Flash on the pate
While research in Ireland suggests that hats can protect scalps from the sun (see Feedback, 13 July), research in Germany suggests that letting rain soak your head might 鈥� just maybe 鈥� help you survive if and when lightning strikes your pate.
The researchers used a wetted artificial head, having chosen not to experiment with a wetted genuine human head. Their report, called , aimed to 鈥渕easure the influence of rain during high-energy direct lightning strikes on a realistic three-compartment human head phantom鈥�.
Advertisement
Ren茅 Machts and colleagues say they found 鈥渁 lower number of perforations and eroded areas near the lightning strike impact points on the head phantom when rain was applied compared to no rain鈥�.
Homeopathic comeback?
Peter Billard showed his son-in-law some of Feedback鈥檚 collection of remarks by doctors as to whether their job sometimes involves entertaining the patient while nature does the healing. The son-in-law works in a paediatric ward in Germany. He responded that 鈥渙ften enough it is easier and faster to prescribe something than to explain and argue why nothing is needed. That is definitively true for antibiotics but also counts for anti-cough agents.鈥�
Billard鈥檚 son-in-law mentions some risks that come with taking antibiotics 鈥� eventual antibiotic resistance, possible diarrhoea and other side effects, et cetera 鈥� then says: 鈥淗owever I have some understanding for colleagues鈥� who sometimes follow the parental wish/push for antibiotics.鈥�
Billard himself muses: 鈥淲ouldn鈥檛 it therefore be possible to just fob off concerned parents and patients by offering homeopathic remedies? It was obviously a good alternative when it was conceived at the turn of the 19th century 鈥� no effective treatment was a massive improvement over the conventional medical treatment back in those days. Perhaps it鈥檚 time for a comeback!鈥�
Dishonesty questioned
If you worry about honesty, affix your seat belt and eyeglasses, and read this item.
Just eight days before Feedback commented on the difficulty of getting an honest appraisal of research about dishonesty (Feedback, 28 September), the Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) published an 鈥渆xpression of concern鈥� which JMR published in 2008.
The letter explained 鈥� though in terse, not-exactly-easy-to-understand language 鈥� that a large group of researchers had examined the 鈥渄ishonesty of honest people鈥� paper, leading them to question its accuracy and honesty.
This brouhaha is a clash of award winners. Dan Ariely is the most prominent of the several co-authors of the disputed 2008 paper. In that same year, he was awarded an for a 鈥渄emonstrating that high-priced fake medicine is more effective than low-priced fake medicine鈥�.
The study criticising Ariely鈥檚 鈥渄ishonesty鈥� study was done by an international group of researchers, two of whom 鈥� Bruno Verschuere and Laurent B猫gue 鈥� had themselves been awarded Ig Nobel prizes. (Verschuere won his in 2016 for a 鈥渁sking a thousand liars how often they lie, and for deciding whether to believe those answers鈥�. B猫gue won his in 2013 for a 鈥渃onfirming, by experiment, that people who think they are drunk also think they are attractive鈥�.)
The study Feedback noted on 28 September () was published by Franti拧ek Barto拧, who was awarded an Ig Nobel prize this year for a showing, 鈥渂oth in theory and by 350,757 experiments, that when you flip a coin, it tends to land on the same side as it started鈥�.
Barto拧鈥檚 鈥渦ntrustworthy evidence鈥� paper explicitly questions research done by Ariely. One of those papers was a 2020 follow-up, called to a 2012 paper called
Ariely鈥檚 2012 signature-at-top-or-bottom paper was in 2021. Observers speculate as to whether his 2020 signature-at-bottom-or-top paper will be retracted in 2029.
That鈥檚 four Ig Nobel prize winners, with the three most recent questioning research published by the earliest. Ig Nobel prizes honour things that make people laugh, then think. Those criteria say nothing as to whether a thing is correct or incorrect, good or bad, important or trivial. Feedback is personally acquainted with all four of these Ig Nobel prize winners and can honestly report that all four are 鈥� as people 鈥� thoughtful, charming and warm. This four-threaded tangle epitomises the research-community condition: it is messy, contentious, sometimes funny, sometimes disturbing, very thought-provoking and very human.
Final item
Marc Abrahams has written the Feedback column every week for the past two years. This is his final Feedback column. You can follow his other writings and activities at
Got a story for Feedback?
You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week鈥檚 and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.