TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Observatory: How Hummingbirds Get Their Nectar With Tiny ‘Straws’ Hummingbirds take advantage of the forces of surface tension to extract nectar from a flower. feeds.nytimes.com |
My week | Simon Singh The noted science writer considers his forthcoming libel action and the campaign to reform England's libel lawsI returned to Imperial College, my alma mater, to attend the 60th birthday dinner of Felix, the college newspaper. As I am being sued for libel at the moment, it was interesting to hear that the threat to free speech also has an impact on student journalism. The newspaper's motto is "Keep the Cat Free" and it has always been willing to criticise the student union, but last year the union's constitution was used to prevent the publication of certain articles. In response, the editor modified the newspaper's cat logo to show Felix gagged with a red snooker ball.The British Chiropractic Association's case against me has dominated my life for the last 18 months. I met my legal team, Adrienne Page and Robert Dougans, to work out the key research projects. We were recently given permission to appeal over an adverse ruling on the meaning of my article and the date for the appeal has been set for 22 February. Winning the appeal (even partially) will make an enormous difference to my chance of defending my article about the lack of evidence concerning chiropractic treatment of childhood asthma, ear infections and colic.The appeal decision on meaning (the preliminary stage of the legal process) will eventually come almost two years after the article was published, so the trial and further appeals could lead to a battle that lasts for another two years. I will battle on even if I lose the appeal.One reason for continuing is that my case helps to highlight some of the problems at the heart of the English libel system. Legally, the odds are stacked in favour of claimants and against journalists. Financially, the costs are so utterly extreme that journalists often cannot afford to defend themselves, hence apologies are given and articles retracted, even if the journalist believes that the contents are accurate.The result is that those with money and power can sue journalists, scientists, medical researchers, academic journals, bloggers, local newspapers and even national newspapers and effectively silence them. The end result is that you do not get read the whole truth.On Wednesday, there was the launch of a campaign for libel reform, which was followed by a parliamentary launch. It was amazing to see such an eclectic mix of supporters speaking up for libel reform, including Fiona Godlee (British Medical Journal editor), Dave Gorman, Malcolm Grant (provost of University College, London) and MPs from all the major parties, including Evan Harris, Michael Gove and Denis MacShane.The roots of the campaign can be traced back to humble beginnings in May, when the charity Sense About Science began rallying scientists and the blogger Jack of Kent organised a pub rally in support of libel reform. In parallel, Index on Censorship and English PEN published a report on libel reform. So far, however, the mainstream media have largely ignored the issue, but last week there was some good coverage of the campaign launch and let's hop that will continue in the months ahead. The highlight of my week was waking up to see Dara O'Briain arguing for libel reform on the BBC's Breakfast news.I will not go into all the gory details, but the bottom line is that England is universally acknowledged as having the most censorious libel laws in the free world. In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticised the UK because the "practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as 'libel tourism'".America is in the process of protecting its citizens from our unjust libel laws by stating that English libel judgments cannot be enforced on the other side of the Atlantic. In the meantime, major American publishers have suggested that they will stop publishing in the UK and block internet access to their sites in order to protect themselves from our libel laws.In mainland Europe, legal experts ask why our libel process is more than 100 times more expensive than in their own countries. The result is that intimidation via English libel laws forces authors either to back down or risk losing everything. Peter Wilmshurst, an eminent cardiologist, is currently being sued for libel for questioning the data surrounding a new heart device. If he loses, perhaps on a technicality, he will face bankruptcy.The week ends back at Imperial College with a lecture. My goal will be to persuade every science student and researcher to sign up to libel reform. This issue affects everyone, but in science it is critical that we can freely criticise ideas. This is not about protecting those writers who are malicious or reckless, as the law should not and will not protect them, but it is about allowing the robust criticism of ideas despite pressure from those with vested interests.I suspect that I will be preaching to the converted, as Imperial College was home to one of world's great free speech advocates. The college emerged out of the Royal College of Science, and HG Wells established the Royal College of Science Magazine in 1891. He went to become a founder member of PEN, the writers' association, and helped draw up the PEN charter, which includes the statement: "PEN stands for the principle of unhampered transmission of thought within each nation and between all nations; and members pledge themselves to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in their country and community."My libel case will keep me busy, distracted and mildly depressed for the next two years, but I hope that my spirits will be lifted by the notion that the campaign for libel reform may succeed. If tens of thousands sign the petition for libel reform (www.libelreform.org), then maybe Wells's vision of free speech will find a home not just in America, Europe and the rest of the free world, but also in England.The Singh CVThe LifeBorn in Wellington, Somerset, 1964. Educated at Wellington School, Imperial College, London, and Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Appointed MBE in 2003. Lives in London with his wife, Anita Anand.The WorkTV director and producer, 1990-1997 (Tomorrow's World, Horizon), then full-time writer. Author of Fermat's Last Theorem, The Code Book, Trick or Treatment? and Big Bang. Also broadcaster and lecturer. This week featuring in Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People at London venues. the Bloomsbury Theatre and Hammersmith Apollo.LawSimon Singhguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Aussie scientists find coconut-carrying octopus SYDNEY (AP) -- Australian scientists have discovered an octopus in Indonesia that collects coconut shells for shelter - unusually sophisticated behavior that the researchers believe is the first evidence of tool use in an invertebrate animal.... hosted.ap.org |
Really?: The Claim: Milk Thistle Is Good for the Liver Do extracts of the milk thistle plant promote a healthy liver? feeds.nytimes.com |
This column will change your life: To be or not to be… It's 45 years since David Bourland suggested doing away with the verb "to be". A silly suggestion, one might think, but look a little closer and it makes a weird kind of senseForty-five years ago, the author David Bourland published an essay proposing a radical overhaul of English based on eliminating all forms of the verb "to be". In a world where we all spoke E-Prime, as Bourland called this new language, you couldn't say "Sandra Bullock's latest film is shockingly mediocre"; you'd have to say it "seems mediocre to me". Shakespeare productions would need retooling ("To live or not to live, I ask this question"), as would the Bible ("The Lord functions as my shepherd"). The world, in short, would feel very different – though in E-Prime you couldn't actually say it "was" very different. Unsurprisingly, it proved even less popular than Esperanto, and in fairness Bourland never meant it as a serious replaceÂment for English. But in this anniversary year, his eccentric vision deserves celebrating. Because in theory at least, E-Prime aimed at nothing less than using language to make our insane lives a little more sane.Bourland studied under Alfred Korzybski, a Polish aristocrat émigré who founded the philosophy of General Semantics, made famous by his slogan, "The map is not the territory." To think about and function in the world, Korzybski said, we rely on systems of abstract concepts, most obviously language. But those concepts don't reflect the world in a straightforward way; instead, they contain hidden traps that distort reality, causing confusion and angst. And the verb "to be", he argued, contains the most traps of all.Take the phrase, "My brother is lazy." It seems clear, but Korzybski and Bourland would say it deceives: it implies certainty and objectivity, when in reality it expresses an opinion. Even, "The sky is blue" papers over the details: I really mean, "The sky appears blue to me." "Our judgments can only be probaÂbiÂlistic," wrote Allen Walker Read, a Korzybski follower. "Therefore we would do well to avoid finalistic, absolutistic terms. Can we ever find 'perfection' or 'certainty' or 'truth'? No! Then let us stop using such words in our formulations." E-Prime provided an easy way to do this: simply stop using "to be".All this might seem maniacally pointless pedantry. But as cognitive therapists note, thoughts trigger emotions, and "finalistic, absolutistic" thoughts trigger stressful emotions. "I am a failure" feels permanent, all-encompassing, hopeless. Restating it in E-Prime – "I feel like a failure" or "I have failed at this task" – makes it limited, temporary, addressable."I have found repeatedly," wrote the novelist Robert Anton Wilson, an E-Prime advocate, "that when baffled by a problem in science, in philosophy, or in daily life, I gain immediate insight by writing down what I know about the enigma in strict E-Prime." Political debates might benefit, too, since E-Prime renders unyielding dogmatism – "All immigrants are scroungers!", "Taxation is theft!" etcetera – essentially impossible. As George Santayana put it, "The little word 'is' has its tragedies."E-Prime never really caught on; General Semantics fell out of fashion. (It can't have helped that Korzybski's fans included that high-priest of poppycock, L Ron Hubbard.) Even so, trying to express one's thoughts without using "to be" can have a curiously salutary, bracing effect. In this column, with the obvious exception of the quoted examples, I have attempted to do this.oliver.burkeman@guardian.co.ukPsychologyHealth & wellbeingOliver Burkemanguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |