Drugs and choice
I found your article on the cocaine vaccine well written and balanced
(10 June, p 22),
but I would quibble with the cover of the issue. The picture was
too sensational, while the use of the word “vice”, although appropriate for some
individuals, puts drug dependence in moral terms rather than those of public
health鈥攁 view with which I am not in sympathy.
As far as the accompanying editorial goes, not only do parents have the right
to act in the best interests of their children and thereby “for future
generations”, but they have an obligation to do so.
Parents decide whether their children’s education should take place in public
schools, private schools, or even at home. They decide whether their children
should take music or art lessons, what they should read at home, what TV they
should view.
Often these parental decisions are opposed by children, at least at the time
they are made. Whether or not the child approves, the results of such parental
action extend far into the future and are likely to remain part of the child for
the rest of his or her life.
The editorial’s claim that “people have the right to choose how to behave” is
overly simplistic. It is clear that any civilised community must impose rules
when an individual’s behaviour has a significant adverse impact on other members
of society. Whether or not drug addiction qualifies as such an adverse impact is
a question over which people of goodwill may differ.
What the editorial writer chooses to call a “vice vaccine” will be viewed by
others as a significant contribution to fighting a disease and a boon to public
health. Regardless of whether addiction remains in the sphere of personal
freedom or, as I believe, is a public health problem, the harsh prison sentences
which far too often represent society’s response are clearly an unmitigated
disaster and reflect the worst of a civilised society.
Paradigm found
What a strange business Steve Fuller’s discussion of Thomas Kuhn turned out to be
(15 July, p 46).
He starts off by telling us that Kuhn’s The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions (1962) is “the one philosophy book that most
scientists . . . will have heard of”. I fancy that rather more natural
scientists will have come across the ideas of Karl Popper’s The Logic of
Scientific Discovery. But, no matter, I have no evidence for my view and I
doubt that Fuller has any for his.
We also learn that scientific revolutions, unlike political ones, are not
planned. In fact, political revolutions tend to happen not according to plan,
but in a manner neither predicted nor desired by those leading them. Oliver
Cromwell did not plan to remove the monarchy. Lenin told young revolutionaries
in 1917: “We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of
this coming revolution.”
The final gesture is that of throwaway comparisons selected to meet a
particular argument. Fullers ask us to “contrast the failure of the
superconducting supercollider, which depended on American taxpayers’ money, with
the success of the human genome project, in which private interest was crucial”.
How about putting a man on the Moon at taxpayers’ expense compared with the
disaster of thalidomide produced in the search for profit?
For a serious evaluation of the significance of Kuhn’s work and its problems,
readers are going to have to look elsewhere.
Letter
The truth of a scientific theory or paradigm鈥攚hether it be Galileo’s,
Darwin’s, Heisenberg’s, Watson and Crick’s, or even Kuhn’s鈥攄erives not
from its bigness, smallness, political correctness, popularity, military
importance, fundability or adherence to religious doctrine, but rather from its
ability to explain the natural world.
All Kuhn said, fundamentally, was that “truth will out”. Inadequate paradigms
will ultimately be overthrown by better paradigms. There is no reason to doubt
that this process will continue. Throughout history the “political and economic
forces” mentioned by Fuller have distorted the scientific enterprise, but such
distortions are irrelevant in the long run.
Letter
Hasn’t Fuller simply identified the most recent paradigm shift?
If the effect of the demise of “grand projects” has been correctly identified
as undermining Kuhn’s theory鈥攁lthough the text’s suggestion of a switch of
public (government) to private (commercial) funding in the context of the human
genome project is a baffling example鈥攄oes this not actually reinforce a
truly Kuhnian paradigm rather than the reverse?
“Cloaking technical expertise in a communal rhetoric that no longer reflects
how scientists relate to each other” seems an oddly empty epitaph on “the most
influential book on the nature of science of the past century”.
Fuller seems to want to have his paradigm and eat it.
Drivers' distraction
I am often struck by the way scientists and engineers become locked into a
mindset of “improving” technology without ever questioning whether this is the
appropriate thing to do. An example seems to be the quest to make speed cameras
more difficult to spot
(22 July, p 7).
While the idea of quelling motorists’ natural urge to reach their destination
in the quickest possible time is laudable and hiding speed cameras is likely to
swell the coffers of the police, the amount of attention virtually all motorists
now devote to spotting speed traps in time to slow down must have an adverse
effect on their driving abilities.
It would be interesting to know if any research has been carried out into
this attention-split amongst motorists driving along unfamiliar roads.
My guess would be that at least 20 per cent of their concentration is devoted
to looking for speed cameras.
Someone is there
Your article on people in a vegetative state recovering awareness
(8 July, p 36)
fails to acknowledge the immense value of families in detecting awareness.
The patient is likely to be in a totally foreign environment, such as a
hospital ward, surrounded by people who are unfamiliar to them. Their personal
space is likely to be violated by tracheotomy tubes, catheters and intravenous
lines. These factors produce stress. Since “fight or flight” is impossible for
the patient, the only recourse is to close down mentally and withdraw from the
environment.
The family presence can markedly reduce the effect of these multiple
stressing factors. In addition, the family’s intimate knowledge of the patient
frequently allows subtle signs of awareness to be detected.
In nearly 20 years of assessing such patients, I have always initiated the
assessment by determining what the family has observed and using them as my
bridge to the patient. It works.
No free lunch
In your article about distributed computing using idle computers
(15 July, p 11),
you didn’t mention that a computer used in this way will not enter its
power-saving state as it usually does when not in use.
This means that the machine may use up to 100 watts (my guess) more than it
would if it was not running these calculations. The cost of running a 100-watt
load for a month? Probably something close to the $10 that these
companies are talking of offering.
Coffee break
There may be some prior art involved in Takasago Corporation’s patent for a
coffee-based deodorant
(15 July, p 11).
One of the books by zoo vet David Taylor contains a story about transporting
elephants across southern Spain. When a member of the Civil Guard is
accidentally urinated upon by one of the pachyderms, one of the vets involved in
the transportation recommends that the unfortunate policeman rub himself with
used coffee grounds to remove the smell.
Obscured by clouds
I enjoyed your piece on clouds soaking up more sunlight that they ought to
(15 July, p 36).
If meteorologists were cosmologists they would even now be
speculating on a hitherto unknown exotic particle. Massless and unreactive, it
would be intrinsically undetectable except for absorbing surprisingly large
amounts of sunlight when present in clouds. No doubt they would give it a short
and snappy name, something like “damp grey matter” perhaps?
Correction
Apologies to Dinah Bennett, who interviewed schoolgirls in Ghana about eating disorders
(8 July, p 23).
She was incorrectly referred to in our article as David Bennett.
Target of hate
I was intrigued to read your website debate on vivisection and found the
results of the MORI poll very interesting. It was also refreshing to hear the
views of both parties. However, I was genuinely surprised when I read your
correspondent Gill Langley’s claim that: “Antivivisectionists are often
portrayed as misanthropic, anti-science extremists. The poll gives the lie to
that stereotype, revealing that opposition to animal experiments is now a
mainstream, even a majority, view.”
In my experience, this view of antivivisectionists is not a “stereotype” at
all. Indeed, the word “extremist” fails to convey the physical and psychological
terror these criminals inflict on their defenceless victims.
For some months now, antivivisectionists have targeted my family and myself
because of the work we do. As a scientist I am proud of my work and have
personally been involved in research into viruses such as HIV. As a result of
this work, vital for easing the suffering of millions, my family and I have had
unwelcome visitors coming to our home and received threatening and obscene hate
mail. Moreover, I have been subscribed to various unsavoury publications and
book clubs鈥擨 recently received Mein Kampf. Actions like this, and
many of the letters we receive, have absolutely no bearing on the debate.
Along with several colleagues, I set up an anonymous e-mail account in an
attempt to enter into debate. Our attempt was not as successful as yours. The
one reply we received was: “Get a life.” This was not the rational, constructive
and substantiated argument we had invited.
I am sorry to say, therefore, that I cannot agree with Langley’s claim. I,
along with my friends, family and colleagues know the truth, and I don’t think
the public are being fooled as easily as the antivivisectionists would hope.