Baby lip-readers
You report an interesting finding that adds to the mounting evidence that infants do use visual cues when learning a language (2 June, p 20). In addition, blind infants have difficulty acquiring certain phonological distinctions that are acoustically similar but visually distinct, such as “m” versus “n”.
There is compelling evidence that infants are sensitive to audiovisual compatibility in speech and that they, like adults, cannot help but integrate visual speech information in perceiving phonetic segments.
Mouse in whose house?
Dan Jones asks whether the MMTV virus that causes breast cancer in mice could do the same in humans (2 June, p 38). He cites Thomas Stewart’s findings that the subspecies of mouse more prone to the MMTV virus is found in western countries where women have a higher incidence of breast cancer.
But what of mouse distribution and breast cancer rates within these countries? It is well established that women in upper socio-economic classes have higher breast cancer mortality rates.
For example, in the UK women in the highest socio-economic group are approximately two and a half times as likely to die of breast cancer as women in the lowest group. If the MMTV mouse virus causes breast cancer in women, could one reasonably expect greater mice density in the homes and workplaces of the socially privileged, with mouse numbers gradually diminishing in less-privileged dwellings?
From John Cutting
The distribution of breast cancer rates in Europe may correlate well with that of two subspecies of mouse, but it seems to correlate at least as well with that of two subspecies of political thought.
Does Marxism-Leninism prevent tumours? And have cancer rates in the old Eastern bloc countries increased since the regime changes of 1991?
Allington, Lincolnshire, UK
Not so super water
I was surprised by the audacious claims made for Microcyn, a wound sterilent claimed to be lethal to microbes but harmless to human tissue (26 May, p 12). What you describe seems to be nothing other than the electrolysed water that has been available from multiple sources for decades.
It is claimed that the “super water” contains various types of oxychlorine ions; but all existing solutions contain hypochlorous acid, along with sodium or potassium chloride. Examination of a published paper on Microcyn suggests that hypochlorous acid is indeed the dominant biological agent. Although it is listed at a concentration of only 20 parts per million compared with 30 parts per million of sodium hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid is about 80 times as toxic as hypochlorite, and therefore is the predominant agent, just as in other commercial sterilents. So to use the term “oxychlorine ions” is acceptable at face value, but is an obvious attempt to proclaim this “super water” new and different.
Finally, it was demonstrated years ago in Japan that electrolysed water assists in the healing of wounds. Overall, what was surprising was the size of the article given the lack of real information provided.
The editor writes:
鈥� The company, Oculus, provided this response: “Our novel electrolysis method generates a unique mixture of oxychlorine compounds with significantly improved properties, as demonstrated through at least 15 studies, more than a dozen of them peer-reviewed and published.
“Even though we have nine issued patents, 30 application claims are pending including those on chemical composition, so regrettably we are unable to reveal more about the chemistry of Microcyn at this time. Similarly, to avoid disclosing proprietary information, we probably oversimplified our explanation of how our product retains its long shelf-life, when it would have been better to say nothing. The wound healing data was from Wounds (vol 18, p 262).”
Further trials are in progress and we will report on them.
Market mayhem
Robert Matthews provides no analysis or comment on whether the stock market strategies he describes actually add any value for the ultimate investor, the fund manager’s client (2 June, p 42). Since the market is dominated by institutional investors, a short-term advantage for one over the other may provide a transient and illusory profit.
The persistence of these “excess” profits is virtually non-existent; it is the equivalent of the proverbial rearrangement of deckchairs.
I am constantly amazed that apparently rational individuals, who spend their professional lives immersed in empirical data, are unaware of the huge volume of peer-reviewed studies showing that investment markets are sufficiently efficient that there cannot be any consistent, assured benefit from the gambling-pit of speculation.
Creative countering
Lawrence Krauss says parents should be ready to bring lawsuits against any school system that takes students to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, using public money (26 May, p 24). I suggest preparing a short refutation of each exhibit there, with a bibliography for each. Lawsuits should be brought only against those schools that send students to the museum but do not provide this material.
The editor writes:
鈥� Lawrence Krauss has worked on such a brochure, available from
What creation?
The very least we can ask of any system, scientific or religious, is that it not be blatantly self-contradictory. Creationists like to nit-pick evolution, trying to put scientists on the defensive.
But creation proponents believe in “the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and in the literal historicity of Genesis, with its record of six-day Creation,” as one says on the website of the Institute for Creation Research.
In Genesis, chapter 1, plants and animals were created before any human, yet in chapter 2, man was created first, then the plants, the animals and, lastly, woman.
The creationists should be called to account: which scriptural creation story is incorrect? How do they know? How can “inerrant scripture” contain something incorrect?
And for best invention…
Now that your best-ever-invention competition is over and there is absolutely no risk of being shot into space for doing so, I would like to pass on an answer from a group of people who should know. In 1978 BBC TV followed 12 volunteers living in a recreated Iron Age village in the Wiltshire woods. They left behind almost all modern technology and did their best to recreate every aspect of Iron Age living: rats, maggoty meat and all.
Twenty years later, the BBC brought some original volunteers together to share how the experience had changed them (and wring out an extra hour of cheap-to-make TV). The best-invention-ever question was one of those put to them.
Most of them hadn’t particularly missed modern life, and some were still living without a large number of 20th-century conveniences, but memories of a year trudging through authentic Iron Age mud had left them emphatic about one thing. The most important invention since the Iron Age is the wellington boot. So now we know.
For the record
鈥� The cover illustration of our US edition of 23 June should have been credited to Jon Krause
Poor ore
Jonathan Cardy takes the traditional approach to mineral resource availability that completely fails to consider the implications for the environment of this laissez-faire attitude (16 June, p 26). In the UK and many other countries sustainable development is government policy and this requires consideration of the environment among other issues.
There are two problems for the environment with the traditional approach of extracting minerals from lower and lower grade of ores. Firstly, it will require increasing amounts of energy that at present are likely to be provided mainly by fossil fuels, thus increasing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Secondly, it generates ever increasing amounts of waste material to be disposed of, which can cause significant environmental problems.
"K" is funny…
With all due respect to Richard Wiseman (12 May, p 46), celebrated comedian Mel Brooks actually pinpointed “k” as the comedy catch-all in Melvin Helitzer’s book Comedy Writing Secrets. “Instead of saying ‘salmon’, ‘turkey’ is a funnier sound,” he says. He is also said to have called the “k” sound the funniest sound in the English language.
So kudos, Mr Wiseman, for bringing attention to this important debate, but do give credit where its due.
Answers not in Genesis
Thomas Shipp defends Answers in Genesis from the accusation that it is intellectually dishonest (16 June, p 26). Specifically, he claims that they can reasonably reject “dubious” science-based statements about history, while accepting the science of what we can observe directly.
As Shipp is doubtless aware, Answers in Genesis claims that the universe did not exist until about 6000 years ago. As he is also doubtless aware, we can directly observe galaxies tens of millions of light years distant.
That is to say, we can directly observe events which occurred tens of millions of years ago. Answers in Genesis accepts that we can make such direct observations, but argues that the obvious deduction must be wrong 鈥� not because it is “dubious”, but because it conflicts with Genesis, chapter 1.
The simple fact of the matter is that Answers in Genesis does not base its acceptance of science on whether or not it relates to direct observation. Any science which conflicts with its chosen ancient religious oral tradition is rejected. Any science which can be misrepresented or otherwise coerced into supporting the absurd fantasy that the Genesis creation myths are literal truth is loudly trumpeted as objective evidence.
This is the acme of intellectual dishonesty.
I visited the Answers in Genesis website over a year ago, and concluded that its philosophical premise and raison d’etre is as follows: humans are fallible, God is not. Therefore the “Word of God” is the sole criterion for determining the validity of humanly proposed scientific theories and hypotheses.
The website provides for the submission of questions, with the request that the questions be serious and respectful.
I submitted the following question. From the time of Pythagoras, 2500 years ago, to the present day, could they provide just one example of a scientific discovery that had arisen from studying the scriptures? Strangely, the organisation never replied.
Boycott or not?
The Royal Society, which opposes the disgraceful decision of the University and College Union to prepare for a boycott of Israeli institutions (9 June, p 5), is a member of the International Council for Science (ICSU) 鈥� which has also condemned the boycott in the strongest possible terms.
One of ICSU’s foundation stones is the principle of the universality of science: that there should be no discrimination among scientists “on the basis of such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age”. This principle of universality is crucial. First, since the advance of science is of net benefit to all humankind (even though some particular scientific advances are undoubtedly harmful), we are all the losers if gratuitous obstacles are put in its way.
Second, contact between scientists in different countries can act as a powerful force against xenophobic nationalism. Once we start to see that our “enemies” are tackling the same kinds of research question as we are, we are less inclined to see them as dangerously alien.
Third, judging scientific contributions by the characteristics of their authors is a perversion of the objectivity that science requires. We no longer contrast German physics with Jewish physics, as the Nazis did.
If boycotts are now to be demanded in an attempt to influence the disputes in Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Tibet and Chechnya, we can wave goodbye to the universality of science and to the international collaborations from which we have all gained so much.
From Hilda Meers
Would a boycott be admissible to free-thinking academia, or should “business as usual” continue? Business as usual gives the Israeli government confidence in continuing its strategy, in which preventing educational opportunities for Palestinian students plays an integral part.
Restrictions include the closure of Palestinian universities, loss of access through curfews when they are reopened, checkpoints, unnecessary searches, military actions and detention without trial of students and staff. Palestinian academics have resorted to organising archaeology and chemistry classes in private homes, since students caught carrying textbooks in these subjects are imprisoned.
Yet no Israeli academic institution, association or union has as yet publicly opposed their government’s racial discrimination. Every university has a military checkpoint, where visiting lecturers with foreign passports are frequently harassed or even deported.
While Palestinian organisations call for a boycott 鈥� of institutions not of individuals 鈥� the opposing point of view is expressed, for example, by Mitch Simmons, campaign director for the Union of Jewish Students.
As he puts it, “Academic freedom is part of the fabric of modern society. The exchange of information and the advancement of human knowledge should have no borders.”
Precisely. But academic freedom must necessarily include academic freedom for Palestinians. Nor is it the case that all peoples of Jewish heritage (in which category I am proud to include myself) go along with Zionist policies, which are an abrogation of the humane values inherent in Judaism.
Whitehills, Aberdeenshire, UK
From Phil Bowles
In arguing that there are no grounds for treating scientific boycotts as a “special case” distinct from trading or sporting bans, your editorial may miss the point being raised by organisations such as the Royal Society in their opposition to such blanket boycotts.
A political or sporting boycott is not simply a principled expression of outrage aimed at shaming the target regime into compliance. It is a pragmatic measure that acts directly by attempting to limit a government’s revenues.
With no mechanism for influencing government policy, a scientific boycott of this nature would not merely be ineffective, but would seem to misunderstand the way in which boycotts are intended to bring about policy changes.
The recent ban by the Australian government on cricketers playing in Zimbabwe did not close the door on games between the Australian and Zimbabwean teams in other countries, where the Zimbabwean government would not benefit financially.
If this can be treated as a “special case”, allowing cooperation between blameless parties from both countries where an intolerable government will reap no rewards, why not the similar situation of collaborating with researchers who have the bad luck to belong to a politically unpopular nationality?
Townsville, Queensland, Australia