Thanks,

Au Science Magazine Team

By Claire Thorne

The year is 2011 and the economic future of Europe hangs in the balance. CERN is rumoured to be on edge of discovering the Higgs Boson. All across the UK researchers are downing their pipettes. Scientists are jumping ship, heading ‘overboard’ into industry. The reviewed package for new science teachers is, well, not so golden. It seems there is little stability in the current world of science.

Rewind the clock: there is no Google, in fact the Internet does not yet exist; the structure of DNA is soon to be discovered; and memories of World War II are vivid. Almost 40% of Nobel Prizes for work done outside the US and Germany, are awarded to scientists in Britain. British Science has never been healthier: the year is 1950.

Five decades earlier, four Nobel prize-winning contributions were made in Britain for every one in the US. In the five decades since the pivotal time of 1950, a global shift towards engineering-oriented subjects was underway.

Weinberg’s ‘An Assessment of British Science over the Twentieth Century’[i] explores the state of British Science over the twentieth century, delivering a few surprises en route.

The Nobel Prizes awarded (in Chemistry, Medicine and Physics) throughout the twentieth century are analysed to assess Britain’s scientific strength relative to the rest of the world, and in particular, to the past (Germany) and current (the US) world heavyweights. Unlike previous analyses, the focus is on the locations of the Nobel Laureates at the precise time of their award-winning research, and takes account of a researcher’s geographical mobility, throughout their careers.

Temporal stability

Over the twentieth century, Britain’s share of the world’s Nobel Prizes is maintained at just under 15%. Meanwhile, Germany and the US jostle for first and third place, pivoting around Britain, at the start and end. Britain’s position is stable.

Physics under threat

The share of prize-winning work done in Britain over the twentieth century, relative to that outside of Britain, varies marginally across the Nobel Prize fields of Physics (14.2%), Medicine (14.9%), and Chemistry (15.8%). However, zoom in on Physics and the picture is less inspiring. Since 1944, the probability of a Physics Prize being awarded for work done in Britain, relative to the rest of the world, has declined by just under 2.5% per decade. Now, invoke an independent data set[ii] of (not necessarily Nobel Laureate) researchers and rank the share of those highly-cited in each scientific discipline, across the world. In Physics, Britain takes 4^th place.

The brain drain

The Nobel prize-winning data contain information on a Laureate’s place of birth, allowing the extent of any brain drain effect, in Britain or elsewhere, to be assessed. Contrary to popular belief, the brain drain is not real – in fact, quite the opposite. Over the twentieth century, the share of Nobel Laureates who conducted prize-winning work in Britain exceeded that of those who were born in Britain by just under 3%. Thus, Britain has historically been a net importer of scientific talent.

Britain – A high achiever

Even after correcting for per capita gross domestic product, the two data sets both confirm Britain’s post-war science ranking, trumping Germany and second only to the US. In late-twentieth century science, Britain was punching above its weight.

A word of warning

Weinberg concludes that “to some extent the growth of the US in science is a product of economic growth – the US grew tremendously relative to Europe and Britain” and urges us to learn lessons from the twentieth century investment in, and subsequent growth of, US science. As NASA’s final mission of the Space Shuttle Program ends, this is perhaps a stark and timely warning for twenty-first century science.

The cyclic web of political and economic stability, industrial progress and technological innovation is difficult to untangle. The very nature of research means that the scientific community is capable of leading a nation to a myriad of often serendipitous and (at the time) unusable, but ultimately rewarding applications, given the resources.

From the analysis of twentieth-century data, it may tempting to presume the future stability of British science. For many, the temptation to under-value Britain’s scientific prowess is stronger still.

To achieve better things faster, people need to work together. This theory applies both in academia and industry, but how do you bridge that link between academia and industry?

Academics hold a wealth of information and knowledge that people in industry would love to tap into and utilise. A small group of Italian entrepreneurs led by Guido Uglietti, a PhD student in Management from Milan, have created Acabiz (www.acabiz.com), a knowledge sharing platform specifically designed to allow corporates to easily ‘tap into’ the knowledge network of thousands of academics around the world.

Acabiz does exactly what the name suggests: it connects academics to businesses and allows knowledge transfers between the parties. For academics, it is an excellent opportunity to expand their CVs, connect with commercial parties genuinely interested in their research and it is an opportunity to monetise their major asset: knowledge and know-how. For businesses, it is a cost-efficient, one-stop-solution to access a qualified and specialized pool of knowledge from leading experts in their respective fields.

“We have only been on-line since March” – says Uglietti – “and we now have about 500 academics from around the globe registered on the platform; the user base is growing steadily every day.”

Acabiz can be extremely useful to SMEs, often in need of niche knowledge but with limited or no internal research departments. On the other hand, within larger companies, different internal departments (from Sales and Marketing to Production) are always on the look-out for niche knowledge in order to differentiate their products from the competition.

A couple of examples from Acabiz

Uglietti is keen to illustrate examples of how companies have worked with Acabiz to get the knowledge they were looking for: “A food company was evaluating the potential for a new fish-based product but before spending serious money on feasibility studies, they wanted to evaluate the demographic dynamics of two different types of fish in order to make a better decision based on long-term availability, historic price fluctuations and long-term supply.

On a completely different topic, a government organisation wanted a detailed study comparing suicide rates across prisons in EU countries over the past 20 years. Quite different topics but both were looking for niche knowledge from reliable experts who have studied the topics for many years!”

There is no initial cost to use Acabiz (the platform only charges a 10% commission on successfully concluded transactions), so for both academics and companies, the best thing is to simply register on www.acabiz.com and start using the system.

Promotions: we offer academics the opportunity to share in our growth: for those academics who are interested in referring their friends to Acabiz, we are happy to share our commission earnings; if you have a big network, it be quite a few pennies!  If interested, just write to us on acabiz.team@acabiz.com

Job Opportunities – In-House-Academics: to resolve potential issue of ‘miscommunication’ between businesses and academics, we are looking for for talented academics who will supervise and facilitate the communication process between companies and academics for knowledge-assignments pertaining to their particular area of specialisation / knowledge.

If you are passionate about your sector and would like to contribute to its development on Acabiz, email us your CV on contactus@acabiz.com.

As I write this, the “Silver City” looks more of a dull grey, matching the hue of the ‘summer’ sky above. However, on a clear day the buildings sparkle and not just from the lurid neon signs on Union Street. Created over 200 years, Aberdeen boasts a unique cityscape sculpted by Aberdonians from the local stone – Rubislaw Granite – creating a centre for international granite trade and a thriving industry.

May 2011 saw a month long festival to celebrate all things granite, from its ancient origins to industrial use, through to the architecture we see every day. A full programme of talks and events including walking tours of various areas of the city took place, with input from across the city in the form of University lecturers, museum curators, historians and industry specialists to name but a few. The first of its kind, the festival was a huge success offering something for everyone and plans are now in place to make this an annual event.

Granite building in the Sunshine in Aberdeen

So, where did all the granite come from? No points for the obvious answer of “the ground” I’m afraid. Formed by crystallisation of magma, granite is an intrusive igneous rock and comes in many variations and colours, from pinks to greys, depending on the mineralogy and conditions at the time of formation. Geologists nowadays understand that rocks are produced by a variety of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary processes. In terms of geological time, however, this is a fairly ‘new’ theory…

In the late 18^th century, the German geologist Abraham Gottlob Werner introduced an early theory on the stratification of the Earth’s crust. The basic concept was that the Earth had once been covered by a massive ocean that gradually receded to form the oceans we know today. According to Wernerian geology, as the ocean shrunk all of the material in the Earth’s crust was formed through crystallisation of minerals in the oceans. Due to the oceanic connection the theory was named “Neptunism” after the Roman name, Neptune, for the Greek god of the sea, Poseidon.

While the theory is correct in some respects as chemical sedimentary rocks are in fact formed by precipitation, Neptunism was not without its critics and near the end of the 18^th century James Hutton, a Scottish geologist (amongst other ‘pastimes’), developed his Theory of the Earth based on an alternative concept of rock formation. From analysis of the way that granite had invaded and displaced the pre-existing strata in rocks of the Cairngorms, he determined that the granite must have been formed from molten rock and not from precipitation from water as was widely believed at the time: the theory of “Plutonism” was born, named after Pluto, the classical ruler of the underworld. Although Hutton was not the first to suggest the theory he was the one to develop it and by the 19^th century the Plutonist views of rock formation was widely accepted.

So, there you have it – the granite that Aberdeen is sculpted from was formed from volcanoes, not oceans, just in case you were in any doubt. By all means though, next time you walk down Union Street have a look at the sparkling stone that surrounds you and decide for yourself – are you a Neptunist or a Plutonist?

By Valeria Senigaglia

Who do you find more attractive, Hugh Jackman or Orlando Bloom? A question that could split a room, Some would prefer Wolverine while others would prefer the Elf, but why? Ben Jones and Lisa DeBruine, researchers at the Face lab at the University of Aberdeen are trying to answer this question.  They gave a sneak peak on this fascinating topic at a Cafè Scientifique event on the 14^th of July at Waterstones in Aberdeen.

We make immediate and unconscious judgements of people based on their faces. It influences our response to advertisements, the choice of hiring an employee, our willingness to share and also our political view. Although it is debatable whether it is advantageous for a political face to be breathtakingly charming in a Hollywood way, there are still specific characteristics that make a face more or less trustworthy.

Ben and Lisa study how various degrees of sexual dimorphism influence our mating choice; does a more ‘masculine’ face have a greater appeal to women? To explain this statement the two researchers took inspiration from an illustrious figure, Sir Charles Darwin. In his study on behavioural ecology, Darwin noticed how certain physical traits, apparently useless for the individuals’ survival were maintained in the genetic pool of the species. Peacock feathers obsessed Darwin. Why do peacock males carry around such an elaborated tail, so bright and colourful that seems to shout: hey, predator here I am? The answer is, honest signals, a bright tail with complicated and intact patterns are a signal of good health. In a very similar way, women tend to prefer more masculine faces as they are correlated with greater physical health and also higher rank and dominance within the society, which correspond to greater economic benefit.

Masculine traits however can have a down side, very macho men are perceived to be less honest and less caring towards offspring. From an evolutionary point of view if you are a male, this makes perfect sense. If your goal is spreading genes the best solution is to have sex with several partners. Promiscuity is the most advantageous strategy when the cost of reproduction is low. From the human female point of view however, this means you have to raise a child for 18 years by yourself and the cost of reproduction is high.

So do females always choose more masculine males? Ben and Lisa used innovative computer graphic techniques to construct an “average” face and use it to shape a more masculine or feminine face to test people preferences toward it. They observed that hormones, the country of residence and the attitude towards germs or diseases could be a good predictor of females preferences of a more masculine or a more feminine face. According to these findings, if females are in a fertile stage and/or from an area with high disease rates, a strong, macho face resembling David Hasselhoff is preferred. However if females are more prone to have a long stable relationship and live in country with a high health status, then a more feminine face appears to be more appealing.

This incredibly fascinating study leaves some moral doubts on potential applicability. Pictures of healthy looking persons have been used to motivate positive behavioural changes as increasing vegetables and vitamins consumption. Showing university students how better they could look after exams eating carrots instead of jelly babies convinced them to change their dietary habits. Exactly the same principle is frequently used in marketing to influence your choices as a consumer. Wouldn’t you buy a Nespresso coffee machine if George Clooney were to sell it to you?

The audience posed some challenging questions to the two researchers, the role of kinship in attractiveness, social conformity and if gays and heterosexuals preferences follow the same pattern, were just some of the topics aroused in the debate. Another interesting topic that has been explored was the inclination of a jury to find a more masculine face guilty. This isn’t a new question; in ancient Greece it was believed that physical appearance directly reflected soul purity and kindness. The classical iconography pictures mythological divinity as all extremely beautiful with well-defined masculine and feminine traits.  One of few exceptions was Dionysus, god of wine and excessive behaviours, who was considered more coarse and unsophisticated.

The debate of nature and nurture is challenging human minds since the early stage of psychoanalysis. Is it the society that shapes personality traits making us act in the way they expect us to do according to our physical appearance? Or do we act in a certain way because we look more or less masculine? Ben and Lisa research enlightens us on the origin of stereotypes and allow us to recognize and change them.

If you are interested in this research of want to take part in it, please visit facelab.org and face the fascinating world of faces attractiveness. For listings of Cafe Scientifique events in Aberdeen, click here.

A comment on “A Rose by Any Other Name?”, AU science magazine issue 1. Marius Alexander Wenzel

In issue 1 of the AU science magazine, a very interesting article on how languages influence how the speaker’s thoughts are created and expressed described a range of intriguing psychological experiments to underpin the old ideas of Sapir and Whorf. Whilst the principal conclusions of these experiments are correct, we must be careful about giving too much credit to Sapir’s and Whorf’s original ideas.

“Linguistic relativity” or (strong) Whorfianism states that a language precludes its speakers from expressing and understanding (!) concepts and ideas beyond the vocabulary and architecture of the language. As such, language not only determines thinking and perception, it imprisons them! Whorf’s ideas were a result of racism, which was very normal in his days. He was convinced that primitive peoples with no access to modern thought (expressed in his own complex language) are not able to understand anything beyond their primitive language which clearly reflects their primitive ways of life.

The ideas of Whorf et al. have failed, and not only because linguistics still has not come up with a rigorous measure of language complexity. Everybody capable of more than one language can shatter Whorfianism in an instant. My native language is German, and although English and German are very closely related, differences in concepts are ubiquitous.

For example, British English strictly distinguishes between turtles, tortoises and terrapins on grounds of habitat and corresponding anatomical differences. As a German, however, I do not feel the need to differentiate, and call them all Schildkröte. German gives the shell as the diagnostic feature of Chelonians priority over the habitat the different taxa live in. Nevertheless, Germans are very well capable of grasping the concept behind a land-dwelling, sea-dwelling and freshwater-dwelling Chelonian, and if we feel the need to express the difference, we use Landschildkröte, Meeresschildkröte and Sumpfschildkröte.

Of course, this works the other way round, too, and brings the smirks to the German side of things. Which German hasn’t gasped in dismay upon learning that the British and the North Americans use the word bread for both their square, tasteless pap and real bread with flavour, sourdough and a crust, which we Germans deem a human right? German Brot unambiguously is the latter, whereas the former pap for the toaster is called Toast, or, if we are in a good mood, Toastbrot. Yet I’m sure, English-speaking people will have no trouble grasping the enormous difference.

What would a Whorfian make out of these differences? He would probably conclude that Germans do not care enough about animals, and the British are culinary barbarians. So far, so stereotypical. Moreover, he would insist that Germans are not able to (!) distinguish Chelonian taxa, and the British are not able to understand what proper bread is.

We know better, of course. Languages differ in the concepts they force their speakers to express, but they do not limit intellect. The concepts a language expresses along with its grammar are a result of both historic accidents and directed change by its speakers in order to accommodate for novel requirements of the current Zeitgeist—often using loanwords.

Language determines thought, but it does not limit your capabilities. When you put your mind to it, you can understand and use all ideas and concepts your language routinely ignores. Whorfianism must not be resurrected, but should be exorcised and remorselessly replaced by a modern, scientifically underpinned framework. This is happening, but the ideas of Sapir and Whorf are so enticingly appealing even to scholars, that it will take a long time to forget them in favour of better principles which neither deny the influence of language upon thought nor the universal capacity of intellect.

 Literature to spark discussion:

Guy Deutscher, “Through the Language Glass”, a book aimed at interested laypeople

January D and Kako E, 2007, Re-evaluating evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky (2001), Cognition 104, 417–426

Casasanto E, 2008, Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic Differences in Temporal Language and Thought, Language Learning 58 Suppl. 1, 63–79

Founded in 1947, the ABSW has provided science journalists with networking, training, gossip, opportunities and jobs for over 60 years. We aim to promote the highest standards of journalism and writing by encouraging flair and bravery. We also hope to foster a mutually supportive community and to provide an environment for new ideas to develop and flourish. Please consider joining us.

Ideals that sound close to our own.

We’d love to hear more about your views on the magazine. Please do keep us informed! What would you like to see covered in future articles? Do you have your own piece you’d like to write? Get in touch with us at ausciencemag@gmail.com

Some ideas are so profound that even their negations are profound. This fact is demonstrated by the controversial couplets below. By the logical principle of the excluded middle, exactly five of these fascinating ‘facts’ are true*:

1. Earth is the only place in the universe on which intelligent life has evolved.
2. Earth is not the only place in the universe on which intelligent life has evolved.

3. The human race will become extinct in the next ten thousand years.
4. The human race will not become extinct in the next ten thousand years.

5. Consciousness is a purely mechanical function of the human brain.
6. Consciousness is not a purely mechanical function of the human brain.

7. Free will does not exist (we do not choose our actions but simply respond automatically to stimuli).
8. Free will does exist (we choose our actions and do not simply respond automatically to stimuli).

9. God exists.
10. God does not exist.

It is not easy to demonstrate experimentally (or philosophically) which of these statements are true. Whichever five you choose, however, the universe turns out to be a very interesting place…

*Assuming, perhaps, that they are all meaningful! </can of worms>

If you were hoping to read a blogpost glorifying the media’s relationship with science then I’m afraid you will be sadly disappointed. I wanted something juicy, tasty and intriguing to pull you in, regardless of how it reflected on the rest of the piece. This is exactly what the following examples of newspaper headlines have also done, and as you will see, their headlines too sometimes had only a tedious link to the research they reported. This is not intended to be a damning report on the media, there are many examples of good reporting out there. However, the impact that one sensationalist headline can have on the perception of the research in question is huge, and something we should all be critical of.

HEADLINE: Teenage brain lacks empathy (MSNBC)

RESEARCH TITLE: Adolescent developments of the neural circuitry for thinking about intentions. 

MISINTERPRETATION: This study looked at how people anticipated their intentions, it was not directly looking at empathy. Interestingly, the study actually found more activity in the area of the brain responsible for empathy in adolescents, this was explored in subsequent research.

HEADLINE: Twitter can make you immoral, claim scientists (Daily Mail)

RESEARCH TITLE: Neural correlates of admiration and compassion

MISINTERPRETATION: This study found a difference between the brain blood flow when subjects experienced social pain or physical pain. It does not mention Twitter. It does not mention Facebook. It does not mention social networking websites (Ben Goldacre). The connection to twitter and other social networks, as far as I can see, makes no sense (Daimasio – author).

HEADLINE: Sex diseases soaring due to Facebook romps (The Sun)

PRESS RELEASE: Warning as syphilis cases increase (NHS Middlesborough)

MISINTERPRETATION: This causation link was made entirely by the paper and not the study. A comment in the original press release on how social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex, was reinterpreted in a much more sinister way as Dr Petra Boynton explains.

HEADLINE: Swimming too often in chlorinated water ‘could increase risk of developing bladder cancer’, claim scientists (Daily Mail)

RESEARCH TITLE: Socioeconomic status and exposure to disinfection by-products in drinking water in Spain 

MISINTERPRETATION: This study looked at the exposure of different social classes to contaminants, linked to bladder cancer, found in water. Although higher social classes drank more bottled water they were still exposing themselves to the same levels of contaminants through frequent use of swimming pools. Bladder cancer was not the focus of this study.

HEADLINE: Darwin may have been wrong, new study argues (Huffington Post – AOL News)

RESEARCH TITLE: Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land

MISINTERPRETATION: As Steven Newton explains, the study did not actually give any indication that Darwin was wrong. Instead it looked at how animals could have diversified by expanding into empty ecological roles, rather than by direct competition with each other. However the study considered large eco-spaces, not the small scale competition that  Darwin referenced.

HEADLINE: Do aliens live in this lake? (Daily Mail online – need to register to see article)

RESEARCH TITLE: A bacterium that can grow by using Arsenic instead of Phosphorus

MISINTERPRETATION: Scientists discovered a bacterium that was able to take on arsenic. This finding has ramifications for how we consider the search for extraterrestrial life, it does not mean that we have aliens on earth.

HEADLINE: Age of Terminators comes a step closer as scientists invent ‘e-skin’ that could give robots a sense of touch (Daily Mail)

RESEARCH TITLE: Flexible electronics: Within touch of artificial skin

MISINTERPRETATION: This was a report on the development of the use of nanowires to create ‘skin’ for prosthetic limbs. The Daily Mail gave it the more sinister twist of giving robots the ability to feel as Peter Hitchens explains.

HEADLINE: Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun (The Register)

RESEARCH TITLE: An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate

MISINTERPRETATION: Martin Robbins shows that despite most reporters grasping that this study actually showed that the sun’s role in global warming may be slightly misrepresented (Sun’s role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds – The Guardian), The Register decided to take a slightly different angle.

HEADLINE: The mini ice age starts here (Daily Mail)

RESEARCH TITLE: Advancing decadel-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector 

MISINTERPRETATION: The research said that natural fluctuations in ocean temperature could have a bigger impact on global temperature than expected. It did not however claim that there was to be a shift from global warming to global cooling as was widely misreported at the time. Latif talks about the misinterpretation of his research.

HEADLINE: Have alien fish made their home in caverns of salty water beneath Saturn’s frozen moon? OR Are we alone? Alien life may be thriving on Saturn’s frozen moon. (Daily Mail)

RESEARCH TITLE: Sodium salts in E-ring ice grains from an ocean below the surface of Enceladus

MISINTERPRETATION: This study found evidence of water vapour and ice particles emitted from Saturn’s moon Enceladus, these suggested the presence of a subsurface ocean. There was however no reported evidence of fish.

Know of any other interesting headlines? Come across some questionable reporting? Please do keep us informed!

Research can be incredibly frustrating. Things do not work out as planned and ‘simple’ tasks often take ten times longer than you thought they would (for no apparent reason). People that have not undertaken a lot of research may presume that it is down to bad planning of the person involved, sometimes it is, but more than often it is not. I can plan for Great Britain; day plans, week plans, yearly plans. I cannot plan for experiments that simply do not work, fire alarms interrupting experiments or other random events that only seem to happen when an experiment is mid flow (if aliens were to land they would do it in the middle of a very expensive, very important experiment).

I could mope around and complain about how many things have failed but I have found a cheery distraction ….. DANCE YOUR PHD! A quick  search on YouTube for ‘Dance Your PhD’ and I guarantee you will no longer be annoyed or frustrated with your life/PhD, and a whole world of good feeling and laughter will come your way. It is the best idea I have seen in a very long time -no longer will people have to worry about explaining what exactly your PhD is on, what you are doing with your life, everything can be made clear and simple via the medium of expressive dance and YouTube. As an added bonus you can actually win real money for your efforts. This is like Glee, but waaay geekier. Glee for scientists…..

This is my personal favourite, mostly because it involves some Daft Punk, ass wiggling and stripping:

Maybe the media could take this mainstream and report all science topics via expressive dance?