Tag Archives: Simon Singh

A selection of science songs for summer

Canada’s Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI) has compiled a list of science songs and it includes a few Canadian surprises. Here’s more from the July 21, 2016 PI notice received via email.

Ah, summer.

School’s out, the outdoors beckon, and with every passing second a 4.5-billion-year-old nuclear fireball fuses 620 million tons of hydrogen so brightly you’ve gotta wear shades.

Who says you have to stop learning science over the summer?

All you need is the right soundtrack to your next road trip, backyard barbeque, or day at the beach.

Did we miss your favourite science song? Tweet us @Perimeter with the hashtag #SciencePlaylist.

You can find the list and accompanying videos on The Ultimate Science Playlist webpage on the PI website. Here are a few samples,

“History of Everything” – Barenaked Ladies (The Big Bang Theory theme)

You probably know this one as the theme song of The Big Bang Theory. But here’s something you might not know. The tune began as an improvised ditty Barenaked Ladies’ singer Ed Robertson performed one night in Los Angeles after reading Simon Singh’s book Big Bang: The Most Important Scientific Discovery of All Time and Why You Need to Know About It. Lo and behold, in the audience that night were Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady, creators of The Big Bang Theory. The rest is history (of everything).

“Bohemian Gravity” – A Capella Science (Tim Blais)

Tim Blais, the one-man choir behind A Capella Science, is a master at conveying complex science in fun musical parodies. “Bohemian Gravity” is his most famous, but be sure to also check out our collaboration with him about gravitational waves, “LIGO: Feel That Space.”

“NaCl” – Kate and Anna McGarrigle

“NaCl” is a romantic tale of the courtship of a chlorine atom and a sodium atom, who marry and become sodium chloride. “Think of the love you eat,” sings Kate McGarrigle, “when you salt your meat.”

This is just a sampling. At this point, there are 15 science songs on the webpage. Surprisingly, rap is not represented. One other note, you’ll notice all of my samples are Canadian. (Sadly, I had other videos as well but every time I saved a draft I lost at least half or more. It seems the maximum allowed to me is three.).

Here are the others I wanted to include:

“Mandelbrot Set” – Jonathan Coulton

Singer-songwriter Jonathan Coulton (JoCo, to fans) is arguably the patron saint of geek-pop, having penned the uber-catchy credits songs of the Portal games, as well as this loving tribute to a particular set of complex numbers that has a highly convoluted fractal boundary when plotted.

“Higgs Boson Sonification” – Traq 

CERN physicist Piotr Traczyk (a.k.a. Traq) “sonified” data from the experiment that uncovered the Higgs boson, turning the discovery into a high-energy metal riff.

“Why Does the Sun Shine?” – They Might Be Giants

Choosing just one song for this playlist by They Might Be Giants is a tricky task, since They Definitely Are Nerdy. But this one celebrates physics, chemistry, and astronomy while also being absurdly catchy, so it made the list. Honourable mention goes to their entire album for kids, Here Comes Science.

In any event, the PI list is a great introduction to science songs and The Ultimate Science Playlist includes embedded videos for all 15 of the songs selected so far. Happy Summer!

UK science blog prize

You must be based in the UK and writing a science blog to be eligible  for the first UK Science Blog prize. Kahlil A. Casimally’s Oct. 11, 2012 posting on the Scientific American blogs (specifically the SA incubator) mentions (Note: I have removed links),

The Good Thinking Society, chaired by science writer, Simon Singh, recently announced the inaugural UK Science Blog Prize. The prize sets out to recognise the majesty’s nation’s best science blog of the year. Yes, this means that the winner will probably be able to include a “2012’s best science blog in the UK” logo in his or her blog’s sidebar. Wonderful.

Here’s more about the contest from the Good Thinking’s UK Science Blog Prize 2012 webpage,

Although there are already several prizes established in the UK for science books, general science writing and even skeptical blogging, there appears to be no dedicated recognition for science bloggers.

We’d like this to change, as we feel that some of the best science writing currently being produced is being written by science bloggers.

First prize is £1,000. There will be at least three runners up prizes of £100 each.

You are asked to self-nominate an entry which must have been published in 2012 by the deadline of Oct. 15, 2012 (today!). The organizers have declared all kinds of science blogging is eligible (from the blog prize webpage),

Other than that, we’re open to all science blogs and that means science in its broadest sense (i.e. pure science, applied science, engineering, mathematics, technology, statistics, health).  [emphasis mine] We also encourage bloggers from all backgrounds to apply, ranging from teenagers to learned professors. We wish to keep the criteria as open as possible. It’s likely the runners up prizes will go to specific category winners, such as best student blog or best pure science blog.

I’m not sure I’d call this science in its broadest sense since they have left out the social sciences. Minor quibble aside, the judges are an interesting lot (from the blog prize webpage),

In addition to Simon Singh at Good Thinking, the following will also be on the judging panel:

Ben Goldacre is a doctor and writer, who’s work focuses on unpicking the real evidence behind scientific claims from quacks, journalists, drug companies, and government reports.

Mark Henderson is a former Science Editor at The Times and author of The Geek Manifesto, detailing the relationship between science and politics. He is Head of Communications at the Wellcome Trust and doesn’t blog as often as he should.

Roger Highfield was the Science Editor of The Daily Telegraph for two decades and the Editor of New Scientist between 2008 and 2011. Today, he is the Director of External Affairs at the Science Museum Group.

Síle Lane is Director of Campaigns at Sense About Science and is a former stem cell researcher.

Martin Robbins is science writer, podcaster and journalist who blogs for The Guardian about science, pseudoscience and the role of science in politics.

Sid Rodrigues is the organiser of the world’s first Skeptics in the Pub, based in London and has served as consultant/organiser for science outreach events for over 5 years. He previously spent ten years as a scientist in applied genetics, analytical chemistry and forensics. He currently works at London’s home of free thought, Conway Hall.

Connie St Louis is Director of City’s Science Journalism MA, is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist. She presents and produces a range programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service.

I hope to hear more about this contest when the winners are announced.

Thanks to @BoraZ’s tweet for alerting me to this science blogging initiative.

Free speech—update on defamation & science in the UK

I’m glad to have found an update on the UK science libel cases that I have mentioned here (El Naschie in my Nov. 18, 2011 posting and Simon Singh in my Nov. 12, 2010 posting).

Niri Shanmuganathan and Timothy Pinto have co-posted the update  and an analysis of the current defamation bill being considered before the UK Parliament. First, the updates, from the July 9, 2012 co-posting on the Guardian Science blogs,

On Friday, the eminent scientific journal Nature successfully defended an article it had published in 2008. The article had criticised Professor El Naschie for, among other things, publishing an excessive number of articles written by him in the very journal in which he was the editor and not submitting them through an adequate independent peer-review process. It took Nature more than three years to prove its article was accurate, included matters of honest opinion, and was the result of responsible journalism on a matter of public interest.

The science writer Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association [BCA] for criticising chiropractic therapy in an article he wrote in the Guardian in 2008. He appears to have been faced with a choice of apologising or instructing (ie paying) libel lawyers to defend him. Singh chose the courageous path and took the financial risk. Fortunately for him, in 2010 the court of appeal (reversing the judge) found that Singh’s comments were statements of opinion, rather than fact. The BCA then dropped its case against Singh.

Shanmuganathan and Pinto note that libel laws currently in place are adequate  once applied in court but the problem lies with the ease that an aggrieved party can file suit. When the burden of proof lies on the defendant to prove that their comments are in the public interest (which is difficult), it’s very, very expensive and time-consuming to fight a court case. One of the consequences is that free speech is likely to become constrained as individual and institutions without the resources avoid making comments that might offend. Here’s what Pinto and Shanmuganathan have to say about the current bill before Parliament,

This problem has not gone unnoticed by politicians, and libel law is currently undergoing reform to try to swing the balance more in favour of free speech. The defamation bill recently had its first reading in the House of Commons. It has two specific provisions to help protect freedom of expression in the field of science. First, independently peer-reviewed articles in a scientific or academic journal, and reports of such articles, would be privileged. Second, fair and accurate reports of scientific or academic conferences would also be privileged. …

However, these worthy libel law reformers are missing the point when it comes to science. Scientists do not usually get sued for writing peer-reviewed articles. Similarly, scientific publishers do not usually get sued for reporting on what happened at a scientific conference.

I recommend reading their comments in full not only for the valuable insight but because the writers have a special relationship to one of the cases. Niri Shanmuganathan and Timothy Pinto are media lawyers at international law firm Taylor Wessing which represented Nature in the libel case brought by Professor El Naschie.

International call to action on libel laws in the UK

I commented a while back (Sept. 21, 2009 posting) about UK and its libel laws in the context of Simon Singh, a physicist who criticized claims made by the British Chiropractic Society, and his subsequent legal travails. According to GrrlScientist’s Nov. 10,2010 posting, the British government is promising to revise libel laws. A campaign has sprung up to revise the laws in a fashion that is more equitable has requested that bloggers from all countries sign a petition. From GrrlScientist’s post,

English libel law is especially dangerous for blog writers, most of whom are independent and lack the support of publishers. Any blog writer, including independent “wildcat bloggers” can still be sued in London regardless of where they live and work, and regardless of where their blog essay was published. [emphasis mine] Yes, I am looking right at you, my fellow Americans, since this law is used as a weapon in the United States against American citizens who dare to exercise their constitutional right to free speech in their own country!

The freedom to criticise and question dolts and idiots, using strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. But British libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. British libel laws discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny all of us the right to read and think deeply about these topics.

This repressive law is so biased towards claimants and so hostile to writers, scientists, medical doctors and freethinkers, that London has become known as The Libel Capital of the World. [emphasis mine] The rich and powerful specifically file their libel suits in London on the most ridiculous and implausible grounds (a practice known as libel tourism), because they know that 90% of cases are won by claimants.

But there is hope: the British government promised to draft a bill that will reform libel law, but it is essential that blog writers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they are motivated to follow through on this promise. You can help do this by joining me and more than 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition. You can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. In fact, if you live outside the UK, your signature will remind British politicians that English libel law is repressive, antiquated and is seriously out of step with the rest of the free world. You can also include a personal message to go with your signature, so what are you waiting for?

It’s called the Libel Reform Campaign and is being organized by (from the contact page),

The Libel Reform coalition brings together English PEN [Note: Margaret Atwood has long supported PEN, an organization devoted to the principle of free speech; they focus on writers in particular], Index on Censorship and our partner organisation Sense About Science to campaign to reform the libel laws of England and Wales.

You can go sign the petition here (I signed it this morning).

Science communication in Canada (part 3)

We have  a lot of science communication programmes and activities in Canada but a huge percentage of them are aimed at children. Once you leave high school you don’t learn much about science any more. Yes, you can read an article in a newspaper or catch a science programme on tv but as I noted in my Friday (Sept. 18, 2009) posting, the media don’t cover  the sciences very often. (I’ll see if I can dig up some data on science coverage in the media.)

There is another issue with science coverage which has an impact on  the media’s willingness to run science stories, legal suits for defamation.  There’s an article on Techdirt, UK Libel Laws, Scientific Criticism, Chilling Effects, Bloggers and The Streisand Effect, which presents the interesting case of Simon Singh (physicist and author of books such as Fermat’s Last Theorem, aka Fermat’s Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the Word’s Greatest Mathematical Problem, Big Bang and others) who’s being sued for criticising the evidence for claims by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) about diseases that chiropractors can cure. The BCA filed a defamation suit against Singh, which is having a chilling effect on science journalism not only in the UK but also in the US (I haven’t found any Canadian commentary). You can find links to other articles on the topic including one from the New York Times in the Techdirt article. Meanwhile, I think this comment from the British Humanist Association (BHA) summarises the issues best,

BHA Chief Executive Hanne Stinson said today, “We’re proud to re-publish Simon’s article here on our website. This is not just an issue about freedom of speech, although that is important in itself. But if legitimate scientific criticism ever leads to a successful libel action, that will not only prevent people speaking out about false claims, it actually threatens scientific progress. Scientific advances almost always involve disagreement and criticism, and scientists have to able to express their views robustly without fear of prosecution. If our courts interpret one ambiguous phrase in a piece labelled ‘Comment’ as defamation, with the result that the writer loses a huge sum of money, then there is something very wrong in the balance between libel and freedom of speech.”

I found Singh’s edited (of allegedly libellous comments, apparently Singh used the word ‘bogus’ to describe some of the claims) article on the BHA site and even though I’m late to the party (there was a July 29, 2009 worldwide posting of the article, organized by Sense about Science, I’m going to post it now.

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.
If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Personally, I have gone to chiropractors for spinal manipulations and like any other profession (including writing), there’s the good, the bad, the competent, and the mediocre. I also know people who get good results and others for whom chiropractic adjustments do nothing. I think, in common with many others, that the BHA (correction: this should be BCA for British Chiropractic Association) should have responded with evidence and not with a legal suit complaining that they were being criticised.

As for whether or not this legal suit has had any impact on science journalism in Canada, I have no evidence, other than the absence of any discussion in the Canadian media, to back the assertion that follows. Taking into account the federal government’s relatively recent dictum (gag order) that scientists in Environment Canada are not allowed to speak to journalists unless they had received permission from the ministry’s communication department (National Post, Jan. 31, 2008, article by Margaret Munro, other articles can be found via search engines) and our close ties to UK jurisprudence, there is a big chill taking place here that affects both scientists and journalists.

Tomorrow I expect to be looking at public relations/marketing and science.