If Science Had Been Invented More Than Once

Last night, at a Vietnamese restaurant, I had an avocado shake for dessert. On the way home I stopped at a Chinese bakery and got garlic pork cookies. Had science, like cooking, been invented more than once, what would other scientific traditions — other ways of doing science — look like? My guess is they would not include:

1. Treating results with p = 0.04 quite differently than results with p = 0.06. Use of an arbitrary dividing line (p = 0.05) makes little sense.

2. Departments of Statistics. Departments of Scientific Tools, yes; but to put all one’s resources into figuring out how to analyze data and none into figuring out how to collect it is unwise. The misallocation is even worse because most of the effort in a statistics department goes into figuring out how to test ideas; little goes into figuring out how to generate ideas. In other words, almost all the resources go toward solving one-quarter of the problem.

3. Passive acceptance of a negative bias. The average scientist thinks it is better to be negative (”skeptical”) than positive when reacting to other people’s work. What is the positive equivalent of skeptical — a word that means appreciative in a “good” way? (Just as skeptical means disbelieving in a “good” way.) There isn’t one. However, there’s gullible, further showing the bias. Is there a word that means too skeptical, just as gullible means too accepting? Nope. The overall negative bias is (male) human nature, I believe; it’s the absence of attempts to overcome the bias that is cultural. I used to subscribe to the newsletter of the Center For Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). I stopped after I read an article about selenium that had been prompted by a new study showing that selenium supplements reduced the rate of some cancer (skin cancer?). In the newsletter article, someone at CSPI pointed out some flaws in the study. Other data supported the idea that selenium reduces cancer (and showed that the supposed flaws didn’t matter), but that was never mentioned; the new study was discussed as if it were the only one. Apparently the CSPI expert didn’t know about the other data and couldn’t be bothered to find out. And the CSPI writer saw nothing wrong with that. Yet that’s the essence of figuring out what’s good about a study: Figuring out what it adds to previous work.

My earlier post about another bit of scientific culture: the claim that “correlation does not equal causation.”

A New Yorker Misstep

On the left-hand side of The New Yorker website is a series of sections: Goings-On, In This Issue, Cartoon Caption Contest, and so forth. Pretty standard stuff. Then comes a section called Awards:

AWARDS

Lawrence Wright has won a Pulitzer Prize for his book “The Looming Tower.” Read “The Master Plan”; watch an excerpt from “My Trip to Al-Qaeda.”
The New Yorker has been nominated for a Webby Award for Best Copy/Writing. Vote for us at webbyawards.com.
The New Yorker received nine nominations for the National Magazine Awards. View a list of finalists and read nominated articles.

I wouldn’t be so casual about such great accomplishments. Such things — at least for most of us — are more noteworthy and wonderful than what’s In This Issue.

Speaking of missteps, I mentioned a few days ago how New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof put in his blog a letter from a University of North Carolina student that was more interesting and insightful than anything in the NY Times in a long time. If someone wrote a letter like that to me, I would have begged her to allow me to use her full name so that she would get credit for her brilliant comment. I would have responded to it, not just printed it. I would have gotten other people’s reactions to it. I would have gone on and on about it.

Maybe I should have titled this post Too Little Emphasis on Success to go with Too Much Emphasis on Failure.

Addendum: Kristof has now posted the student’s full name: Loren Berlin.

What Loren Berlin, a Student at the University of North Carolina, Wrote Nicholas Kristof

I have mentioned this letter three times (here, here and here) and Jeremy Cherfas rightfully complains that he can’t read it. Here is most of it:

Friday marked the deadline to enter The New York Times columnist Nick Kristof’s second annual “Win a Trip with Nick Kristof” contest. Open to students currently enrolled at any American college or university, as well as middle and high school teachers, the contest offers one student and one teacher an all expenses-paid trip through Africa with the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist to gather stories on the impoverished continent. . . The prize includes the chance – more accurately the expectation – to detail the experience on a blog on NYTimes.com.

Because I am currently a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I qualify to enter this competition, and have many reasons to do so. . . . .Yet, I refuse to apply. I think the way Kristof has cast this trip is a disservice to Africa. . . .

Kristof insists on telling the story of a failing Africa when instead he could report on its ability to overcome. On the competition’s webpage Kristof has posted a letter to potential applicants that provides this explanation: “Frankly, I’m hoping that you’ll be changed when you see a boy dying of malaria because his parents couldn’t afford a $5 mosquito net, or when you talk to a smart girl who is at the top of her class but is forced to drop out of school because she can’t afford a school uniform.” . . .

Last year’s student witnessed the death of a woman during childbirth despite the fact that both Kristof and his traveling companion donated blood in an attempt to save her. Though the doctor promised to help the young woman, he apparently ducked out the back door as she died. That was Kristof’s story of Cameroon, a West African nation with tremendous ecological diversity and a per-capita GDP higher than that of most other African countries. . . .

The story of Africa in turmoil is the African narrative that many Americans – and certainly those who read The New York Times – already know. It is virtually the only type of reporting that Western news outlets broadcast about the continent. Every American student who has to listen to National Public Radio in the car when Dad picks her up from soccer practice, or has had to read The Economist for a school assignment, or has read in a church newsletter about a local youth group’s spring break trip to a rural African village knows that people in Africa are hurting. Maybe we haven’t smelled an understaffed health clinic that cares for HIV-positive orphans, or walked through rows of coffee trees with a farmer whose young son was beaten into serving in a youth militia in a civil war between tribal groups whose names we can’t pronounce and whose agendas we can’t keep straight. But we know they are poor, and that Africa will break your American heart if its contaminated water doesn’t kill you first. . . .

Americans don’t need any more stories of a dying Africa. Instead, we should learn of a living one. Kristof and his winners should investigate how it is that Botswana had the highest per-capita growth of any country in the world for the last 30 years of the twenty-first century. Report on the recent completion of the West Africa Gas Pipeline that delivers cheaper, cleaner energy to parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Tell us about investment opportunities in Nigeria’s burgeoning capital markets.

Sadly, it’s impossible to report on Africa’s successes without relaying its tragedies. Virtually every African victory is somehow also a story of malnourishment and malaria, misogyny and malevolence. That’s important because Africa’s horrors are massive and crushing, and demand attention. I agree with Pope John Paul II, who said “a society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members.” Clearly Africa will be the [basis of] judgment of our global community.

Kristof knows this, of course, and I am certain he means well when he writes that his original purpose for the contest was because he thought that “plenty of young people [who] tune out a fuddy-duddy like myself might be more engaged by a fellow-student encountering African poverty for the first time.” But they would also be excited to encounter African hope, something equally unknown to most Americans, students or otherwise.

So I’m asking Kristof to refine his summer travel itinerary to include a tour of a thriving organic farm owned and operated by a local Ethiopian cooperative. And the Ugandan health clinics that are reducing the number of AIDS cases despite a continuing guerilla war. And the wonderful “PlayPumps” scattered throughout the continent that provide safe drinking water via a pump system powered by children as they play on a playground. Brilliant idea. And something many people don’t know about.

Africa needs a lot of things. It needs money and aid workers, vaccines and functioning governments. Some of those things can be provided by outside donors, and other can’t. But universally, Africa needs us to believe in it. And that is something we have to be taught.

Loren Berlin’s website.

Which Signs of Aging are Inevitable?

In a New Yorker article titled “The Way We Age Now,” Atul Gawande writes:

With age . . . the gums tend to become inflamed.

As I posted a few weeks ago, my gums have recently become less inflamed — no doubt because of more omega-3 from flaxseed oil. For the first time in memory they are not inflamed at all. (My dentist was surprised. Hardly anybody improves, he said.) Could Gawande’s “with age” effect be due to not enough omega-3?

Science in Action: Omega-3 (flaxseed oil vs. olive oil)

As I’ve described in previous posts, flaxseed oil (high in omega-3) seems to improve my balance. As I increased the daily dose, I found that 4 tablespoons (T)/day had almost the same effect as 3 T/day. To measure the effects of omega-3, I plan to use 3 or 4 T/day flaxseed oil — which presumably produces near-optimal omega-3 levels — as a baseline for measuring the effect of other things.

For my first comparison I chose olive oil: widely believed healthy, but low in omega-3. (And recommended by me in The Shangri-La Diet.) I used an ABA design: several days flaxseed oil, several days olive oil, several days flaxseed oil. In all conditions, I took 2 tablespoons of the oil at about 10 am and 2 tablespoons at about 10 pm each day. I measured my balance at about 8 am the next day. Each daily test consisted of 30 trials. Each trial consisted of balancing on one foot on a board atop a metal cylinder (pictures). The score was how long before I lost my balance and put the other foot down.

Here are the results.

flaxseed oil vs. olive oil

While drinking the olive oil, my balance slowly got worse. When I returned to flaxseed oil, my balance quickly returned to its previous level. Very clear difference between the oils, F (2,40) = 18, which corresponds to a tiny p value and t about 5.

A possible explanation is that when the concentration of omega-3 in the blood is low, the omega-3 in cell membranes slowly “evaporates” into the blood. When a cell’s membranes lose omega-3, it doesn’t work as well.

Effects of SLD and Flaxseed Oil

A reader (Josh Mangum) writes:

The flavorless calorie diet lets me drop weight whenever I need to. I was usually 10-15 lbs overweight and up to 25 lbs when under stress. Both my parents are overweight so I was worried that I would put on weight under stress and not take it off. My dad especially has followed the pattern of gaining a few pounds a year his whole adult life and is now about 75 lbs overweight. Besides the obvious advantages of losing weight now it’s really nice that I don’t have to worry about being very overweight in the future.

Flax oil is more subtle. I think it’s improving my sleep and mental ability. For sleep I’ve noticed being rested and having more vivid dreams. There seems to be a dosage effect. One night I tried 6 tbls of flax oil, had very vivid dreams and felt very rested the next day. The other thing that seems consistent with it working is that I can go back to sleep for a couple hours after waking at 7 am if I’m still tired. Previously I was never able to go back to sleep whether I woke at 2 am or 7 am.

I write software and notice that it seems easier while I’ve been using flax oil. It seems to be easier to hold large problems in my head and work though them than previously. I don’t notice much effect on how often I’m “insightful” or “clever” though. So rather than being smarter it seems like being adequately smart more often. This is subtle though and it could be the phase of the project or my outlook or just better sleep. Maybe the effects are just the result of coming out of the shorter foggier San Francisco winter days.

What Should I Learn About Writing From This?

I think could read the New York Times for a hundred years and not come across anything as well-written as this gem of a blog post by Joyce Cohen, who writes The Hunt column in the Times. I love her column — but this is better. It’s about something I don’t even care about, New York real estate.

By incredible coincidence, Nicholas Kristof’ s most recent blog entry (April 17, 2007) is also better, in my opinion, than essentially everything that appears in the Times (or any other paper). Kristof reprints a letter to him from a student that makes an extremely important point about Africa coverage in the Times (and, probably, all other Western newspapers): It is unceasingly focussed on failure. I wonder why.

Too Much Emphasis on Failure

In his blog a few days ago, as I mentioned earlier, Nicholas Kristof printed a letter from a University of North Carolina graduate student about why she was not going to enter Kristof’s contest to go to Africa with him. Kristof wrote too much about failure, she said:

[Quoting Kristof:]“I’m hoping that you’ll be changed when you see a boy dying of malaria because his parents couldn’t afford a $5 mosquito net, or when you talk to a smart girl who is at the top of her class but is forced to drop out of school because she can’t afford a school uniform.” . . . The story of Africa in turmoil is the African narrative that many Americans – and certainly those who read The New York Times – already know. It is virtually the only type of reporting that Western news outlets broadcast about the continent. . . Americans don’t need any more stories of a dying Africa. Instead, we should learn of a living one. Kristof and his winners should investigate how it is that Botswana had the highest per-capita growth of any country in the world for the last 30 years of the twenty-first century.

I believe she is correct. The Times and — I’ll take her word for it — “Western news outlets” in general have made a serious mistake in their Africa coverage: Far too much coverage of failure relative to success. An especially curious misjudgment because generally journalists like feel-good stories.

Could an entire well-respected profession do the wrong thing for a long time? Well, Jane Jacobs thinks so. In a 2000 interview, she said this about economists:

One place where past economic theory has gone wrong in a subtle way is that it has always been called upon for explanations of breakdowns and trouble. Look how foreign aid, even today, is all about poverty and where things are not working. There is no focus on trying to learn how things are working when they work. And if you are going to get a good theory about how things work, you have to focus on how they work, not on how they break down. You can look forever at a broken down wagon or airplane and not learn what it did when it was working.

Maybe you say Jacobs wasn’t a real economist (because she didn’t write mainstream academic papers). Well, consider this. In the 1960s, Saul Sternberg changed the face of experimental psychology when he showed what could be done with reaction-time experiments, which are set up so that the subject almost always gets the right answer. Before Sternberg, memory and perception were usually studied via percent-correct experiments, set up so that subjects were often wrong.

Sternberg’s reaction-time research was so much more revealing than the percent-correct research that preceded it that almost everyone switched to using reaction time. The profession of experimental psychologists had done the wrong thing for a long time.

You Can’t Change Something Unless You Love It — Jane Jacobs

I think very highly of Philip Weiss and rarely disagree with him. But I certainly disagree with this:

My first feeling seeing the crapulous tape on the news last night was, Burn it. What more are we going to learn about this sick monster [the Virginia Tech shooter] from his first-person maunderings? O.K., archive it, let criminologists study it, but why give him the attention he so craved? Wipe his name from history. Did you notice he honored Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris of Columbine in his statement? Why not erase their names too.

I have not yet found the interview in which Jane Jacobs says something like “It’s a funny thing. You can’t change something unless you love it.” But I did find an interview in which she said:

You can’t prescribe decently for something you hate. It will always come out wrong.

The longer you hate the Virginia Tech shooter, as Mr. Weiss and many others do, the longer it will be till you understand what to do about him — how to prevent such things in the future. It was a fundamentally decent thing that the shooter did by sending that stuff to NBC. Like everyone, he wants to be listened to. As I blogged earlier, one of my students did a project that involved visiting homeless people in People’s Park. He was surprised by how much they wanted to talk to him. The solution to homelessness, he was pretty sure, would involve a lot of listening.

Addendum: A forensic psychiatrist named Michael Weiner argues the opposite (that showing the videos does no good and lots of bad) here. Jacobs’ view is supported by a wealth of evidence. I can’t tell if any evidence supports Weiner’s view.