| Majority of Caesareans Are Done Before Labor A new study suggests several reasons for the nation’s rising Caesarean section rate. feeds.nytimes.com |
Humour: it's genetic! Bringing science into comedy One comedian's brave attempts to put science into stand up. (Guest post by Dean Burnett)Alice Bell recently did a very insightful article about the pros and cons of using humour in science, and referenced its growing popularity in online articles and blogs. Whether a cause or effect, the success of Robin Ince and colleagues reveals that combining science and comedy is becoming increasingly popular practice. But how does one go about introducing science into comedy, rather than the other way round? And what do non-London-based scientists do if they want some live comedy aimed at them? If they're desperate enough to trawl the internet for hours, they can contact me. As a recently qualified doctor of neuroscience who's also been a stand-up comedian for over five years, I've become something of a go-to guy for science conferences wanting a scientific comedy routine to round things off. As someone experienced in both science and comedy but currently not employed by either, I'm always glad of the work. However, so rare is my background that I am often asked to make jokes about and poke fun at areas of science that I know little about, in front of people who are experts in it. Preparing a routine about a field of study that isn't your own is fraught with unique challenges. Case in point: I was recently asked to perform at a conference of geneticists, meaning I had to do a 15 minute set about genetics. Although my studies crossed into genetics quite frequently, I've always found it very confusing. So confusing, in fact, that the original request for me to do the conference confused me.I had appeared at another conference several months before, and afterwards I was approached by a female professor who asked: "Do you have any genetics material?" This isn't a typical post-gig question, so I wasn't expecting it. I genuinely thought she asked, "Do you have any genetic material?" This alarmed me somewhat; I'm not at the level where I've been asked for my autograph yet, so for an unknown person to ask for a sample of my DNA for whatever reason was unprecedented. And terrifying. However, as a scientist, I felt compelled to be accurate. I told her yes, I do have genetic material (14.5 stone of it at last count, more if you include the leather in my belt)."Would you come and give us some at a conference in a few months?" was the even more unnerving follow-up question. I was struck with visions of me repeatedly swabbing myself and passing them. An unpleasant prospect, but out of all the methods I could think of to "donate" genetic material it was the most socially acceptable.Luckily, at this point I realised what she was asking, so agreed to perform at the conference, and prepare some "genetics and general science jokes". Trying to write jokes about science is, to me at least, a difficult task. Jokes and science are logically opposite in their purpose, so my efforts to combine them, even at a basic and familiar level, gave questionable results. For example:"Knock, knock" "Who's there?" "A disembodied kidney" "You taking the piss?" "Not anymore""Knock, knock" "Who's there?" "A logical paradox" "I'll be with you two minutes ago""Doctor Doctor, I feel like a pair of curtains!" "Really? That's a previously unheard of psychological disorder, would you mind if I wrote a paper about this?"Two scientists walk into a bar. The first one hits his head. The second one does too, in order to verify his results.A horse walks into a bar, and the barman says, "Why the long face?" "Evolutionary selective pressures," replies the horseAs if two different species, the product of combining science and jokes is unnatural, and strangely sterile. I also refrained from using the obvious "what do you get if you cross a sheep with a kangaroo" joke in front of a gang of geneticists, because a) They may take the question literally, and b) It might give them ideas. Genetics jokes are thin on the ground. Someone told me to take what jokes I have and recombine them, doubling my total. My friend Dave told me to just think of one joke and tell it over and over again, because geneticists should love "GAG repeats". I didn't understand the reference myself, though, but was assured it was funny.Genetics jokes rarely feature in the mainstream. This may be because it's not a very well understood subject outside the lab; ask a typical person what a retrovirus is and they'll probably think of influenza in the 70s, or maybe some long-tailed protein wearing flairs and a tank-top. This ignorance may be due in part to the fact that for quite some time, as far as the media was concerned, genetics was the bad-boy of science; unleashing GM crops into the wild one minute, attempting to crack the human genome the next (in response to the latter, I'm sure I once heard someone say: "We should stop them! We're still using it!"). Then the particle physicists tried to rip a hole in the universe and took the heat off. But the paranoia surrounding genetics still subsists, revealed recently by the furore surrounding cloned cows. People are still wary of cloning, perhaps understandably. My co-comic Dan Thomas mentioned someone he knows stating that they were scared of cloning, to which he replied: "That makes two of us," which didn't help matters. The cloned cow "scandal" amused me greatly though. Firstly, the cows in question weren't clones, but the offspring of clones. If we were to suffer ill-effects from eating animals that were the combined DNA of two separate creatures, I'm sure we would have found out by now. And as far as I know, no beef-eating customer has complained of bizarre side effects, or even noticed. Admittedly, it would take an extremely sensitive palette to determine if a burger tasted "suspiciously similar" to one consumed the previous week.There are several questions I would like to raise with the scaremongering papers regarding their coverage of this story.How exactly do pictures of "some cows" indicate they are derived from clone stock? Cows look fairly similar to each other at the best of times, and if anything the whole point of cloning means this aspect is emphasisedHow long before you find an individual who eats his body-weight in beef every week and suffers ill health, and tries to blame his condition on cloned meat? I know of several candidates already if you just want to get it over withDo you know how potatoes reproduce? A lot more of them are consumed than cows, are they exempt from risk for some reason? Or do you not eat vegetables yourselves, feeling it too similar to cannibalism for comfort? With publicity like this, is it any wonder that genetics gets a bad rap? I've tried to redress the balance where I can. Every time I'm in a supermarket with an organic food section, I always ask where the GM food section is. I accidentally bought some organic ketchup once. Highly processed sugar-rich bright red condiment: just as nature intended.Flippancy aside, the field of genetics is often much maligned, quite unfairly in my opinion. So, I felt it only fair to try and bring some levity to the subject. Despite my best efforts though, I couldn't come up with much, so after being announced as the final "speaker" of the conference, following a two hour discussion about how the impending budget cuts will impact on everyone's research (in fairness, I've had worse introductions), I explained to them how difficult it was to write a routine about genetics, raising the same issues as I've covered in this article.Much to my surprise, they seemed to really enjoy it. This was probably due to the novelty factor, but it goes to show that, despite the stereotypical image, scientists enjoy laughing about themselves and their work as much as anyone else.I don't know who it was, but a comedian I know once said: "Comedy is in the genes." Maybe so, but you have to dig damn hard to find it.Dean Burnett is a doctor of neuroscience, co-founder of Skeptics in the Pub: Cardiff, organiser of numerous science and academic-themed comedy nights and regularly writes satirical and/or humorous pieces about scientific and sceptical issues at his blog, Science Digestive.Martin Robbinsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Taser firm loses licence after Raoul Moat stand-off Pro-Tect stripped of right to import and sell stun guns after supplying weapons direct to police rather than Home OfficeThe Home Office licence of the company that supplied the Tasers used during the standoff with gunman Raoul Moat was revoked today by the home secretary .The Home Office said the company involved, Pro-Tect systems, had breached its licence by supplying X12 Tasers directly to the police. The licence only gave the firm permission to supply the stun guns to the Home Office's science and development branch for testing.The Home Office also said Pro-Tect breached "rules governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition".The move means that Pro-Tect, the only supplier of Tasers in the UK, will no longer be able to import and sell the devices.The decision followed media reports that the Tasers fired at Moat during the six-hour standoff in Rothbury, Northumberland, were not licensed. The gunman's death brought the standoff to an end.Moat was on the run last July after shooting his former girlfriend, Samantha Stobbart, 22, killing her boyfriend, Chris Brown, 29, and blinding PC David Rathband, 42.Northumbria firearms officers fired two Tasers at the former nightclub doorman in an "effort to stop him taking his own life", the inquest into his death was told.James Brokenshire, the Home Office minister, said in a letter to the Commons home affairs select committee that short-term authority had been granted to allow Pro-Tect to dispose of its remaining stock. "You will wish to know that we are working with Acpo [the Association of Chief Police Officers] to ensure that police forces continue to have adequate Taser stocks to cover any transition."The Home Office said it was satisfied that the company had supplied Tasers and ammunition to Northumbria police and another police force contrary to its authority. There was no suggestion that firearms officers were at fault.A Home Office spokesman said: "Inquiries following the Raoul Moat operation revealed Pro-Tect breached its licence by supplying Tasers direct to police … The inquiries carried out by Northamptonshire police also revealed the company breached rules governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition. Faced with these breaches, the home secretary has decided to revoke Pro-Tect's licence to supply Tasers."The X12 Taser is fired from a 12-gauge shotgun and was being tested by the Home Office before being approved for use by police forces in England and Wales.The Home Office stressed that the police could use any weapon they saw fit as long as its use was lawful, reasonable and proportionate.The Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation into the circumstances of Moat's death is continuing. An IPCC spokesman said that it was looking into the acquisition, authorisation and deployment of the XRep Tasers from a police perspective. The licensing of weapons, however, was a matter for the Home Office, he said.Amnesty International said it was seriously concerned that the Taser appeared to have been used without going through the official weapons testing and approval process. "The Taser XRep is a potentially lethal weapon which fires electric shock bullet-like capsules from a standard 12-gauge shotgun or the new-style Taser weapon," said Oliver Sprague, for Amnesty. "It can send up to 20 seconds of the same intense and debilitating pain as the traditional Taser. The traditional Taser sends five seconds of electric shock."Raoul MoatPoliceWeapons technologyArms tradeAlan Travisguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Foes Outspend Backers of Proposition 23 A coalition of environmentalists, investors and Silicon Valley technology companies is raking in the cash as they fight a move to repeal California's global warming law. feeds.nytimes.com |
Mystery Bird: Gadwall, Anas strepera Bottoms up! This lovely bird can be found throughout much of North America, Europe and Asia. Includes a Birdnote radio podcast featuring calls of this speciesPair of Gadwalls, Anas strepera, photographed in Bonelli Park in San Dimas, California, USA.Image: Steve Duncan [with binoculars].This is a pair of Gadwalls, Anas strepera, feeding. This strongly migratory species has a large breeding range, encompassing the northern regions of Europe, Asia, and central North America, extending from the the Saint Lawrence River through the Great Lakes, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Dakotas, south to Kansas, west to California, and along coastal Pacific Canada and into southern coastal Alaska. Embedded below is a 2 minute radio programme about the gadwall, thanks to my friends at BirdNote Radio:If you have bird images, video or mp3 files that you'd like to share with a large and appreciate audience, feel free to email them to me for consideration.GrrlScientistguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |