Truth or Dare?

I was intrigued by a somewhat impassioned article suggesting that users of smart phones can, using artificial intelligence, manipulate voices and images 'up to Hollywood standards' and generate fake news (where have I heard that one before?) that is indistinguishable from real events (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/01/in-an-era-of-deep-fakery-who-can-we-trust-to-tell-us-the-truth). I am less concerned here with the mechanics of 'twisting' news items or with the issue of who should 'protect us' from this misuse of technology (although I can see how it makes living in a democracy difficult). What I struggle with is how, in the present age, can we tell what is 'true' in science and how can/ should we honestly attempt to convince non-specialists about its likely verity? The truth in science is never an absolute as it is always subject to later change. Back in a former era, most scientific 'truths' were dependent on papers being published on the topic (and became firmer if the findings were independently replicated). Publication took time and generally involved peer reviewing.  This was intended to assess whether the studies had been properly designed, the analysis was appropriate and the conclusions reached by the author(s) reasonable. The method was far from perfect and dodgy studies slipped through from time to time. Less admitted was that the reputation of the academic who was publishing the study (or his/her associates), the prestige of his/her University or Institution and the standing of the journal in which the paper was published, all influenced general acceptance of the work (especially if the results were unusual). All were assumed to have reputations they would be keen to preserve. Currently, studies that receive media attention, have to contain 'good' or 'shock, horror' news (I can safely predict that any study showing that things are pretty much unchanged, is unlikely to be featured) and are frequently 'revealed' before any peer review has been undertaken (sometimes, I wonder if actual publication subsequently takes place). The fact that your favourite politician, singer or sport's star can now be the person (generally without any training) telling the masses what to believe of the 'science' is also an issue. Of course, such people are entitled to their opinions (and they are likely to reach a much wider audience than a retired academic) but there is unlikely to be any reputational damage if they get things badly wrong. It is unlikely we would know if erroneous material is being presented, because most of the platforms deliver only views that their followers are likely to share. It can look, to me, more like a cult than an educational process. Even worse, media stars are often more commercially driven. They are also more likely to be successful if they have contrarian beliefs. Such items get more revenue-generating 'hits' and are more likely to be shared.  I accept that I am also in my own 'bubble' but a) I do have a wide-ranging science background, b) Am not interested in making money from this blog and c) Would be unhappy to be labelled as a 'flake'.I guess that what I am trying to say is that (without hopefully being arrogant) you are more likely to get something closer to scientific 'truth' from someone like me. I hope that you will tell me when you think I have deviated from this aim.

Doubling Down on Dementia

 

Currently there are about 850k people with dementia in England and Wales, a figure that is expected to rise (Covid-19 willing?) to 1.2m by 2040. There are many forms of this awful condition and some of the predisposition is inherited. A recent report suggests, however, that there are also multiple 'life-style risk factors' that can alter the timing of the condition or even whether it occurs at all (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/30/lifestyle-changes-could-delay-or-prevent-40-of-dementia-cases-study). Some of these appear, at first glance, to be a matter of individual choice (actually easier for some folk than others) like avoiding smoking or excessive consumption of alcohol in middle age. Some may be easy to correct (if looked for) like mid-life hearing loss. Others, like exposure to air pollution, depend on where you live, as well as government policy and enforcement. An important category, head injury, is a complex risk factor as it could be purely a consequence of an accident, result from an assault or bought about by participation in sports such as boxing and football (heading the ball). So, life-style 'choices' are not always clear or easy to adjust. People do, however, need early information (and reminders?) about what they may be able to personally do to reduce their chances of developing such mental impairment. A 40% delay or prevention of dementia is not to be sniffed at. 

'Commonsense' and Covid-19?

The UK's PM is frequently appealing to the 'commonsense' of the public to bring the Covid-19 pandemic under control. This is a touch optimistic as, apparently, the requirement in England to wear a face mask in shops currently reportedly has a very patchy take up (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/31/no-one-stops-you-coronavirus-shoppers-attitudes-to-masks-differ-across-uk). In some places, most people conform but, in others, hardly anyone dons the protection. Neither the police nor the shop workers regard it as being their job (probably sensibly) to get people to wear a mask (even when that is largely for the protection of other occupants of the shop). The problem is compounded as most people don't understand that some designated groups are allowed, for good reasons, not to wear masks. There are also studies also showing that very few people in the same country are strict about social distancing. This is illustrated by the large numbers flocking to crowded southern English beaches, where maintaining spatial separation is impossible (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/31/england-beaches-packed-despite-covid-19-social-distancing-plea). People (conformers and non-conformers) can get very aggressive with each other about these issues. And  don't even mention what some UK folk get up to on foreign holidays! Relying on commonsense is probably a non-starter.

This is Getting Personal!

 

There seem to be new risk factors postulated for contracting  Covid-19 infections on a daily basis (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/baldness-rashes-covid-19-risk-factors-symptoms-hearing-loss-coronavirus-studies). I have got used to age being a factor (and there is nothing much any of us can to about that). Thank goodness, however, that I am not bald and tall. The link to length (I am 2m) is based on one slightly odd, preliminary study, suggesting that the finding gives support to the aerosol mode of infection (hot air with breathed out droplets containing the virus rises).

Seeds of Doubt?

Weirdly, people, all over the world, are receiving bags of unidentified and unsolicited seeds, apparently from China (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/01/mystery-seed-parcels-world-biosecurity-china-uk-us). Hypotheses about the reasons for this action are varied and include its being a scam to generate positive reviews about bogus online 'sales' or its being an attempt at bioterrorism by introducing a damaging invasive organism to other countries. Either way, the recipients are being told not to plant the seeds until it is determined what they are. Having said that, I will be surprised if some bored gardener in some remote location doesn't try them out.

Was It Just the 5p Charge?

 

It sounds very promising that the numbers of single use plastic bags in England (when that country  finally got round to making a 5p charge) has reportedly declined by almost 60% in a single year (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/30/use-of-plastic-bags-in-england-drops-by-59-in-a-year). It sounds even better, when it is noted, that the sales of such bags in the major supermarkets has fallen by 95%. Let me remind you (if that is at all necessary, however) that the last year has been a bit atypical. The Covid-19 lockdown has resulted in many people totally changing their buying habitats. Many more items are now purchased online. Many households have even had their food and groceries delivered by the supermarkets or personally collect the material in a single weekly shop. Single use plastic bag purchases are bound to have dropped with this pattern of behaviour. It is to be hoped that the trend continues with a return to 'normality' (whatever that turns out to be!). Let's also hope we are not being alternatively buried under cardboard packaging, bubble wrap and discarded single use face masks! My sources tell me that many of the supermarkets that deliver shopping or do 'click and collect' use lots of plastic bags but don't charge for them. Perhaps the numbers cited in the study were inaccurate?

It's an Ill Wind?

 

Rhinoceros are under extreme pressure from poachers (irrespective of where they are based- poaching has even occurred in zoos) who get enormous dollops of money for their horn (used in Chinese 'medicine'). They appear to be one of the beneficiaries of the Covid-19 lockdown, as poaching in South Africa is said to be down to less than half its usual level in the first 6 months of 2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/01/south-african-rhino-poaching-halves-in-six-months-thanks-to-covid-19-lockdown). It is suggested that the fall is related to travel restrictions, including the disruption of international flights. A word of warning. Monitoring and protecting of animals is also much reduced in places at this time, so recording of poaching events may be less accurate. The poachers may also be concentrating on rhinos in locations that are easier to access (and to smuggle their 'spoils' from) than South African safari parks.