not want to devalue the pro-life argument, which does make some valid points, the good such research could do means that, like organ transplantation and blood donation, it should be optional. It is certainly not something that should be banned just to get the support of the bible belt in an upcoming election.
So has the media become a negative force, working against scientists? In many ways clearly the answer is a resounding yes- particularly in the newspapers. Selling papers is ultimately about sensationalism and sadly, most journalists are motivated by sales not a desire to inform people. However it is not all bad- campaigns about issues such as Breast Cancer and the HPV vaccination have been ably assisted by journalists from all spheres and dedicated science magazines such as the New Scientist, present the days issues with a minimum of drama. There is still the potential for science journalism to work alongside the field it targets and not against it, but the social attitude to science is going to be a big factor and until more figures like Barack Obama come out in favour of the big issues, science in the media is always going to remain contentious.
(To be Published in Triple Helix)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)