Behind the Curtain

One of the things in my PhD which has been the most eye opening is looking behind the curtain  and seeing how science actually works. Let me tell you, it's quite a bit different to how the scientific community like to present it. 

In school you are taught that a textbook tells you the truth and scientists come up with experiments, write conclusions and communicate them to the masses in statements that are irrefutable. When I got my head around that, I though it was great and that science was a pure pursuit of truth, free of prejudice. As time goes on you do A-levels and a degree and you're taught that just because its published doesn't mean its true. People make mistakes, experiments can miss out key factors. You are taught to scrutinise papers and see if the claims they make are valid. That's sensible too, everyone can't be right all the time. Through all this time the messages are consistent. Science is about finding the truth, constantly doing better, all ideas are valid if you can back it up with evidence. If you find something out, it'll be accepted because science has peer review and the community is open to change. Then, you become a PhD student and you realise that although the great scientific method is pretty good, when you look up close it's stained, chipped and not the perfect thing you thought it to be.

People are people. We look out for ourselves, we hold onto our views very tightly and don't like it when others challenge them. We have authority structures where the people at the top have more say than those at the bottom, we need money and some people will not always be moral bastions in their pursuit of it. 

Why am I stating this? Well, however much scientists pretend that scientific truth is all that matters. They're only people. And being only people they bring the flaws of the human race into science, meaning that science isn't always unscrupulously fair. A small number of scientists fabricate results. A small number rig peer review, the very process the scientific community heralds as so rigorous and so just and the cornerstone of research practice. However, the problems aren't just when people try to further themselves. It can be hard to challenge existing thinking, you can get knocked back for challenging the status quo. Sadly, it's very unlikely that Einstein's papers would see the light of day if he'd first written them in today's climate as potentially important ideas can be ignored if they stray too far from generally held opinion. Also, this unwillingness to hear contradictory ideas to the accepted has the potential stop mistakes (unintentional and deliberate) being highlighted, as a new paper may be turned down for obtaining a different result than an already published paper. There's also another reason why Einstein might not have been published if he presented relativity today. Status. Status matters. If you've not published in a field before, sometimes you can be looked on with suspicion. Science can suppress rather than support new voices. 

Beyond this some people actively find ways to make their research go further. Science is competitive, having lots of papers matters and so does the number of times your papers have been used in other work. So, what's an easy way to bump up the number of papers and the number uses of your work? Cut up a project into tiny sections, publish them separately and mention them in the next paper along to give your usage numbers a boost (this even has it's own name in science 'salami slicing'). Basically, this means scientists can make themselves look better, by artificially inflating their performance metrics. Can you blame people for doing this? I don't think so, science is pressurised. You need good paper numbers to get good grants and you need grants to work so, if you can, why not make 3 papers from 1 important result.?

What's the point in saying all this? Well, it's pretty unsettling to find all this out after you've jumped on the science is awesome bandwagon and are bound to a PhD project. A process you've thought was a great system of truth and equality isn't quite as good as it should be and it's better to find that out early. Also, for people outside of science it's important to know that when the media say, "Scientists have discovered..." what they really mean is, "Some people did a bunch of experiments and they claim that...". However much it pretends, science and the fabled scientific method isn't flawless. It's as flawed as the people who conduct it. To claim otherwise is just not true. 

The Eclipse!

It was the eclipse on Friday! Hurrah!

I'd was desperate to get a good look at the action as this was the most complete eclipse I've had the chance to see so far. On the left is a picture I snapped just after the peak of the eclipse in Sheffield. We were quite lucky as during my walk to work in the morning it was really cloudy, so I was thinking I might just have to watch it on TV. However, I wasn't going to give up so I made myself an oh so sophisticated pinhole camera and went outside to see if I could catch anything with it. 

The very hi-tech pinhole camera!

With it being so cloudy, it was really hard to get the pinhole to work, but because of cloud cover and the very handy polarising windows in my building, we were able to snap photos and catch the action inside. Also, once everything started brightening up again I managed to get some very good, but small images of the sun from my pinhole, although I had to stop after a while when my arm went into cramp... Oops! 

I think the main problem that stopped the pinhole working as well as I hoped was the ambient light as when I've used one before we drew the curtains around us to see the projection better, but at least I can make a note of that for next time.

All in all I had a great Friday morning, I got some great pictures and experienced a pretty rare event in person! If you missed the Eclipse action (fingers crossed you that you didn't), or if you want to re-live it, you can catch it all over on BBC iPlayer with Eclipse Live from Dara O Briain, Brian cox and Liz Bonnin. For more about eclipses check out the Stargazing Live Resources page here!

The Tuition Fee Condundrum

Recently, the Labour party have been talking about their plan to decrease tuition fees if they win the next election. Whilst this feels a good thing to do on the surface, the more I read on the subject, the more I come to realise that this isn't really going to help. If you're interested in this topic (like me!), you should definitely have a read of Martin Lewis' response to this potential policy here. He's really great at drilling down into what the financial effect of fees and is an invaluable resource for information on all kinds of financial matters.

So why might lowering tuitions fees not be good news? Well, it looks like only the well off are going to do better out of this. That's the people who get the super high flying jobs with starting salaries in excess of £35000 when they leave university, which is small part of the graduate population. Why do they benefit? Because they are the only ones who'll pay off their loans before they are written off if hey only make the basic repayments. In response to this issue, Labour are saying they'll have a higher interest rate for high earners, but it's only going to be 1% more than the standard rate so whether this will help or not is debatable. However, having said that it's already the case that the amount of student loan repaid on £9000 fees is the most for people on £35000 to £45000 annually. Therefore, people with really high paid jobs get a better deal as it stands anyway! In the past it's been suggested that Labour might move away from fees to a 'graduate tax' system of paying for university tuition. As far as I understand it this will mean that graduates pay a higher rate of tax compared to non-graduates and this might redress the balance of payment with earnings.

Another important thing to think about is that Labour aren't talking about what they'll do to make up this sudden £3000 shortfall per student to the universities. Will it pay an extra £3000 per student? Or will that money go away? If so this could be very detrimental to the long term financial plans universities have, especially if the drop is initiated immediately. Also, will universities be forced to keep their access programmes going? At the moment if universities want to charge top fees they have to provide bursaries for students from less well off families. Will these stay or go?

A more pressing problem is the going suggestion from the current government about when you should start paying your loan back. At the moment you'll only start to repay your loan if you earn over £21,000 and this will go up with inflation each year. However, they're thinking of fixing this figure so that as the years go by people will gradually pay more. That sounds like an ok decision to make in principal if you tell people upfront, but there are rumours that they'll do this to people who have already signed up for university and loans when it was promised that the amount you have to earn to repay the loan will go up each year. Which is not on at all in my opinion.

At the end of the day, I'm a supporter of no tuition fees. I've seen people be put off going to university because of the debt issue. I know my student loan is going up and up while I do my PhD and I don't really mind because either my 9% contributions from when I start work will pay it off, or they won't and it'll be written off eventually, but either way I'll pay what I can afford through the tax system. Would I be in favour of a graduate tax? Possibly, as long as it's fair and means people pay a reasonable amount into the pot it might not be too bad. But we must always weigh the need to pay for universities against the need to ensure that everyone has equal access to education.

If you need more information about how fees and loans work. Have a look at Martin Lewis' student finance pages here.

World Book Day!

It's World Book Day! So I thought I'd fling some science-y book recommendations your way. 

Let's start with the non fiction:

1. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
   I reviewed Bad Science a while back on this blog and talked about how important it is in conveying some of the ways science journalism can be inaccurate and over the top. Whether you want to go into any form of science or not this book is a must read to help you cut through the noise that the news spews at us every day and find the truth in science reporting.
2. In Search of Schrodinger's Cat By John Gribbin
   I'm not going to lie, I initially picked up this as a book as I thought it'd be a good one to put on my personal statement for applying to university. However, it turned out to be a really good, easy to follow book which gives you a whistle stop tour of what Quantum Physics is about and what it means. If you are interested in digging a little deeper into this cool bit of physics, whatever your level of physics knowledge, this is a great book to pick up.
3. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman
   Of the books I've talked about, this is probably the most complicated, but it's well written and is probably the most interesting. In the book Feynman looks at questions like why does the angle of incidence equal the angle of reflection when light hits a mirror, as well as introducing the concept of matter and antimatter. It's a pretty short book, but when I read it, I felt pretty blown away by it. I'd recommend it to anyone doing A-Level Physics (it was recommended to me as personal statement fodder) or someone who has read other popular science books and wants something a bit deeper.

And on the fiction side of things (which is terribly short as I tend to watch more Sci-Fi than I read):

1. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy By Douglas Adams
   Hitchhiker's is one of the most iconic science fiction books in the world and it is well worth the read. It's eclectic, bonkers and fun. There is no way on this earth that you could get bored reading this book.
2. His Dark Materials Trilogy by Philip Pullman
   In many ways His Dark Materials is often held up as great fantasy fiction, and it is. It just also happens to have a lot of science (or pseudo science) going on in the background. From Lord Asriel's investigations, to the General Oblation Board's morally dubious tests and Mary Malone's work, there's a lot of scientists and science in this trilogy. I can't wait to get the chance to pick these books back up.

Finally, a few books that have nothing to do with science, but you should read anyway!
The Black Prism by Brent Weeks (for a more mature audience, yey violence!), The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch (for a mature audience, yey lots of violence!) and The Wheel of Time (starting with Eye of the World) by Robert Jordan (for, well, pretty much everyone who's not put off by it being 4.4 million worlds in total or being over 19 days long on audiobook. Yey epic tales!), oh and A Madness of Angels by Kate Griffin (also for more mature readers).

Have you read any of the books I've mentioned? What do you think of them? What would you recommend?

Link Round-Up 17th February 2015

Hello! Here's my pick of what's been going on around the internet in science over the past week.

1. NASA Releases Video Showcasing The Sun's Activity Over the Last 5 Years
   Last week NASA released the highlights reel from their past 5 years of observing the Sun with the Solar Dynamics Observatory. This video is an incredible look at what out sun is really doing every second of every day and is well worth watching.
2. Mars' Mystery Clouds
   Strange plumes appeared over the edge of Mars in March and April 2012 and so far, no one has a definitive explanation of what is going on. Although it's been a while since they were seen, these events are still a puzzle nearly 3 years on. The team investigating this phenomenon have a couple of ideas of what might be happening, but if either are true they mean our current ideas of what Mars' atmosphere is like are wrong. Hopefully, some of the new probes orbiting Mars might shed some light on what's really going on.
3. Shopping while hungry might cost you extra even if you don't buy food.
   It's commonly held knowledge that shopping for food while you're hungry isn't a good idea. Seeing all that food while wanting to eat can make you splurge on all sorts of things you don't need (I'm looking at you Pop-tarts). But new work by Dr Alison Jing Xu who studies decision making suggests that hunger can make you buy more of pretty much anything. So it might be a good idea to make sure you're well fed are before splashing the cash.

And finally, if you haven't already then you really should be watching the Great Comic Relief Bake Off. It's indescribable.

Currently Listening to Lord of Chaos by Robert Jordan. My Wheel of Time listen-athon is progressing nicely and it's a great way to experience the fantasy masterpiece. 

Currently Watching Brooklyn Nine Nine. So funny, so good, I'm making sure I've seen every last episode.

The State of the Superposition

Right then! I've been thinking about where I want this blog to go, so I want to update you all on what might be coming your way in the near future.

Up until now I've been writing about science, degrees, PhDs and some science related things. But, now I'm heading into thesis writing territory I'm going to change the subject matter ever so slightly. The reason for this is pretty simple. I'm going to be writing about science (my science in fact) for long periods of my day and the idea of writing even more about just science or my PhD doesn't feel very fun. I'll probably do an odd PhD related posts about writing a thesis or something else, but don't expect as much university related content. Instead my idea is that Superposition of Sciences will branch out and look at science in the media, from woks of fiction to documentaries to news stories. Why? Well, it's something that I find particularly interesting at the moment and I have opinions on it; so hopefully I'll have something to say and we'll have new a superposition (overlap) of science and the media, instead of just different sciences.

Thanks for reading so far and I hope you still will as I move into this new area of discussion.

Later this week you can expect to see a new link round up and a fresh post will appear next week.

On Women in Science on the Box - The Grimm, The Bold and the Bang (Part 3)

Here we are at part 3 in this series of posts talking about representations of women in STEM on TV and film. I kicked things off by talking about Grimm and the good things it does (find that here) and continued by looking at Star Trek, Hannibal and others (that's here!), with some thoughts about what works and what doesn't in character representation.
Firstly, disclaimer time:

I have not done an extensive survey on all women in STEM in TV shows and films now and in the past. This is purely an observation from my perspective on some of the media I've consumed recently and also, a musing on what makes female characters in a STEM professions or related roles good or bad.

Now finally, we're going to talk about the biggest current program about (in a loose sense) scientists doing science things in science ways, The Big Bang Theory. I regularly watch Big Bang, after all if there's nothing else on the box E4 is a stalwart for showing How I Met Your Big Bang all day (How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory). But, the more I've thought about writing this post the more I've ummed and ahhed over what to say.  I do like Big Bang, but there are things in it that I'm not a fan of and I don't think it's just about how the show presents women in STEM, the men are not presented in a much better light by any stretch. However, there are certain things that are particularly grating that tend to revolve around the female characters. Now, I really like Amy and Bernadette, they are practicing scientists with PhDs in Neuroscience and Microbiology respectively, they have developed into key characters, but I feel that the show gives them a raw deal more often than the other characters. There are also other women in STEM in The Big Bang Theory, but I think Bernadette and Amy as main characters are where some of the issues with Big Bang really come to light.

The first thing that really gets my back up is the constant "Oh no, women aren't nerdy!" thing which is repeated throughout the show. From the ever present jokes about there being no girls in the comic book store to comments of, "Girls don't game." and "Girls don't play dungeons and dragons". The most annoying thing is whenever the girls (particularly Bernadette) get involved with this sort of stuff, they like it! But, the next to the episode we're right back to "Girls don't". One specific example that annoyed me recently was when Sheldon does a straw pole about which console to buy. Obviously Bernadette goes for the Wii because 'it's for casual gamers', but instead of subverting this by her listing all the great things about the Wii (Mario Kart, Zelda, Smash, Super Mario, I could go on) its just played for the "Oh no she doesn't know anything" laugh, which can only help perpetuate the 'Fake Geek Girl' myth which is very annoying.

My second gripe is the way Bernadette and Amy are presented in terms of dress and interests against Penny and the smart vs pretty dynamic the show seems to go for. In the show it always seems that women are presented as beautiful and sexy OR smart, but not both. Which is exceptionally silly seen as all the actors are Hollywood pretty. The show goes out of the way to make Amy and Bernadette less attractive than Penny, which gives the strong message that you can't be both pretty and successful in STEM. Moreover, they are characterised as odd and out of place with Penny, which isn't a) realistic or b) a great image for women in STEM. Conversely you can say the same about the Leonard, Sheldon, Raj and Howard, as they are presented as other to Penny and normal people. However, the kicker is that they seem to view Amy and Bernadette in the same way as the viewer, as 'other' and lesser than Penny, which lowers their status compared to the male leads.

What about the flip side to my niggles with Big Bang Theory? Well the show does now have female scientists as main characters and not just Penny, which is a positive. They have a lot of screen time, they do talk about their work and they are presented as being extremely good at what they do to a level equal with Raj Howard and Leonard. And, on that theme, none of the characters in STEM careers are presented a way that would make them good role models. Or are they? After all, Leonard gets the girl and Howard goes to space, so aren't those positives that come of their behaviour? Having said that, if the representations of STEM careers aren't great and the women get the worse end of the deal, does that mean much? It's a comedy after all and the jokes are all centred around nerd culture, so should I expect it to have positive messages about women in STEM, or people in STEM at all? Its not like I watch Brooklyn Nine Nine (the best new comedy since Not Going Out btw) and say, "Oh! That's what police officers do!", because well, they don't. However, I think some of the differences between Nine Nine and Big Bang are that Nine Nine seems to mainly joke about police show clichés, it has a diverse cast and really awesome characters on all sides (I point you here for more detail). I also get the feeling that the writing staff respect the characters, a weird thing to say, but I think it's true. Comparatively, I'd say the Big Bang writing staff have a lower level of respect for their characters, which then bleeds through into audience perception.

After all that, why do I watch The Big Bang Theory? Well, it's one of the only show's that touches on nerd culture (especially since The Fades got cancelled) and it's one of the few places that shows nerd culture without having people stuck in their parents' basements. It's amusing, it's easy viewing and it can be really good at times. Also, I do like a lot of the characters; Bernadette is brilliant and I hope one day she'll properly take Sheldon down, Amy is excellent and I want her to realise she's better than her relationship Sheldon and that she deserves more or I'd like to see a lot more development Amy and Sheldon's their relationship at a much greater pace.

The Big Bang Theory is a key show to think about as it has a lot of influence. In the US, last season was watched by an average of 19.96 million people! It's one of the only shows out right now to focus on science as a career and that has the potential to make it very influential. Do I think it's driving people. particularly women, away from science? Probably not. But, I do think it adds to the narrative of "things for boys" and "things for girls" being separate and the air of science not being for everyone. Yes. However, its great to know that although The Big Bang Theory might not be the most inspirational show ever, there are some really good examples of women (and men!) in science out and about on the TV now. This hasn't been an exhaustive look, but I think I've found that there are great characters working in STEM out there on the box and although there's not been a huge shift from past to present, general writing quality might just make the characters of today slightly better than those of the past. Let's hope the positive momentum continues and maybe, just maybe, the next generation of scientists might be inspired by things like Grimm, Bones and the odd re-run of Star Trek.

Did any of the character's or TV shows make you interested in science? What do you think about The Big Bang Theory? Let me know in the comments!