Letter: Depression ahead
One of my lazier staff refuses to run for shelter when it rains, and
has started an argument which is slowly crippling my organisation. The question
is, if it begins to rain, should you run for shelter, or walk? One group
says that when walking, the top of the subject will collect rain for a longer
time, but is smaller than the front of the subject.
The front is supposed to collect less because the rain is falling vertically,
and much faster than the walking speed . . . therefore you should walk to
shelter.
The opposing faction argues that by running, you will collect less on
the top and the same amount on the front, and will be out for a shorter
time. While the answer seems at first sight to be obvious, we have reached
an impasse. Can anyone help?
John Anderson London
Letter: Fluctuating beginnings
The last part of Harold Puthoff’s article puzzled me (‘Everything for
nothing’, 28 July). Whatever the merits of the theory of quantum fluctuations
of empty space in the normal Universe are, I cannot see how the theory can
be used to explain the origins of the Universe. The description is of fluctuations
of a vacuum and the originator of the basic theory said they are ‘simply
one of the things that happen from time to time’.
My objections to this extrapolation are:
1. Before the Universe began there was no vacuum since there was no
space.
2. Before the Universe began there was no time so any fluctuations that
happen from ‘time to time’ could not.
3. Before the Universe began how could physical or mathematical laws
be known to exist in their present form since they are derived from and
tested against the parameters of the present Universe?
W. G. Garrett Harrow, Middlesex
Letter: Computer kids
Steve Jones does not mention the age of his computer volunteers (‘Friend
or foe’, Forum, 18 August). Although I have been involved with computers
for over 20 years, my daughter, through the ages from about 10 to her present
age of 15, has always been quicker to become the friend of any new kit.
Ron Footer Bexleyheath, Kent
Letter: Colour blind
In the description of Land’s demonstrations involving two similar black
and white slides projected through red and green filters you said that when
either of the filters was removed ‘the only colour on the screen was green
or red respectively’ (‘Seeing colours in their true light’, 11 August).
This is not what happened: a large number of colours still appeared, particularly
with red and white projection, the only main colour missing being blue.
This was not, however, an original discovery: it had been patented in 1914
and exploited in the commercial cinema between 1928 and 1936 as the Raycol
Process.
K. McLaren Upper Woolhampton, Berkshire
Letter: Popper defined
E. Paull’s fears about the implications for epistemology of falsifying
Popper’s principle are groundless because Popper has never claimed to provide
a hypothesis which helps to distinguish between sense and nonsense (Letters,
18 August). His criterion of falsifiability, which states that a hypothesis
is scientific if it is falsifiable, unscientific of it is not, merely draws
an essentially arbitrary but very useful line of demarcation between science
and non-science. Popper’s principle is thus a definition of science, not
a hypothesis about it. Therefore, it is invalid to subject it to the criterion
of falsifiability, which only applies to hypotheses.
Firoz Mohamed Glossop, Derbyshire
Letter: Media message
What a shame Linda Birke’s article asked if educating the public about
science is ‘merely a public relations exercise’ (‘Selling science to the
public’, 18 August). No wonder scientists fail to get their message across
if they denigrate through their own ignorance the very essence of public
relations.
The way to a well-informed public is by means of well-informed media.
This implies a constant, deliberate, planned policy of providing accurate
information promptly and in a useable form. Public relations is not an optional
extra. If you do not have good PR you get bad PR – and that goes for the
whole reputation of science as well as for each of its component specialisms.
Converting negative attitudes of apathy, ignorance and hostility into
positive attitudes of enthusiasm, understanding and appreciation is the
avowed task of every PR person. The creation of goodwill goes hand in hand
with education.
There are some admirable, if limited initiatives such as the Chemical
Industries Association’s ‘Speak Out’ scheme, and the American National Pest
Control Association’s public affairs campaign, but what is needed urgently
is for every scientist to enhance his or her communication skills. More
articulate, literate specialists who want to help the media rather than
obstruct them are needed – but remember, dry facts alone will never win
hearts and minds.
P. L. G. Bateman Director of Public Relations Rentokil Limited East
Grinstead, West Sussex
Letter: Warm debate
I was so amazed by Richard Courtney’s letter that I had to go back and
check the article by John Gribbin to make sure I was not dreaming (Letters,
11 August). Courtney berates Gribbin for ‘his assertion that expensive preventative
measures should be taken’ to control greenhouse gas emissions. In fact,
Gribbin said in his article that these control measures could be taken at
no net cost to the economy, because of the energy savings for industry and
individuals (Talking Point, 28 July). Courtney may disagree with that claim,
but he should not be allowed to get away with downright lies.
As for the fairy story about solar cycles – if anyone really had predicted
global temperature changes for each year from 1958 to 2035, and the prediction
had come true so far, I think we might have heard about it before now. Where
is the evidence for this ludicrous claim?
James Hartley Brighton, Sussex
Letter: See no evil
In Peter Wymer’s review of Victor Stenger’s book he says ‘There is a
single unambiguous message in Physics and Psychics. It is that there is
no scientific basis for a Universe other than one composed of observable
matter’ (Review, 11 August). I do not know if this is a true reflection
of Stenger’s views, but it means that a large portion of physics of the
last 100 years or so, which has been concerned with fields (not observable
in themselves, but only through their interactions with matter), has to
be thrown out. Surely the ‘baby’ of field theory does not need to be thrown
out with the ‘bath water’ of the supernatural?
GJ Suggett Worthing, Sussex
Letter: Animal rights
Few would disagree with Peter Singer’s general case that animals used
in biomedical and other research should not be treated merely as laboratory
tools (Talking Point, 11 August). Indeed, one of the formal objectives of
the Research Defence Society has exactly the same purpose: it is to ‘stimulate
improvements in the quality of animals used for research and the conditions
in which the animals are maintained; encourage the provision and dissemination
of information about methods intended to enable animals to be replaced by
non-sentient material, or reduce the number of animals used; and improve
the standard of humanity and observation in animals experiments’.
More importantly, this is also a primary objective of the Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act 1986, which governs the experimental use of animals in this
country. Its main provision requires that animals be used only in licensed
projects that are potentially important for human welfare and only to obtain
information that cannot be obtained by other methods. It also requires them
to be well cared for and treated as humanely as possible. Nevertheless,
Singer is not satisfied because his real purpose is the abolition of animal
experiments.
Your readers may not be aware that Singer’s book Animal Liberation provided
much of the philosophical justification for the current animal rights movement
with its various legitimate and occasionally violent activities. Their case
is based on the concept of ‘animal rights’, which they consider to be essentially
equivalent to those of human beings.
Animal experiments are essential for two main reasons. They provide
a unique safeguard for the volunteers and patients involved in the assessment
of new drugs and surgical procedures and, by means of fundamental research,
they provide unique, new information about mammalian biology, which is the
source of many ideas in applied medical sciences.
As animal experiments are essential for safe medical progress they are
approved but are specially regulated in nearly all countries because the
use of sentient creatures makes them different in kind from other experimental
sciences. The ultimate safeguard for animals, however, is the quality of
the biomedical scientists responsible for them and of the inspectors who
supervise their work. It is most important therefore, that, apart from their
scientific qualifications, they are properly trained in the care and maintenance
of experimental animals.
D. Jack Chairman Research Defence Society London
Letter: Maths scandal
You mention the absence of a Nobel Prize for mathematics, saying that
the reason was that Nobel’s wife ran off with a mathematician (This Week,
18 August). It is an attractive and oft-related tale but there is no evidence
for it. Indeed, Nobel was a confirmed bachelor. (Some versions of the tale
substitute ‘mistress’ for ‘wife’ to get round this difficulty, but there
is no evidence for that either. I suspect the story was invented by a mathematician
as a bit of PR: it makes mathematicians seem more human.) There is also
no evidence for an alternative theory, that Nobel detested the Swedish mathematician
Mittag-Leffler and was worried that he would win a prize if there was one.
Nobel emigrated from Sweden while Mittag-Leffler was still a student, and
spent much of his life in Paris. Mittag-Leffler remained in Stockholm: they
appear to have had no dealings with one another.
According to Lars Garding and Lars Hormander, writing in Mathematical
Intelligencer, the true explanation is more prosaic and more humbling for
mathematicians: the thought of a prize for mathematics never entered Nobel’s
head. Nobel awarded prizes in areas that especially interested him: mathematics
was not one of them.
Ian Stewart Mathematical Intelligencer University of Warwick Coventry
Letter: Drug data
As a general practitioner, I was irritated by an insulting reference
to GPs in ‘Too much of a good thing’, 18 August. The box in the article
on multiple births suggests that GPs use the drug clomiphene citrate to
treat menstrual irregularity, disregarding the potentially serious problems
this might cause. The suggestion is that GPs prescribe recklessly and without
thought. The data sheet for clomiphene states that it is indicated solely
for the treatment of anovulatory infertility and warns of the possibility
of multiple births following such treatment. I would doubt very much that
any GP is prescribing the drug except when hospital investigation has revealed
the specific problems for which it is indicated.
TJ Roscoe Sheffield
Letter: Methane leakage
Max Wallis’s letter (14 July), as in other articles elsewhere on methane
leakage, is selective over which aspects of the available evidence he chooses
to accept and which to ignore.
In my previous letter I explained how, in the context of electricity
generation, the overall effect of greenhouse emissions from the natural
gas supply chain was approximately half of that from coal. For this application,
gas is supplied from the high-pressure transmission system, which is virtually
leak free. This assessment takes into account estimates of the offshore
venting of natural gas based on government statistics which are publicly
available. It seems strange that Wallis is prepared to accept the British
Coal estimates of venting from coal mines but is not prepared to accept
the estimates for offshore venting of methane, derived from the same government
publication.
Wallis refers to his own published calculations as the basis for claiming
that gas is worse than coal in overall greenhouse terms. We have already
pointed out to him significant mistakes, both technical and arithmetic,
in his published articles which, as far as we are aware, have not been subject
to independent peer review assessment before publication. Our calculations
are based on the scientific evidence reported to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change by Working Group 1 in June of this year, which was extensively
peer reviewed. It is also likely to be the basis for any formulation of
policy at the Second World Climate Conference, in October. We have provided
details of our calculations for publication (and Wallis is aware of them).
The issue of global warming is of key importance, and all objective
contributions to the development of knowledge and debate on this topic should
be welcomed. However, Wallis’s argument is based on unreliable foundations,
and is likely to mislead and confuse.
Ivan Whitting British Gas plc London