The Guardian’s science site is really very wonderful. That is all. Full stop.
Science & Medicine
12
Aug 10
The Malcolm Effect
A Personal Story:
I work in a school where 100% of my students have what could be called, to use a highly politically correct term, ”behavior issues”. As a result the administrators of this school are often creating plans to manage the behaviors of the students in such a way as to turn them away from negative social behaviors, and turn them towards pro-social behaviors. These plans tend to be, in my opinion, be overly verbose and lacking in elegance.
When I’m lucky, which is not as often as I would like, they tell me about these plans before putting them into effect.
My response when these plans are presented to me is to…
1. Raise my hand, possibly move it around to assure that I have gotten the attention of the presenter.
2. Watch the presenter roll his/her eyes when they see my hand up, and graciously await for them to acknowledge that I should state the reason for my hand being raised.
3. When permission has been granted for me to speak I stand and say “WHAT ABOUT THE MALCOM EFFECT!?!” If I’m feeling punchy I’ll add, ”Don’t you see you have been spending so much time thinking about what you could do, that you never stopped to consider if you should even do it in the first place!”
My co-workers have grown to both hate and adore my typical response to the plans the administrators (sometimes) present to us.
You know about the Malcolm effect, right? Well just in case you don’t, let me explain it to you…
My Explanation:
There are simple systems and complex systems. Simple systems, because they are simple, are (obviously) easy to predict, manage, and plan around. One can normally prevent something from going wrong in a simple system, and when something does go wrong it can quickly be diagnosed and resources deployed to fix whatever the problem may be.
However, as a system becomes more complex (as it grows in size, steps, parts, spawns sub-systems, etc.) a few things happen…
1. The more complex a system becomes it also becomes harder for humans to predict how the system will behave. This in turn leads to difficulty in managment of the system.
2. The more complex a system (the more parts, steps, sub-systems, etc.) involved the greater the potential that something will break, or go wrong. i.e. the more parts there are, the greater the potential for one of those parts to malfunction.
3. When something goes wrong (when something breaks or there is some sort of malfunction) in a complex system it is more difficult to diagnose and (chances are) the greater the resources that are necessary to fix whatever has gone wrong.
In short: the more complex a system the more likely it is that something will go wrong, and that said something will go very wrong.
It should be obvious that people can’t plan for everything that can go wrong, but the more complex a sytem becomes the greater potential there is for something to go wrong, and it is more difficult to see (and thus more difficult to create contingency plans) for when a malfunction does (inevitably) occur.
[Side Note: I know this might be beating a dead horse, or preaching to the converted, but I just can't help myself... See the second law of thermo-fucking-dynamics!]
Ergo: There is a clear benefit to creating simple systems as opposed to complex systems. Simple systems are easier to predict, maintain, and repair.
Do I think that a simple system should always be used? No. There are times when a complex system is necessary. However, when those situations arise / have arised it is important… no VITAL… that we realize and recognize (rather than ignore) the inherent flaws of complex systems.
Or to put it another way, when working with / within a complex system never assume the system is perfect. When something goes wrong, as it inevitably will, realize that chances are your system is screwed up someplace. Then start the difficult task of error detection and correction. Gather data and use it to improve your system. Also, remember that the best improvements move a system towards simplicity and away from complexity.
One Web Explanation States:
Pay attention and start the difficult process of diagnosis.
the malcolm effect states that small changes in a complex system can change rapidly and unpredictably.
ex. you are sitting on a shoreline and you see in the distance a storm coming slowly closer. It’s heading right for you. You see lightning flash out across the water and the waves come towards the shore at an increasingly violent rate. At this point the storm has two options. One would be that the storm would race straight towards shore and continue its rampage there which would seem to be the logical choice. Instead however, before the storm reaches land it changes it’s direction and shoots down the shoreline instead. This is the malcolm effect, you cannot predict how the storm will react because it is a large complex system dependent on very small changes that it encounters in the natural environment.
Other Links of Interest:
1. Economic Equilibrium, Chaos and the Malcolm Effect
2. The Malcolm Effect on Flickr.
3. Wikipedia on Dr. Ian Malcolm.
4. Wikipedia article on Chaos Theory.
2
Aug 10
Mars Defaced
Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Forgive the bad pun in the headline. I couldn’t resist.
I don’t know if anyone out there still actually believes in the notorious “Face on Mars” located in the Red Planet’s Cydonia region, but just in case, those of you with any lingering trepidation may put your fears to rest. PhysOrg.com has just published an article outlining a new photograph of the area at a much higher resolution that confirms (again) the face is nothing more than your common, garden variety Martian mesa and reaffirms those who’ve been shouting the Face was simply a byproduct of optical illusion and pareidolia. (Go figure that the originating citation from the PhysOrg.com article emanates from FOXNews.com, which has surprised me for the second time in a week with a well-reasoned article. Murdoch must be losing his sensationalist touch, but take a quick skim through the comment boards, and you’ll see there are still a handful of clingers-on that chalk this newest photo up as further spin from NASA, released to embolden the space agency’s vast conspiracy aimed at keeping us in the dark about alien life on Mars.)
Imagine my surprise — disclosure: glee — that the Wikipedia article about pareidolia to which I linked actually uses the Face as its primary visual example. Other examples of the phenomenon include, of course, Jesus Christs on burnt toast, figures we see in cloud formations, and this eggplant that looks like Richard Nixon. Pareidolia also applies to perceived patterns related to senses other than sight.
An eggplant. What will Tricky Dick think of next?
Other Resources:
“Extreme Close-Up of the Face on Mars” – Universe Today
This article gives the most in-depth analysis of the progression from the original Viking Orbiter photo to the current one. You’ll see a brief timeline of photos taken, each one clearer than the next, and it should have been abundantly clear even after the 2001 photograph that there wasn’t anything even particularly odd about the mesa, at least insofar as it resembles a face because, of course, it doesn’t. There are a few anomaly hunters in the comment boards on this article too. This article is also cited in the PhysOrg.com release.
13
May 10
FOLLOW UP: Bad Reporting on Acupuncture
Just a little update on my last post.
As I suspected, Science-Based Medicine and Dr. Novella picked up the slack on the primary study cited by the NewScientist article I recently criticized. The first part of Dr. Novella’s post deals with the paper that claimed acupuncture provided a neuroprotective effect and aided recovery (in a rat model) from induced spinal injury, and he came to similar conclusions regarding the media reporting:
The bottom line with this study is that it provides weak evidence for a very extraordinary claim. It is of no practical use unless and until it is independently replicated with proper blinding. If you believe what you read in the media, however, you would be led to the conclusion that spinal injured patients could be made to walk again simply by sticking needles into magical locations on their body.
He also discusses another recent study plagued by related issues and echoes the fact that electroacupuncture cannot be considered true acupuncture:
Further, this study mixed acupuncture with “electroacupuncture.” I strongly maintain that there is no such thing as “electroacupunture” – it is, rather, the application of transcutaneous electrical stimulation through an acupuncture needle. This is no more acupuncture than the application of morphine through a hollow acupuncture needle should be considered acupuncture.
I highly recommend reading the full text of Dr. Novella’s post on this. Naturally, he provides a much deeper insight into the issues at hand than I do.
29
Apr 10
Bad Reporting on Acupuncture
http://www.flickr.com/photos/migrainechick/ / CC BY 2.0
So this article on the NewScientist website really chapped my ass.
It cites the publication of a new study that outlines successful use of acupuncture to treat spinal injuries induced in rats. Now, I’m not a doctor, and I’m unable to access the full-text of the study in question. My suspicions are that some qualified party will cite methodological issues, or more likely, the study will remain a footnote in light of the overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of the interpretation that acupuncture possesses no therapeutic benefit beyond that of placebo. (Maybe not. We’ll see, but I doubt it.)
From the article:
Acupuncture’s scientific credentials are growing. Trials show that it improves sensory and motor functions in people with spinal cord injuries.
Well, not really. For a great review of the current literature regarding acupuncture and an even greater deal of irate bitching about a fishy article written by The YOU Docs, Drs. Mehmet Oz and Mike Roizen, I highly suggest reading an article on the subject written by Dr. Mark Crislip over at Science-Based Medicine. In it he outlines the results of numerous systematic reviews of the medical literature as well as dubious claims made about the mechanisms by which acupuncture works its supposed magic. It appears that Drs. Oz and Roizen are attracted to the mysticism surrounding traditional Chinese medicine.
(Harriet Hall has also written a very thorough overview of acupuncture.)
Furthermore, the scientific paper to which the NewScientist links in the blockquote (different than the paper the article is discussing) does not deal directly with traditional acupuncture but with electroacupuncture in which an electrical impulse is introduced to the nerve. This is an actual intervention that will induce some type of physiological response and cannot be considered acupuncture as Dr. Crislip asserts in his piece. It seems dishonest to equate the two since there is a big difference between simply placing a needle into someone’s skin and running an electrical current into their body.
Of further interest is another post by Dr. Steven Novella regarding the placebo effect, one of the more misunderstood health-related phenomenons due to the complexities of interpreting study results. The standard perception goes like this: you walk into the doctor complaining of pain, the doctor gives you a sugar pill that you think is a pain reliever, and because you believe you’ve received treatment, your brain responds in kind and ramps up the production of natural healers, presumably the immune system. Viola! You’re better, and you didn’t have to ingest any dangerous drugs.
As you’ll see when reading Dr. Novella’s article and the mostly excellent discussion on the comment board that follows, the placebo effect doesn’t really work that way. Most of it can be chalked up to study artifacts, bad study design, and reporting biases on the part of both doctors and patients. Without an objective way of measuring pain or nausea or other types of discomfort, many of these studies are hindered by the need for patients to fill out a pain evaluation, the results of which can vary greatly from study to study.
You’ll notice all of my links are from Science-Based Medicine. So sue me. They devote their time and energy to evaluating dubious claims and pseudoscience, and they are an absolutely fantastic resource for anyone interested in the complicated study of medicine. At the very least, reading many of these posts should help elucidate why all-or-nothing claims made by various pseudoscientific outfits are silly and don’t incorporate a nuanced approach to the business of getting things as right as possible.
27
Apr 10
Bill Nye Cleans House
Bill Nye - Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
I used to watch Bill Nye the Science Guy when I was a kid, and his show stands as probably the earliest discernible science-related influence I can remember.
Imagine my disappointment when I happened across Brian Dunning’s post over at Skepticblog that discusses Nye’s recent promotion of a cleaning product called Ionator from the company Activeion. Essentially, the company has recruited Nye to endorse a line of water ionizers the cheapest of which is priced at $169 and the science behind which is unproven and dubious.
I’m not going to get into the debate over the science of their claims. You can scroll through the comments on Skepticblog, which do a decent enough job of hashing out the quandaries, and you can read an article by Dr. Stephen Lower, a retired chemist from the Department of Chemistry at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, that Dunning links to and which discusses the general quackery of ionized water claimants and provides an interesting remedial chemistry lesson about the subject.
My overall impression is that at best, Activeion’s product is a ripoff that does what they say it does despite the fact that its effects could be achieved for a few dollars and without the aid of the ionizer, and at worst, it’s a pseudo-scientific scam. (If you’re interested in specifics, I highly recommend reading the discussion.)
I don’t agree with Dunning’s reasoning that we should withhold judgment if Nye took up the job because of money woes. If Bill Nye knowingly promoted snake oil, he has done so at the peril of his credibility within the skeptical community as a science advocate. If he was duped, at least he wasn’t a witting scammer, but even so, it’s fair enough to say he should have vetted Activeion’s claims and checked with one of his many contacts that would have had access to pertinent knowledge.
Either way, my opinion of Nye is diminished.
13
Apr 10
Cephalopods = Awesomeness!
cephalopods
Recently I’ve been reading about cephalopods, because they are IMHO super awesome.
The following is from a Wikipedia article about cephalopod intelligence.
The cephalopod class of mollusks, particularly the Coleoidea subclass (cuttlefish, squid and octopuses), are considered the most intelligent invertebrates and an important example of advanced cognitive evolution in animals… Unlike most other mollusks, all cephalopods are active predators… Crabs, the staple food source of most octopus species, present significant challenges with their powerful pincers and their potential to exhaust the cephalopod’s respiration system from a prolonged pursuit. In the face of these challenges, octopuses will instead seek out lobster traps and steal the prize inside. They are also known to climb aboard fishing boats and hide in the containers that hold dead or dying crabs.
As of 2009, the octopus is the only invertebrate which has been conclusively shown to use tools. At least four specimens of the Veined Octopus (Amphioctopus marginatus) have been witnessed retrieving discarded coconut shells, manipulating them, and then reassembling them to use as shelter.
Cephalopods also have AMAZING dexterity, as evidenced by their ability to do complex things like open up jars with screw on tops! Obviously humans, and other primates, can do this but…
unlike vertebrates [cephlalopods], the motor skills of octopuses do not seem to depend upon mapping their body within their brains, as the ability to organize complex movements is not thought to be linked to particular arms.
So… Yeah.
You think that cephalopods are awesome now too, huh?