In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, we discuss ancient astronauts and the space-alien pseudohistories of Erich von Däniken, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Raëlians.
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism that is produced by the Winnipeg Skeptics.
Correction: The Garden of Eden wasn’t near Jacksonville, MO, as Gem asserted. It was actually (according to Brigham Young) in Jackson County, MO. We apologise for this error.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Donna Harris, Richelle McCullough, and Laura Creek Newman discuss the scientific failings of popular spiritualist and guru Deepak Chopra and "America's Doctor" Mehmet Oz.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn Noble discusses some of the marketing claims made for certain cosmetics with Laura Creek Newman and Lauren Bailey.
I've talked about IgG testing previously, but in case you need a refresher, an IgG test is a blood test that proposes to improve your health by identifing food "intolerances" (not necessarily allergies). I'll leave the rest of the primer to Scott Gavura, a Canadian pharmacist who writes for both Skeptic North and Science Based Medicine:
IgG blood tests like Hemocode and YorkTest are clinically useless for diagnosing food intolerances, yet pharmacies imply otherwise. These tests claim to identify sensitivity to hundreds of products – yet not one has been validated. That’s because there no proven correlation between positive results on an IgG blood test and a true food intolerance. Not only are these tests use to shape dietary modification, they’re also used to sell supplements – another unproven use of IgG testing. Yet despite recent cautions against this testing, it continues to be offered.
A host of professional organisations including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, the British Dietetic Association, and many more have all recommended that consumers avoid using these tests to diagnose allergies or intolerances, because the evidence just isn't there.
Many people suffer from chronic conditions that traditional medical practitioners have been unable to alleviate. [Although] the relationship between chronic health conditions and IgG response and use of IgG test results may not be proven, there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence of dramatic improvements in health through use of elimination diets and similar. Should we wait decades for medical proof before investing $200 in a simple test that might lead to a change in diet that might significantly reduce chronic depression? Pharmaceutical companies will gladly invest the millions of dollars to fund scientific studies because they stand to make 100′s of millions of dollars in profits from successfully patented drugs. Who is going to fund expensive scientific studies that result in reduced drug use and changes in diet? Such studies will come slowly. Meantime, I think this is a small investment, with much better odds than, say, continuing to seek advice from doctors who have been unable to help for years. It’s important to know this testing is unproven, but we all need to inform ourselves before choosing any course of treatment, and make our own informed choices.
While I'm sympathetic to some of the sentiments that this person has expressed (and I certainly appreciate the courteous and thoughtful manner in which it was done—it's a rarity hereabouts), I do not share the commenter's apparent optimism that the results of IgG tests are at all useful in determining intolerance to foods, for reasons that I think are quite clear by now.
Should we wait decades for medical proof before investing $200 in a simple test that might lead to a change in diet that might significantly reduce chronic depression?
The $200 is a reference to the fact that another commenter mentioned that he or she wasted that much money on an IgG test that proved worthless. For many people, $200 is rather a lot to pay, but potentially worse is the fact that any given IgG test is sure to prompt the customer to eliminate certain foods from their diet, probably unnecessarily, which is a major inconvenience at the very least.
And a change in diet might significantly reduce chronic depression? Well, whether it's worth the $200 depends on how likely it is that you'd see an improvement. And for that, we want to see clinical data. If you disagree, I have a rock for sale that may interest you: it might prevent tiger attacks.
Pharmaceutical companies will gladly invest the millions of dollars to fund scientific studies because they stand to make 100's of millions of dollars in profits from successfully patented drugs. Who is going to fund expensive scientific studies that result in reduced drug use and changes in diet? Such studies will come slowly.
They're certainly not going to bother funding such studies when they realise that they can just sell the service to people whether it works or not. That's why so many companies that sell nutritional supplements are owned by major pharmaceutical corporations: because of the way the these products are regulated (hint: very, very poorly), they don't have to invest the research dollars before they turn a profit. (Alacer Corporation, the manufacturer of "Emergen-C", is owned by Pfizer for example.) Which brings up another point: While patented drugs are great for the bottom line, you can still turn a tidy profit on something that is not patentable (or whose patent has expired). Vitamins and supplements aside, Aspirin still makes quite a lot of money for Bayer, despite the fact that Bayer's patent on acetylsalicylic acid expired 96 years ago.
I find it troubling that while this commenter is quick to point out the profit motive of major pharmaceutical companies, he or she seems to ignore the fact that the companies who provide these testing services are making boatloads of cash from selling these tests, all without bothering to do all of that pesky science to make sure they actually work.
Because the relationship between chronic health conditions and IgG response and use of IgG test results may not be proven, there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence of dramatic improvements in health through use of elimination diets and similar.
I'm curious as to why this person is so quick to dismiss the many professional associations in relevant medical and nutritional fields (those qualified to assess the state of the evidence) that have determined that IgG tests are worthless. More details are provided by Scott Gavura over at Science Based Medicine.
As for there being "significant anecdotal evidence" for the efficacy of IgG tests, I'll simply point out that there also seems to be "significant anecdotal evidence" against the efficacy of IgG tests. (Not to mention actual, non-anecdotal evidence to that effect.) While anecdotes are certainly useful in pointing research in new and potentially fruitful directions, they are not in and of themselves especially useful in determining efficacy.
When you get right down to it, this is an argument about health freedom and informed consent, but everyone isn't going to be well-informed on every topic all the time. For this reason, I'm of the opinion that health products should be subjected to robust regulation, with emphasis placed on both safety and efficacy (and without dubious exemptions for products marketed as "natural"). There will always be Kevin Trudeaus* and Leonard Coldwells trying to sell nonsense disguised as medicine, and we should be trying to make it as difficult as possible for them to do it.
It's important to know this testing is unproven, but we all need to inform ourselves before choosing any course of treatment, and make our own informed choices.
I could not agree more.
* Or would the proper plural of "Kevin Trudeau" be "Kevin Trudeaux"? Perhaps "Kevins Trudeau"?
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn Noble discusses the life and times of recently deceased "psychic medium" Sylvia Browne with Donna Harris and Gem Newman, and Gem hosts a game of Psychic Fact or Psychic Fiction!
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn Noble and Laura Creek Newman discuss naturopathy, including Ashlyn's experience interviewing for a position as a live blood microscopy analyst.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman talks about homeopathic medicine in theory and practice, and is joined by Michael Kruse of Bad Science Watch to discuss the Stop Nosodes campaign.
A news article from the Irish Independent has been making the rounds these last few days. With the cheery title of "Wave goodbye to global warming, GM and pesticides" this (almost) unbelievably credulous bit of reportage claims that a new technology developed in Ireland will solve pretty well every modern-day agricultural woe.
"But how?" you ask. "Easy," the researchers reply: "Radio waves!"
This bit o' tech, marketed under the name Vi-Aqua, involves "energising" water by exposing it to a radio signal. Attach this small device to your garden hose, and you can (apparently) expect bigger fruits and vegetables that are resistant to pests and disease! It's a solution to every problem! Water treated with this simple technology repels insects! Crops resist blight! Yields are increased! It even sequesters carbon! Who knows? Maybe it will also reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles!
Most skeptics recognize that panaceas are (generally speaking) not to be trusted. As Irish blogger "Unshaved Mouse" pointed out, this article is found not in the newspaper's Science section (it doesn't seem to have one), but in its Business section, which for the Irish Independent apparently means the "we'll provide credulous free advertising for you without asking any tough questions" section.
Red Flags
This article displays several of the typical warning signs that we may be dealing with pseudoscientific crankery. It's important to note that none of these red flags serve to prove that this is a scam. In fact, if I'd just read a simple summary of the research, my response might have been, "Huh. That's strange. I wonder if other researchers will be able to replicate this." However, there are a few items of concern that should be addressed.
"Groundbreaking" Research and "Miraculous" Results
Cries that the research is "groundbreaking", "paradigm-shifting", "miraculous", or any other hyperbolic nonsense tends to make me nervous. Not because groundbreaking research doesn't happen, but because most scientists try very hard to communicate the limits of their research, while it's hucksters who tend to make grandiose claims.
A GROUNDBREAKING new Irish technology which could be the greatest breakthrough in agriculture since the plough is set to change the face of modern farming forever.
Since the plough? Admittedly, I didn't grow up on a farm, but the claim that this "could be" the most important agricultural technology in the last four to eight thousand years strikes me as... well, extraordinary. Especially given, you know, that whole Green Revolution thing.
It also produces the miracle of rejuvenating the soil by invigorating soil-based micro-organisms. ... [T]he technology is being hailed as a modern day miracle.
Oh! It's a miracle! Well, I suppose that explains it, then.
The Chopra Effect
I'm also worried by claims that mix scientific (or sciencey-sounding) language liberally with folksy details. Deepak Chopra is the go-to example for this sort of nonsense, but he hardly has a monopoly.
Vi-Aqua makes water wetter and introduces atmospheric nitrogen into the water in the form of nitrates – so it is free fertiliser.
I'll admit that I did a bit of a double-take when I read that (perhaps it was more of a quadruple-take). It makes water wetter? What does that even mean? (The science behind wetting, incidentally, is quite interesting.)
While the article didn't go into much detail here, the Vi-Aqua website claims that their product makes water "wetter" by "altering the configuration of hydrogen in water" (although their brochure claims that Vi-Aqua "alters the hydrogen content", which doesn't at all strike me as the same thing).
Unfortunately, according to Stephen Lower, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Simon Fraser University, "These claims are bunk; there is no scientific evidence that water can be 'energized', re-structured, or otherwise altered by filters or external forces." He specifically calls out Vi-Aqua for claiming that their device is "proven" without offering any scientific evidence to support the claim.
Vague Claims Supported by Anecdote
Claims that are vague are consequently difficult to verify, and we are provided with scant evidence for efficacy.
Not only are the plants much bigger but they are largely disease-resistant, meaning huge savings in expensive fertilisers and harmful pesticides. ... Extensively tested in Ireland and several other countries, the inexpensive water treatment technology is now being rolled out across the world.
Although the number "30 per cent" is thrown around several times (this technology will at once increase yield by 30% and decrease water consumption by 30%), the article is very light on the details.
The Vi-Aqua website (and as a software developer, I have to say that the website is a travesty top to bottom) lists many of the benefits of this technology, but nowhere does it link to any published research (not even in its "Test Results" section). Instead, it mentions that a two month test was carried out in 2001 (that's twelve years ago, but reportedly trials are "still ongoing"), and then offers a series of testimonials. There is no way to evaluate the scientific rigour of the trials, the statistical significance of the findings, or any potential abuse of multiple comparisons or other researcher degrees of freedom. In fact, the file drawer effect here seems to be absolute.
Or so it looked at first.
Ray Peterson of the Winnipeg Skeptics managed to find a PDF copy of a document titled "Scientific Information Dossier: 'Vi-Aqua' Vitalized Water" (although the file name reads "Full Scientific Doc Proof"). This document begins with some general background information, and then describes a series of trials undertaken in 1998 to "prove" the efficacy of the Vi-Aqua product.
Despite being described as "proof", it doesn't look good. The majority of tests performed showed no statistically significant difference between the control group and the treatment groups. Two tests showed improvements in one of the three treatment groups that barely met statistical significance, but there did not seem to be any attempt made to control for multiple comparisons. The results are preliminary at best, and seem indistinguishable from noise.
Perhaps its most endearing feature is that the dossier invokes "water memory", stating that "electromagnetic modification is imprinted in the water for several hours, slowly decaying with time". Note that this is after admitting that "[t]he magnetic water memory effect is a controversial and exciting issue that is not explained by any current theory," and that water loses any complex structure within picoseconds. But I guess if "water memory" is good enough for homeopaths like Jacques Benveniste, it's good enough for these guys.
So far as I can determine, despite the sciencey language, there's no plausible mechanism of action here, which does not bode well for Vi-Aqua. The trials described also make it clear that no blinding was employed to control researcher bias: the test and control groups were clearly labeled. This is the same level of evidence we see from those selling homeopathy or Power Balance bands.
If it weren't for the implausibility of it all, and the fact that they're selling to consumers, I'd say, "Hey, this is some neat preliminary research! I hope this passes replication!" But, despite the claims of "miraculous" results, after seventeen years there doesn't seem to be any peer reviewed literature evaluating the claims, and these claims don't seem to have gained traction in the field. I'm not a scientist (not really, and this certainly isn't my area of expertise)—but you know who are scientists, and who do specialise in this field? Those who perform peer review in the relevant academic journals.
Currently, I'm having trouble seeing the difference between this research and the "independent" studies commissioned by the charlatans at Power Balance.
Conflicts of Interest
While not a smoking gun, it's always worrying to see the same people who conduct the research profiting directly by selling the product they're studying to consumers (especially prior to publication of results).
The two researchers involved in this project, according to the article, are Professor Austin Darragh and Dr. J.J. Leahy, both of the University of Limerick. Although the Vi-Aqua website does not make it clear exactly who is profiting from the sale of the devices, a simple Whois lookup discloses that the site is registered to Anna Darragh. If she is not related to Professor Darragh, I will be very surprised indeed. I'm concerned that this may be an example of researchers who, instead of engaging with their peers in the scientific community via the literature, are largely ignoring the scientific process in favour of going directly to the consumer (and consumer's wallet).
While the testimonials page features prominently a glowing endorsement for the product from Dr. Leahy, I was not able to determine whether he stands to benefit from Vi-Aqua sales.
Additional Research
According to their University of Limerick faculty pages (which, to be fair, may be out of date), neither Austin Darragh nor J.J. Leahy have published any research evaluating the benefits of "radio-energised" water in agriculture.
I reached out via email to both Professor Darragh and Dr. Leahy, asking if they could provide links or references to any peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject and to clarify their involvement in direct-to-consumer sales of the Vi-Aqua device.
In essence, the goal of the experiment is to determine whether a radiofrequency signal can serve to reduce buildup of scale on the interior surface of pipes used to transport water or aqueous solutions by preventing disolved particles (in this case, copper and zinc) from precipitating and adhering to the pipe wall. While the results of this investigation are interesting, they do not relate directly to the question of whether using water exposed to radiofrequency EMF results in increased agricultural yield, decreased pesticide use, or improved carbon sequestration—or even whether we should expect it to.
Dr. Leahy did not comment on the sales or marketing of the Vi-Aqua device. I did not receive a response from Professor Darragh, but I will provide an update if I do.
The Unabashedly Absurd
They truly save the best for last. This is the second-to-last paragraph of the article, in its entirety:
Intriguingly, chickens and sheep fed the energised water turned into giants. . . but that's another story!
Artist's Impression
That's another story? Maybe it's just a matter of personal taste, but this device creates giant farm animals and you choose to report on pesticide use and carbon sequestration instead?
The Bottom Line
Hey, anything's possible I guess, but these claims are extraordinary. If they're legitimate: great! But why not actually link to reputable scientific literature to back up the claims, rather than presenting the claims exactly the way we would expect them to be presented if they were a scam?
Let's review: The claims of the product are extraordinarily implausible. The researchers are associated with the company selling the product. I was unable to find independent corroboration of the claims, or any peer reviewed research at all that evaluates the efficacy of the Vi-Aqua device. The language used by the researchers to describe the technology is hyperbolic and contradictory. This stuff makes water wetter and turns chickens into giants.
This article was so bad that I briefly wondered if it were satire. Unfortunately, it wasn't posted in April, the Irish Independent is an actual news organization, and there's a website dedicated to selling the stuff. Although we might all hope that it's simply a hoax meant to expose bad science journalism (sorry, business journalism), I think this is more likely an example of hucksters managing to get mainstream coverage. If it does all turn out to be a joke, however, I will be thoroughly relieved.
In the meantime, be careful: the radio waves employed by the Vi-Aqua device may trigger your electromagnetic hypersensitivity.* Or they could turn you into a giant.†
Hat tip to Ray Peterson who sent several relevant links my way, and to Brendan Curran-Johnson for reminding me about Norman Borlaug. I'll give Ray the last word: "The joke could be on us and it's all real. A simple textbook electronic circuit sitting under our noses all this time making water wetter."
The Winnipeg Skeptics is first and foremost about community: until 2010, skeptics, critical thinkers, science enthusiasts, and curmudgeons in Winnipeg didn't really have a group to call their own, and so we created one. But many of us also care passionately about skeptical activism—and one of the easiest places to "do skepticism" is online.
But one of the questions that I frequently encounter when discussing online skeptical activism is simply: Does it work?
I believe that it's important to counter misinformation wherever and whenever we find it (especially when it seems likely that those who are misinformed may come to serious harm), and confronting pseudoscience on social media serves a valuable role. While you may not persuade those with whom you're arguing directly (not immediately, anyway), you can prevent bystanders and passers by from being convinced by shoddy evidence, and you can help curtail the spread of bad science.
Members of the Winnipeg Skeptics are always doing battle against pseudoscience, and so I thought that I might share some of our recent social media escapades. I'll note that a few of the snippets that I'll present have been reordered slightly. This is because in some cases many people were posting to a thread simultaneously and responding to each other's comments, and I'd like to present sufficient context for the discussion without forcing the reader to wade through every single comment. I'll also link to a full screenshot of each discussion for those readers who would like to see each comment in its original context. I have also redacted the names of those participants who I don't know to be "out" as skeptics. On the one hand, that's sort of a shame, because there were a fair number of very solid points made and credit should go where credit is due. On the other hand, I feel that leaving these people's names in there without permission would be rather rude.
We'll start off with a discussion on the Little Remedies Canada Facebook page from a couple of months back. In their original post they claim that, flu season having arrived, squeezing a clove of garlic into your child's food would give their immune system a "super boost". (Full discussion.)
Next, I'll present a brief exchange that Richelle had with the proprietor of Calgary's The Naked Leaf tea house, in which they slyly claim-without-actually-claiming that their tea treats high cholesterol and high blood sugar. (Full discussion.)
The response is classic: they promote nonsense, they're called on it, and they responded with the old, "Well now, we're not making any claims! We're just letting other people make claims on our behalf!" (This is standard operating procedure for multilevel/network marketing schemes, incidentally.)
The last discussion that I'll cite in detail comes from the Facebook page of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region. At the end of last month they announced, "Planned Parenthood is proud to be hosting 'Night with a Homeopath' on Tuesday February 26th ... [to] discuss what a homeopathic practitioner is and what they can do for us." PPWR described the event as a great chance to learn about "alternatives to 'modern medicine'." The skeptical response was swift and decisive, with Rebecca Watson and members of the Winnipeg and Ottawa Skeptics spreading the word on Twitter and Facebook. (Full discussion.)
That first comment pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
All of that took place within an hour of the announcement. It seemed like Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region wasn't going to back down, given the fact that they opened with the "you're not being open minded" gambit, entreating us to just hear the homeopath out. But we were determined to spread this story far and wide, and just a few minutes later links to the announcement returned this:
Bad Science Watch is an independent non-profit activist organization dedicated to improving the lives of Canadians by countering bad science. The group is driven by a vision of a safer, healthier, and more prosperous Canada where critical thinking and sound science are paramount in the making of important societal decisions.
December saw the completion a project investigating anti-WiFi activism in Canada. The project committee (which I chaired) presented its findings to BSW, and the full report is now available on Bad Science Watch's project page.
I'll quote here from the conclusion of the paper:
We have been unable to identify any high quality reproducible evidence that any symptom of idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) is caused by exposure to nonionizing electromagnetic radiation. Systematic reviews of both provocation studies and purported treatments for IEI-EMF support the conclusion that EMF is not the cause of the syndrome.
Despite the claims made by the authors of one review paper and the aforementioned anti-WiFi groups, Bad Science Watch was unable to locate any compelling evidence of legitimate scientific debate about WiFi induced illness, or the safety of low-level EMF exposure in general. While fringe groups continue to present flawed arguments and promote poorly designed experiments, the preponderance of research on the matter robustly dispels the connection between WiFi and IEI-EMF. For those tasked with making decisions about the inclusion of WiFi technology in their organization, school, or home, we can find no reason to ignore the advice of health organizations worldwide. The benefits of WiFi are numerous and varied, and there is no compelling evidence that any health effects arise as a result of this technology.
On Saturday, 29 September 2012, the Winnipeg Skeptics held their third annual SkeptiCamp event. SkeptiCamp Winnipeg is a conference for the sharing of ideas. It is free and open to the public: anyone can attend and participate! Presentations and discussions focus on science and free inquiry, and the audience is encouraged to challenge presenters to defend their ideas.
Laura Creek Newman is a registered dietitian in Winnipeg who has a passion for everything involving food and nutrition. Her favourite skeptical topics are health, wellness, and the latest "miracle foods". She is an active member of the Winnipeg Skeptics with a particular interest in building community ties through volunteering events.
SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.
No, the world isn't ending today. Sorry to disappoint. But the Winnipeg Sun has quite the spread on the subject of the "Mayan" notpocalypse, this morning. I was contacted earlier in the week by two different journalists from the Sun who were writing stories about the (non-)event, and they'd heard about our party.
(By the way: in case you hadn't heard, the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba are hosting a joint "End of the World" party tonight at the Assiniboine Golf Club at 2045 Ness Avenue. We're starting the evening off at 7:00 with an apocalypse-themed pub quiz, followed by music, dancing, and general merriment! There'll be food, a cash bar, and a silent auction. Tickets are $15, and there will be a few available at the door.)
Since space is limited in print media, I knew that only a few of the points that I made in the interviews would see the light of day, so I figured that I might as well share the answers to some of the questions that I was asked here:
Why are you skeptical that the world will end Friday?
The first rule of skepticism is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in this case there is good reason to disbelieve. First, while the thirteenth b'ak'tun of the ancient Mesoamerican long-count calendar does end on Friday, there's little reason to think that the Mayans actually believed the world would end on that day. (When your calendar runs out, you don't think it's the end of the world: you get a new calendar.) Second, even if Mayans did believe this, there's no reason to think that they'd be right. Third, every single proposed mechanism by which the world might end has been handily debunked by scientists in the appropriate fields (NASA has a web page devoted to it, for example). And finally, given the absolutely staggering number of actual end of the world predictions that have come and gone uneventfully, I think that we're pretty safe.
As a skeptic, how do you think the world will end (assuming it will, some day)?
That's a hard question to answer. If you're taking a human-centric view, then I'm rather concerned about both environmental degradation and international conflict. I think that the planet will probably outlast us well enough, but given enough time some astronomical calamity is almost certain to do the Earth in, be it an asteroid, a gamma ray burst, or the eventual expansion of the sun into a red giant, 5 billion years from now. Those interested in ways the world could end would do well to take a look at astronomer Phil Plait's book Death from the Skies.
Is there any goal to the party or just a get together in itself?
Simple good cheer is the primary purpose, to be honest. Sharing a drink and a laugh with other members of the community is the way many people choose to spend their time during the holiday season, and the "non-event" of the supposed Mayan Apocalypse makes a convenient focal point for the festivities. And although I doubt many people are seriously worried about it, the party should add some levity to the "doom and gloom" that people might otherwise expect from discussions surrounding the apocalypse.
Can people who think that the world might end attend the party?
Of course! Hopefully they'll find it reassuring. They'll certainly find it fun.
Why do people get so worked up over things like this?
Well, it's complicated, but there are a few straightforward reasons. Hucksterism, for one. Several authors have latched on to the date to lend weight to their crank ideas, exploiting the public's fears to make a quick buck on book sales (the supposed collision between Earth and the fictional planet "Nibiru", for example, was originally supposed to happen in May 2003, but was conveniently rescheduled after the planet failed to appear). Failed apocalypses are also quickly forgotten, so it's easy to overlook how commonplace these sorts of predictions actually are. There have been at least a dozen failed end of the world predictions in the last decade alone! There's really no reason to worry. None at all.
Finally, if you happen to know any Maya (yes, they're still around), kindly apologise to them on behalf of the rest of the human race for all of the nonsense. We'll try not to be too much of a bother from now on.
Bad Science Watch is a recently formed Canadian non-profit activist organization dedicated to ensuring that important societal decisions are informed by good science rather than bad. I recently had the opportunity to speak with Jamie Williams, Executive Director of Bad Science Watch, who took a few minutes out of his busy schedule to discuss the vision of the organisation and the political/social climate that led to its formation.
...
"Irresponsible companies and health providers are being allowed to spread misinformation and sell ineffective 'alternatives' to vaccines based on bad science. I and the other founding members saw a void in Canadian consumer protection and science advocacy regarding these issues. We saw a need for an independent organization with no industry ties or other conflicts of interest to campaign for all Canadians."
You can read the full article online, or you can pick up a copy of the newspaper at your nearest University of Manitoba.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Gary Barbon, and Mark Forkheim discuss the online conspiracy film "Thrive" with Robert Shindler, Richelle McCullough, and Greg Christensen.
This episode was recorded over Google+, so the audio quality is occasionally inconsistent. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, Greg, Richelle, and Robert had to drop out of the show early, but Mark, Gary, and Gem soldiered on!
Fair Warning: This post is not really related to science or skepticism. It might save you a fair amount of money, however.
If you're a regular reader, you're probably aware that I'm a bit of a geek, and I like games of all types. I love computer RPGs, I have a massive collection of board games, and I regularly play Magic: the Gathering (sometimes competitively, although most often casually, and I don't even have the decency to be ashamed of it).
I mention this only because I recently ordered a new expansion (and a small older expansion) for a game that I rather love called Small World. I ordered it from the United States, and UPS was the only shipping option that was available to me.
The subtotal came to $50 US, and I paid $17.50 US for shipping. My credit card was charged, I was issued a tracking number, and the waiting began.
When the package arrived, instead of simply hiding it under my barbecue (as UPS has an incomprehensible habit of doing), I was left only a delivery notice. This notice informed me that I owed $37.42 in brokerage fees, and that delivery would be attempted again the following day.
Perplexed, and more than a little annoyed, I called UPS to enquire about the nature of these charges. The North American Free Trade Agreement (while problematic in many ways) prevents the imposition of most duties and tariffs on goods imported from the United States, after all. I was informed that $6.12 was to be collected in sales tax (GST & PST), while the remaining $31.30 was owed to UPS for "brokerage" and various handling charges.
In effect, they went through the trouble of paying the $6.12 on my behalf and clearing the package through customs, and in return they were demanding $31.30 in exchange. Given the fact that I had already paid $17.50 US (roughly $18.40) in shipping, this brought the total that I was paying for shipping up to 95% of the cost of the goods themselves. Under some circumstances that would be fair: but when the item being shipped is less than two kilos and roughly the size of two hardcover books, that's too much. And when you consider the fact that only 37% of the shipping costs are disclosed beforehand (despite the fact that they are deterministic, and could have been disclosed before the purchase was made), and that the shipping costs that I'd already paid were nonrefundable, I was fairly angry.*
So, the cost of the product that I'd purchased had turned out to be twice as high as the list price, and UPS was holding it for ransom until I coughed up the rest of the dough. I was prepared to write off the shipping fees that I'd already paid, refuse delivery, and receive a refund from the company, because I was not willing to pay UPS their ridiculous fees.
And then my friend Travis told me something that I hadn't heard before: If you're willing to do a little leg-work, you can clear the package through customs yourself, and not pay the bogus brokerage charges. This procedure should apply to any nongovernmental mail service. Here's how to do it:
Have the shipper write "Self Clear" or "Clears Own" on the package. (This is not required, but it may save the delivery person a trip, so it's a nice thing to do if the shipper is willing to do it.)
When the package arrives, you will receive either a telephone call or a delivery notice.
Once the item arrives, you will have to physically go down to the mail service's "Clears Own" office. This office will probably have distinct, absurd hours (the local UPS "Clears Own" office was open Monday to Friday 10:00–3:00) designed specifically to encourage you to just pay them the money.
At the office, you will receive a few sheets of paper. These must be taken to your local Canadian Border Services Agency office (which will probably be nearby). If there are multiple CBSA offices in your city, make sure that you go to one that handles commercial services.
At the CBSA office, you will have to describe the contents of the package and pay any applicable taxes. Bring an invoice from the seller, if you have one, and some photo ID.
Once CBSA has stamped your papers, you will be sent back to the shipping company (probably a different office in the same building as the first). Present your stamped documents, and you will receive your package, free of (further) charge.
Grin like an idiot, and make rude hand gestures at the shipping company's signage in the parking lot. (Optional.)
Happy shopping!
* People get angry about things. That's fine. But please avoid taking out your anger on customer service reps who are only doing their jobs. They have nothing to do with the horrendous policies of the companies for whom† they work. I understand that you're upset, but remember what Wil Wheaton says.
New watchdog targets bad science in policy and regulation nationwide
Toronto, ON – Monday, July 9th, 2012 – Bad Science Watch, a new Canadian science advocacy group, has issued a challenge to the Canadian government: stick to the science in the development and implementation of important policy decisions. This group will work diligently to ensure Canadians are protected from exploitation by unscrupulous organizations peddling useless and potentially harmful products and services.
Bad Science Watch strives to serve as a key Canadian lobbying organisation, dedicated to challenging lax consumer protection measures and fighting for the rights of Canadians to accurate information when making decisions which affect their health, prosperity and well-being.
"The Canadian public has been poorly-served by a government which displays little respect for objectivity and science," said Bad Science Watch Executive Director, Jamie Williams. "Consequently, weak consumer protection regulations allow the sale of products and services that don’t work, and Canadians are exploited by the unscrupulous or misinformed."
Bad Science Watch will announce details of its first projects in the coming weeks. Among them: targeting bogus food-intolerance testing in Canadian drugstores, and an intensive investigation into the state of the Canadian anti-WiFi lobby.
"Bad Science Watch will fill a unique role as the only national organization in Canada with a focus on strengthening consumer protection against bad science," explained Chair of the Board of Directors, Michael Kruse. "With a strong commitment to the most professional and transparent non-profit practices, our experienced Board of Directors, Steering Committee, and Executive are striving to create the most effective and consistently successful force countering bad science in Canada."
Canadians interested in volunteering and donating to Bad Science Watch can find more information at www.badsciencewatch.ca. Bad Science Watch can also be found on Twitter and Facebook.
For media enquiries, or additional information, please contact:
Jamie Williams
Executive Director
Bad Science Watch
jwilliams@badsciencewatch.ca
1-888-742-3299 x 102
Bad Science Watch
180 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON M3K 3P5
Tel: 1-888-742-3299
Fax: 1-888-813-3569
Email: info@badsciencewatch.ca
Bad Science Watch is an independent non-profit activist organization that provides analysis of dubious scientific claims to Canadians, our government, and the media, promotes objective critical thinking and advocates for the enforcement and strengthening of consumer protection regulation.
Bad Science Watch is funded by individual donations, and is committed to organizational transparency.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, the LUEE hosts take the day off to enjoy a wonderful Canada Day, which allows hosts Robert Shindler, Richelle McCullough, and Gem Newman a chance to look back at the past year to share with you a couple of presentations from our vault.
This is a talk that I gave at TEDxManitoba on 9 February 2012. Below the video you can find the full text of the talk, with annotations and sources provided.
As a kid, I loved playing Monopoly. I was great at it, too! I was very nearly unbeatable.
I remember one game, looking down at the board and wondering how I was ever going to win. My mother had just pulled a $500 bill out from where she'd hid it between the couch cushions, my stepfather's hotels were crowding two sides of the board, and my houses on Mediterranean and Baltic just weren't paying off. How could this be? I thought to myself. I'm a smart kid. I'm great at Monopoly! But the odds were stacked against me, and the situation seemed impossible.
But that's what made me such a great Monopoly player, I guess. Somehow, I'd always pull out a win in the end. Thinking back, I don't remember losing a single game!
At some point, we all need to come to terms with the fact that maybe things didn't happen quite the way we remember them. As humans, we're just not that great at telling what's true from what we want to be true. Let's be frank: I was ten. I probably sucked at Monopoly. But I remember being awesome.
As Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella notes, "Our memories are not an accurate recording of the past. They are constructed from imperfect perception filtered through our beliefs and biases... Our memories serve more to support our beliefs rather than inform them."[Source]
We're not great observers, we humans, and we tend to pay much more attention to data that confirm our preconceived notions than to details that don't fit our theories. We have a marked tendency to remember the hits and forget the misses; presumably why people like Sylvia Browne and John Edward remain so popular.
It's for this reason that independent confirmation is one of the cornerstones of science.
I'm not a scientist, but I do think of myself as a "science cheerleader". And science needs cheerleaders, for a couple of reasons.
First, because it's important for everyone to have a basic scientific understanding. Professor Art Hobson put it this way: "the most crucial decisions [in industrialized nations] concern science and technology, and in democracies, citizens decide."[Source]
The second reason that science needs cheerleaders is that it is so oft maligned. Scientific skepticism is often portrayed as cold, unfeeling; antithetical to compassion or human emotion. Those with a penchant for whimsical nostalgia stubbornly insist that life was better and that times were simpler before science got all muddled up in society.[Note]
Could it be that they're right?
Science is the quest to understand ourselves, our universe, and our place in it. Science is curious by nature, for its goal is to figure out what's really true—but for that reason, science must also be skeptical. It insists that we shouldn't simply take claims at face value, but instead we should proportion our belief in a proposition to the evidence supporting it.
A series of studies conducted in the 1980s found that roughly 80% of people consider themselves above average drivers.[Source][Source] A 1987 study of Australian workers found that only 1% of them rated their workplace performance as below average.[Source] Unless I badly misremember how numbers are meant to work, it seems to me that something very near to half of them are mistaken.
The way that we see the world is coloured by many things, our own egos foremost among them. Perhaps when it comes to Monopoly games we can be forgiven if we see ourselves through rose-coloured glasses. Concern may become warranted when our callous assumption that we outperform our contemporaries affects the quality of our work or the safety of our driving.
But what about when it really counts? What if your child is sick? There are clearly many cases where we simply cannot afford to let our petty biases influence the way we see the world. And that's where science comes in.
While it's true that public support for science has remained generally high over the last several decades, and scientific literacy has been increasing more-or-less steadily, there have been some troubling developments in the popular media and in culture at large.[Note]
The image of the "mad scientist" is deeply ingrained in our culture, and probably dates to Mary Shelley's celebrated Frankenstein, in which the relentless pursuit of knowledge leads inexorably to unspeakable horrors. This idea is not a new one. Anti-science messages have been with us for hundreds of years.
Here's the problem: science is seen by many as unnatural, inaccessible, or even sinister. Scientists are widely regarded as arrogant, superior, or closed-minded.
What's the common thread here? Aside from being totally awesome, that is. Any guesses?
As unbelievable as it might seem, all of these stories are riddled with anti-science or anti-reason messages. Even in science fiction, the genre that inspired so many of the technologies and conveniences that we take for granted today, it is common to see science portrayed as sinister and destructive.
In Star Trek, a series that celebrates human ingenuity, Spock is set up as a straw man, his much lauded Vulcan logic inevitably knocked down by Kirk's emotionally driven human pluck. When it comes time to choose between thinking with your head and thinking with your heart, the message is clear: human emotion wins every time.[Note]
In Jurassic Park, the audience is shown the consequence of scientists "playing God". As in Frankenstein, disaster is the inevitable result of scientific excess.
In Lost, John Locke constantly admonishes the other characters to have faith, that they are all on the island for some mysterious purpose. And, because it's a fictional story, it turns out that he's right.
Oh, and then there was that episode of The X-Files that showed faith in the supernatural triumphing over the skeptic... Which one was that again...? Oh, right: all of them. Don't get me wrong: I loved The X-Files, but seriously—it was always a monster? Every time?
And even Scooby-Doo, a longtime favourite among skeptics of the paranormal, isn't blameless. Recent adaptations are much more likely to feature real monsters than grumpy old groundskeepers who would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
But perhaps the most egregious example of anti-science rhetoric in popular fiction is found in Ronald Moore's 2003 reimagining of Battlestar Galactica.
While dramatically enjoyable, the emphasis of faith over reason was a thread that wound its way through the entire series. What's worse, the final episodes first hinted then proclaimed that in a society that embraces science and technology, a technologically driven holocaust is inevitable. This has all happened before, we are told, and it will all happen again.
The series culminates (spoiler alert) with the entire human race abandoning all technology in favour of founding a nomadic hunter-gatherer society. Science fiction becomes luddite fantasy—famine, disease, and the concomitant contraction of the human lifespan be damned.
This message is getting through to the public, loud and clear. A 2001 NSF survey found that 50 percent of Americans believe "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith".[Source] I find this distressing.
From The Terminator to The Matrix to 28 Days Later, the idea that science will lead to some sort of technopocalypse is ubiquitous these days. And after all, why not? Isn't there a grain of truth to the idea?
Perhaps you might rightly scoff at Ben Stein's contention in the pseudo-documentary Expelled that the science of evolution led to the Nazi holocaust...[Note]
...but what say you when the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are laid at scientists' feet? Who can help but shiver upon hearing Oppenheimer's words? "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds." How can we answer such a charge?
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden the knowledge of good and evil, but their curiosity got the better of them. According to this story, it was our thirst for knowledge that led to the fall.
Curiosity, we're told, is what killed the cat.
Knowledge can, of course, be used for good or for ill. Scientists invented the bomb—but it was politicians who called for it, taxpayers who funded it, and the military who saw it deployed. If you want to lay death and destruction solely at the feet of scientists, I don't think that you're playing fair.[Note]
"Curiosity killed the cat." How unjust!
That we should be incurious is perhaps the single most damaging message that our children receive from popular culture. Curiosity is one of the greatest assets that we as a species possess. It fuels free inquiry! It fuels innovation! Without nurturing our curiosity we risk retarding our progress as a civilisation.
Knowledge is not evil, nor is the pursuit of it. Knowledge of the way this wondrous world really works equips us to better our own situation and that of every other living being with whom we share this planet.
"Curiosity killed the cat." You would be hard pressed to find an idiom that irritates me more.
You want to know what probably didn't kill the cat? Diabetes, hyperthyroidism, intestinal parasites! For every cat killed by curiosity, I would wager that there are hundreds who have been saved by veterinary practices unknown a century ago.
Curiosity cured the cat!
Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, is credited with saving one billion people from starvation. We have indoor plumbing and flush toilets, and hand-washing, and the germ theory of disease, all of which save countless lives every day. These victories aren't just victories for science; they are victories for humanity. Science wins this fight.
As for the arrogance and closed-mindedness of scientists: I find this charge frankly startling, for in the process of skeptical inquiry I see the most amazing intellectual humility. The success of the scientific endeavour requires us to admit to our human foibles and failings, our petty biases and conceits. It is only in accounting for these human weaknesses that we make progress. Science is rooted in curiosity, and one cannot be curious without being humble. To wonder how something works, first you must admit that you don't know.
So if science is so successful in improving our lives, why does science still have such an image problem? Why do people fail to understand that science isn't the enemy of nature, but merely the study of it?
It probably isn't news to you that the media has a huge effect on how we think and behave. That's what advertising is all about, after all, and study after study shows that it works, even when we think that it doesn't.
In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan laments that "Scepticism does not sell well. A bright and curious person who relies entirely on popular culture to be informed about something like Atlantis is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to come upon a fable treated uncritically than a sober and balanced assessment."[Source]
In a culture so steeped in irrationality, a culture that prizes faith over evidence, it can be difficult to make progress in promoting science. Right now, the greatest obstacle to the public understanding of science is the way it's presented in the media.
So what if our stories had skeptical, pro-science messages? What if they encouraged the audience to think critically, rather than just nodding along? What if the heroes of our stories weren't those who simply fought for what they believed in, but those who had the courage to ask themselves why it was that they believed it?
We have the power to reignite the public passion for learning new things. We need to teach everyone (everyone) what science is, at its core. That may sound daunting, but it's really a very simple idea: Beliefs should be supported by good evidence.
None of us are perfect, and so if we're serious about figuring out what's really true we need to understand our own biases and apply a basic skepticism to all claims to knowledge. We need to avoid the temptation to look only for the evidence that confirms what we already believe. Or, as Randall Munroe put it, "You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right."[Source]
And we already have allies in the popular media.
On the front lines, I see novelists like the excellent Robert Sawyer (from whom you heard only a moment ago) and the unbelievably popular J.K. Rowling.
Sawyer is famous for stories that show rationalism triumphing over superstition. In the Harry Potter series, Rowling provides an excellent role-model in Hermione Granger, whose success is due not to some innate talent, but to hard work and a willingness to question popular wisdom.
There are musicians like George Hrab and the inimitable Tim Minchin who encourage us to be skeptical of extraordinary claims. Sara Mayhew infuses her manga with a love of science. Randall Munroe and Zach Weiner pen comics that make us laugh and make us think. We have Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson working to communicate science to people of all ages. Adam Savage, Jaimie Hyneman, and rest of the gang at MythBusters remind us how exciting it can be to figure out what's really true.
At this point, you might be wondering what you can do to help.
Be curious. Question everything. Prize learning over simply knowing, because even things that we think we know can turn out to be wrong. As Carl Sagan said, "it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."[Source]
With everything that science has done for us, it deserves our support. So when you hear someone complain that science is arrogant, closed-minded, or dangerous: speak up. Because you know better.
[9] Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, page 16
Notes
[1] They set science and rationalism here and they set mystery and compassion there and demand that you choose between them, even though such a choice makes no sense. Science is no more a cold, unfeeling monstrosity than is a screwdriver or a pair of spectacles. Science is a tool that helps us overcome some of our inherent limitations. And yet, the idea that life was somehow better, humbler, and more existentially satisfying in some misty, bygone age is pervasive in our society.
[2] In our culture, the scientifically illiterate can get on by saying that they're just not "science people". Basic scientific literacy is very important, but ScienceDaily reports that in North America it sits around 30%. It's perfectly acceptable in our culture for a person to be scientifically illiterate, but just imagine what it would be like to have a similar attitude toward those who can't read or write.
[3] To learn more about the Straw Vulcan, I refer you to the TVTropes page that coined the term. I also highly recommend Julia Galef's talk from Skepticon 4, The Straw Vulcan.
[4] For more about the absurdity that is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I refer you to Expelled Exposed, a site created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education. This site cheerfully exposes the anti-science propaganda behind this so-called documentary, while managing at the same time to be an enjoyable read! I doff my proverbial hat to Eugenie Scott and the rest of the folks at the NCSE for their tireless work in combating creationism masquerading as science.
[5] Neil deGrasse Tyson expressed this sentiment well. "Scientists don't lead marching armies!" he said. "Scientists don't invade other nations! Yes, we had scientists who invented the bomb, but somebody had to pay for the bomb, and that was taxpayers, that was war bonds. There was a political action that called for it. But everyone blames the scientists! ... At the end of the day, a discovery itself is not 'moral', it's the application of it that has to pass that test." (This quotation is taken from an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberley Academy. The interivew was conducted by a rare out-of-character Stephen Colbert, and is fantastic. You can watch it here.)
