Islam and science
Ehsan Masood’s opening question, “Does Islam’s vibrant scientific past hold the key to its intellectual future?” misses the entire point (1 April, p 53). The attempt to equate a period of scientific development with one of social achievement shows a lack of intellectual rigour.
The Third Reich, or Nazi Germany, had a blossoming of scientific development for the same reasons that states controlled by sharia law were able to do the same 鈥� namely to have social stability and funding for scientists. Unfortunately both achievements were gained at the expense of slavery and aggression. The great failing of Islam was not its failing to continue its achievments in science, but rather that Islam did not follow through with an enlightenment or similar social development.
The final question of “If Islam inspired great learning in the past, why not now?” is problematic. It appears that in the past Islam funded technical progress but did not inspire intellectual progress, and this remains true. Islamic societies are running this experiment all across the world, with different settings and many natural resources, and in none of them have they achieved a prosperous, free self sufficiency. So maybe the question should be, “If Islam was not able to flourish intellectually in the past, why expect it to now?”
Flawed animal models
In his letter, Leigh Jackson makes the point that in specific cases animals can be useful models to study particular aspects of biological processes (1 April, p 24). He supports this by quoting the Nuffield Council report on animal testing that states there are evolutionary continuities in the form of behavioural, anatomical, physiological, neurological, biochemical and pharmacological similarities between animals and humans. This is a generalisation that hides the real truth. I illustrate this point using the example of the rat.
There are some anatomical or physiological peculiarities of rats that affect compound absorption, pharmacokinetics and metabolism, or cause unexpected reactions to a test compound. Rats are obligate nose breathers, for one; this can alter how and when a substance enters the blood stream. The placenta is considerably more porous in the rat than in the human. Owing to differences in the distribution of intestinal microflora within the rat gut, they are much more likely to metabolise an orally administered compound, possibly into a toxic or active metabolite.
The rat secretes stomach acid continuously, whereas the human stomach secretes acid only in response to food or other stimuli. Rats are nocturnal, prone to different diseases than humans, have different nutritional requirements, and cannot vomit. David E. Semler of G.D. Searle and Company, writing about these discrepancies in Animal Models of Toxicology, goes on to describe differences between male and female rats, between different strains of rats, and between the results of studies on rats conducted at different research institutions. Even when the same rats are used for the same experiments at different research institutions, the results are different.
Extrapolation is the sine qua non of vivisection, but given the above, the basis is flawed.
Noodleous normalous
With reference to Thomas Schneider’s experiment cooking two types of tubular pasta together, I was not surprised that the outcome was Noodleous doubleous, given the depth of the water (5 centimetres) and the amount of pasta pieces (Feedback, 8 April). I wonder whether Schneider should redo his experiment, using twice the volume of water, as I am sure the outcome would be Noodleous singleous completely normalous. Alternatively, if he halved the volume of water, I am confident he would get Noodleous stickyous messyous. Neither of which, no doubt, science could explain, but perhaps the instructions on the packet might.
For the record
鈥� While editing Robert Matthews’s article “The quantum elixir” (8 April, p 32), we introduced an error. The hydrogen bonds between water molecules are between the hydrogen atoms in one molecule and the oxygen atoms in another, rather than between the hydrogen atoms as stated.
The other elephant
Brian Adams, commenting on your leader on climate change, says you don’t mention the “elephant in the room” 鈥� economic growth (8 April, p 24). How about the other elephant 鈥� population growth?
Misrepresenting memes
In her letter about Francisco Ayala’s review of my book, Breaking the Spell, Mary Midgley asks “Why do memeticists always apply their methods to doctrines that they dislike, such as religions, rather than to favoured ones such as belief in democracy, Darwinism, or indeed memetics itself?” (25 March, p 24).
If she ever reads the book, she will find that Ayala has misled her. I have not just made her point 鈥� I have gone well beyond it. In fact I have belaboured the point for years: there are mutualist memes, neutral memes and parasitic memes, and I apply the insights of memetics to them all.
Why do those who dislike the idea of memes persist in misrepresenting it? Is it perhaps because they can’t think of any good objections?
We're still on the brink
Allan Nadel says we shouldn’t worry, humanity will find a way out of the energy problem, and he cites the earlier predictions of dire consequences by the Club of Rome or Paul Ehrlich that came to nothing (25 March, p 24).
Just because we found a temporary solution to the problem of feeding the world 鈥� the green revolution 鈥� does not mean we will necessarily find a solution in the future, unless by “solution” one means that malnutrition forces down the birth rate. It is possible that we will find solutions in time to avoid disaster, but it is also possible that we will not. Remember, Cassandra was always right.
Diagnosing ADHD
While it is generally agreed that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is overdiagnosed and medications to treat it overprescribed, what is not discussed are the reasons why (1 April, p 8).
As your report suggested, here in the US at least, far too many prescriptions are written by physicians without expertise in diagnosis of ADHD and other psychiatric conditions. General practitioners write the vast majority of prescriptions for psychotropic medication and they do so because they can 鈥� via generic medical licensure 鈥� but they do not have the training needed to discriminate ADHD from other conditions.
But your report overlooks a critical problem. While most competent psychiatrists should be able to discriminate ADHD from an anxiety disorder, they do not have the training to tell it apart from other conditions, such as central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), with which ADHD shares symptoms. Testing to differentiate ADHD, CAPD and other learning and behavioural disorders is not routinely done, as it necessitates referral to another professional, such as a psychologist. Psychiatrists typically do the diagnosis by observation and interview (with the occasional computerised continuous performance test). This is simply inadequate. Proper diagnosis requires an adequate data pool, and without testing to rule out other conditions, the likelihood of misdiagnosis rises.
Pyschiatry’s inadequacy in diagnosis is the unacknowledged smoking gun behind the problem of too many diagnoses and too many prescriptions. Until this issue is addressed, the problems will persist.
From Ian Hare
I read with interest the letter from Oriole Parker-Rhodes, which suggested that ADHD might be less of a problem if children with the disorder could use their abilities in a positive way (8 April, p 25). I myself am a 13-year-old child with ADHD and have managed to find a direction for my energies 鈥� biology. I aim to become a biologist when I am older and currently reach a high standard in science.
Although paying attention has always been a problem for me, recently I read a book on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), and that has helped significantly with my concentration. However, the hyperactivity aspect was less significantly changed. To other children with ADHD, I would strongly suggest that you find something worthwhile to do with your life, if you have not already done so.
Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
Realities of prayer
I read with some amusement the article about prayer as an ineffective healing aid (8 April, p 6). According to the experimental protocol described, the control group of coronary bypass patients “did not receive any prayers”. Does this mean that their friends and relatives were forbidden to pray for them? If so, does anyone believe for a moment that they heeded this prohibition when their loved ones were in danger? Remember, this experiment took place in the US, where most people claim to be churchgoing Christians.
No, it is quite obvious that all three experimental groups must have received the same amount of prayer from those who really cared about them, and these are precisely the people whose prayers are most likely to be considered by a benevolent God.
The only thing this experiment proves, apart from the naivety of the experimenters themselves, is that the widespread practice of praying for people you don’t know and don’t particularly care about merely because someone has asked you to is unlikely to yield dividends. God can presumably tell the difference between prayer inspired by love and prayer driven by a sense of duty.
After Kyoto
I am grateful to Fred Pearce for highlighting my recent analysis of the environmental footprints of countries around the world (8 April, p 8). But he focused on only a secondary aspect of my work 鈥� whether or not the footprint of a country exceeds its biocapacity. The main purpose of my paper in the UN’s Natural Resources Forum (vol 30, p 27) was to determine the factors that influence the size of the environmental footprint itself. This depends strongly on per capita income (measured on the basis of purchasing-power parity) and weakly on population density. Many nations, including the UK, are more profligate than might be expected by this measurement. Australia is more frugal, and the US consumes “natural capital” at about the average rate for a country of its wealth and land ratio.
Environmental footprints and carbon emissions are closely linked. Insights from national footprinting, as well as the related concept of overshooting national biocapacity, could both be incorporated into a new formulation for a post-Kyoto climate change regime. In the transition to a sustainable future, countries would have to satisfy a basket of criteria, not just per capita carbon emissions.
This pathway might span the 21st century and could well benefit the likes of Australia and the US in the short term. But we need to get them properly engaged in climate change negotiations in order to induce China and India to come to the negotiating table. If these populous and rapidly developing nations continue to burn coal in order to power their growth, we are all going to suffer the environmental consequences over the long term. Nowhere in my paper do I suggest equating Bangladesh and the US in terms of their carbon emissions or environmental footprints, as implied in Pearce’s article.
I hope that Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute is prepared to engage with engineers and physical scientists, rather than criticise from the sidelines. The notion of an “earthshare” (equal per capita carbon quotas allocated to all countries across the world), to which he is wedded, is an ethical construct 鈥� a value judgement about fair national shares in carbon emissions. It is not the only possible basis for climate change discussions, and we might all benefit from having various protagonists put their carbon cards on the table.
SUV adverts, round 2
Your defence of New 杏吧原创 continuing to run ads for SUVs while taking a strong stand on climate change is a bizarre piece of doublethink, effectively claiming hypocrisy as evidence of integrity (8 April, p 24).
It is depressing to think that the editorial staff of NS are so weak that they need to be defended against commercial pressures in this way, particularly when the effect is also to protect advertising sales staff from having to consider such matters as the impact on the credibility of the magazine, the morality of running such ads at all and the opinions of your readers.
At the same time, the idea that the NS editor does not consider commercial matters is ludicrous. Do you really never attend a budget meeting? Have you no say in the hiring or pay of staff? Do you know nothing of the commercial aims of the magazine? Are you completely uninvolved in pricing?
No, it won’t wash. You are not some naive 颈苍驳茅苍耻 who needs protecting from commercial wolves. Your distinction between the commercial and editorial aspects of the magazine is artificial and your abdication of any moral responsibility for the advertising content of NS is reprehensible.
From Doug Dwyer
I suggest that the car manufacturers who place advertising in New 杏吧原创 did not choose the magazine in the anticipation of increased sales of their unnecessarily polluting product to a readership of scientists and engineers.
Rather their tactic draws on the advertising ploy of repetition and familiarity to minimise the dislike your influential readers may feel for their product. The majority of them could not afford such vehicles anyway.
It may be that the stronger the evidence correlating vehicle pollution and global warming cited in your editorials, the greater will be the investment in such advertising.
Northlew, Devon, UK