Month: February 2012

David Bradley, RSC member, is to star in the forthcoming series of long-running BBC sci-fi TV show Doctor Who. Of course, unfortunately it’s not this David Bradley nor is it that RSC that are involved. The less well-known David Bradley, who plays the caretaker or something in some movie about a boy wizard and is a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company is set to get another Doctorate when he appears in series/season 7 of the show. Apparently, that David Bradley cut his teeth in the franchise as the voice of the vulturine Shansheeth character in The Sarah Jane Adventures story Death of the Doctor.

Thanks to Jen Gristock for alerting me to this marvellous news. Other guest stars in the new series will include Rupert Graves, well known as Detective Inspector Lestrade in Steven Moffat’s other show Sherlock (Doctor Who is basically Sherlock with a sonic screwdriver, Tardis and alien nasties, and Prof Moriarty simply becomes The Master). Mark Williams (of Fast Show fame who also plays alongside Bradley in the Harry Potter movies as Arthur Weasley and was recently a vampire historian in Being Human).

Intriguingly, the original Paget illustration of Moriarty bears an uncanny resemblance to that David Bradley…and if he wore reading glasses, probably to me too…

Today’s Google Doodle celebrates the life of scientist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (February 22, 1857 — January 1, 1894) born this day 1857. The German physicist clarified and expanded the electromagnetic theory of light that had initially been developed by Scottish scientist James Clerk Maxwell. Hertz was the first to conclusively prove the existence of electromagnetic waves by designing instruments to transmit and receive radio pulses using experimental procedures that ruled out all other known wireless phenomena. He was immortalised in our system of physical units as providing the unit of frequency.

Interestingly, electromagnetic radiation features in the news today as politicians are once again concerned about the devastating effects a pulse of electromagnetic radiation either from the sun or from a nuclear weapon detonated high above a country.

It’s a cliche…the headline, I mean. Many of us, on reading yet another statistic from a government department, a merchant banker or a scaremongering tabloid health story, recognise that statistics are anything but infallible, they are malleable, they can be manipulated to any given end. The raw data is raw, but give it a spin and it can prove any fact fiction or remove the fiction and replace it with fact. Of course, in scientific research there is no escaping them. They are essential to the interpretation of results, but even in the most credible laboratory has to make a choice about how to process its raw data and to retain its integrity in presenting results.

There are numerous ways to apply statistical analysis each with its own merits and limitations. Two of the most fundamental are:

• Regression
• Time series analysis

Khalil Al Jerjawi of the University of Western Sydney, discusses the application of these statistical tools in management research in a forthcoming issue of IJLSE.

Regression

“Regressions are used to compare the effects of two or more independent variables on a dependent variable,” he explains. There are numerous regression techniques including linear regression a parametric technique in which the regression function is defined in terms of a finite number of unknown parameters based on experience with the data). However, there also are non-parametric regression techniques that can be multiply dimensional.

Regression analysis can be used to extrapolate data, a point often exploited in making wild predictions and forecasts based on the perception that a trend will continue even if data is limited. However, application of regression relies on assumptions about the data and can lead to spurious results if data sets are relatively small or there are many outliers in a sample. Aside from wild extrapolations, regression often leads to the conclusion that because two or more variable are correlated that the correlation means one causes the other, this is not necessarily the case. The number of calls to the emergency fire services rises as the number of fires increases, this does not imply that calls to the emergency services cause fires.

Time series analysis

A time series is nothing more than data collected at uniform time intervals. The daily closing prices of Dow Jones index or the height of the Nile River at Aswan, for example. Time series analysis then uses various techniques to pull out the characteristics of the data from the series and, of course, to use this to predict the next data point in the series. Depending on the data being sampled this can be straightforward and reliable, perhaps as with rivers, or entirely spurious as is more common with finance. Time series analysis of climate data are the perfect example of how statistics can be manipulated to prove or deny a “fact”.

Obviously, by definition, time series are ordered. This is in stark contrast to other data sampling techniques. For instance, it doesn’t really matter in what order you count the fruit hanging on apple trees in an orchard to assess fertiliser quality, but it does matter if you’re monitoring the impact of daily temperatures rises and falls on when the fruit ripens. Similarly, time series analysis is distinct from spatial data analysis where data points are recorded in relation to geography (where the trees are in relation to the farm buildings and walls, for instance. According to Wikipedia: “A time series model will generally reflect the fact that observations close together in time will be more closely related than observations further apart. In addition, time series models will often make use of the natural one-way ordering of time so that values for a given period will be expressed as deriving in some way from past values, rather than from future values.” The trap that those interpretating time series can fall into is that past events are not necessarily a good predictor of future outcomes in many, many cases.

We all know of countless studies that seemingly contradict each other. The climate change “debate” is perhaps one of the most controversial, although the case for vaccination, for genetically modified food, for pharmaceutical intervention in medicine all succumb to the intrinsic assumptions of statistics and the willingness of the media to manipulate them to their own ends. One week, coffee causes cancer, the next the antioxidants in coffee prevent cancer. Yesterday, red wine was anathema, tomorrow it’s the best thing since…it’s not as if it’s the same data sets being interpreted.

Khalil Al Jerjawi (2012). Methods of statistical analysis: an overview and critique of common practices in research studies Int. J. Liability and Scientific Enquiry, 5 (1), 32-36

The idea of open science means different things to different people, but primarily it is about community, the scientific community and beyond. At a time when commercial publishers are coming under increasing pressure there are boycotts and rebellions and the new wave of open access publishers are incrementally filling the widening gaps, the whole 300-year old concepts that underpin modern science are being disrupted. The concepts from social media and citizen journalism are spilling over into science and the concepts of peer review, reproducibility and how we train the next generation of scientists are all being shaken up.

There are obstacles to full-scale adoption, not least the fact that 300 years of tradition are not quietly overturned despite the desires of those who have laid bare the flaws. While many scientists recognise the benefits, there are concerns that these new forms of publication and education can take a lot more time and effort and at a time when economic strife is a seriously limiting factor (as it always was), the inclination to overturn the system may be there but the power…the money…to do so may be absent. Then there are the concerns regarding whether one’s output might be used without citation.

Again, it’s an old issue, couched in modern terms. Creative Commons licensing exists and some are willing to share their rights and go copy left with or without attribution or credit, others are not. Perhaps one of the most important issues that has been with us throughout human history is that one may expend energy and reap none of the rewards. Indeed, competitors may gain advantage from one’s efforts. Many of us are all for altruism, but generally not if it leads to our own personal demise.

Peter Kraker and Günter Beham of Graz University of Technology, Austria, Derick Leony of Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain and Wolfgang Reinhardt of the University of Paderborn, Germany, writing in the IJTEL make the case for open science in technology enhanced learning. In their view, “Open science means opening up the research process by making all of its outcomes, and the way in which these outcomes were achieved, publicly available on the World Wide Web.” I assume they actually mean the wider Internet, given that many of the tools available may not necessarily be part of the Web, but you get the idea. They suggests that adopting open science could bring together disparate communities as well as leading to open methodology so that researchers in the field can work with the materials and tools made available and reproduce (or not, as the case may be) research results.

Of course, concepts are one thing. The best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. But, what is now needed for open science to progress are evangelists, people to spread the good word and to share the benefits and actually the disadvantages too. To bring the community together and to find a way forward, not only in TEL and TEL research but in the wider realm of science. “It is crucial to make the research community aware…and to support researchers in use and re-use of the available data and other [resources],” the team concludes.

Peter Kraker, Derick Leony, Wolfgang Reinhardt, & Günter Beham (2012). The case for an open science in technology enhanced learning Int. J. Technology Enhanced Learning, 3 (6), 643-654

Real-life action hero Felix Baumgartner plans to take a balloon up to the edge of space and then to jump out. In freefall he hopes to break the speed record for a human travelling without a machine, the needle, as it were, reaching speeds in excess of the speed of sound. In the BBC newsclip there’s a nice simulation of the event.

Of more concern was Pallab Ghosh’s claim that if Baumgartner gets a hole in his protective space suit his blood could begin to boil because of the very low pressure at that altitude. Wrong. He might get cold and could suffocate, his saliva might bubble in his mouth, but the pressure of your blood is sufficient to prevent it from boiling even if you are hurled into a vacuum.

This is what NASA had to say on the subject:

“If you don’t try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury…theory predicts – and animal tests confirm – that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.”

UPDATE: The low pressure lowers the temperature at which blood and other body fluids boil, but the elastic pressure of blood vessels ensures that this boiling point remains above the internal body temperature. Although the blood will not boil, the formation of gas bubbles in bodily fluids at reduced pressures, known as ebullism, can cause pain although tissues are elastic and porous enough to prevent rupture. A flight suit will reduce the effects of ebullism. Shuttle astronauts wore a fitted elastic garment called the Crew Altitude Protection Suit (CAPS) which prevents ebullism at pressures as low as 2 kPa (15 Torr). More here.

A phantom limb is the perception that an amputated or missing limb or other body part is still attached to the body. The sensations, by most accounts, are unpleasant and commonly painful. Mirror therapy has been used to help alleviate some of the problems experienced by veterans, accident victims and others who have lossed limbs because of disease. A mirror box, has many limitations. Ben Blundell and colleagues at the University of Manchester, UK, thought the Microsoft Kinect gaming system coupled with an immersive 3D virtual reality environment might be able to help.

Kinect is a motion sensing input device for the Xbox 360 and Windows PCs. It is simply a webcam-style device with appropriate software that allows users to control the console or PC without needing to hold a physical game controller, mouse or keyboard: gestures (and words) are enough.

Blundell and colleagues report more details in this video and present their preliminary work at the International Conference of Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (GRAPP).

UK government minister, Lord McNally, responded for the government declining to pardon Turing:

The question of granting a posthumous pardon to Mr Turing was considered by the previous Government in 2009.

As a result of the previous campaign, the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an unequivocal posthumous apology to Mr Turing on behalf of the Government, describing his treatment as "horrifying" and "utterly unfair". Mr Brown said the country owed him a huge debt. This apology was also shown at the end of the Channel 4 documentary celebrating Mr Turing’s life and achievements which was broadcast on 21 November 2011.

A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted.

It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times.

via UK Government declines to pardon Alan Turing | John Graham-Cumming.

A team in the US has created a boron compound that has the highest coordination number of any planar species, squeezing 10 spoke-like bonds from a central metal hub to 10 boron atoms equally spaced around a nanoscopic wheel.

I asked theoretical chemist Pekka Pyykkö of the University of Helsinki, Finland, for his thoughts on the work:

“This combined experimental and theoretical discovery is in my opinion worth of any coverage you can give it. The new record of 10 for an equatorial coordination number, in a perfect symmetry group D10h, will make lovers of records happy,” he told me.

“At a deeper, quantum mechanical level, I find the electronic structure entirely logical and a pretty example of the eighteen-electron (18e) rule,” he adds. “These objects have a classical beauty.”

10 out of 10 for boron's coordinated effort.