A great intro to Humanism by the BHA

Continuing this month's celebration of things that make me proud to be British, here is a lovely (and short) video by the British Humanist Association explaining (a) what Humanism is, and (b) why you don't need religion to have morals or to give life meaning.



I particularly like the quote from Richard Dawkins:"Science is the poetry of reality."

Hoping curiosity won't kill the Rover

In less than 36 hours, the Mars Curiosity Rover will touch down on Mars. Hopefully, it will touch down at the planned pace and not crash land. If you still haven't seen the animation of the landing manoeuvre, then do watch NASA's "seven minutes of terror" video. There are a whole bunch of versions of these kicking around from various news agencies etc. but I think the explanations in the original are the best and they really convey why they are calling it "seven minutes of terror"!

This is science that is way cooler than science fiction because it is (hopefully) really going to happen. I really hope it works. It'll be a nervous day in the NASA control room. As they point out in the video, the distance between Earth and Mars is such that when they first receive word that Curiosity has entered the Martian atmosphere, the rover will already have been on the surface - in one state or another - for seven minutes! Space is big - even our little corner of it.

I'd been hoping to embed the video here but it doesn't seem to be working. To be honest, though, you're better off going to the NASA website as there is plenty of other great Curiosity stuff to explore. (You can find out more about the Curiosity Rover in another NASA video, "The Science of Curiosity: Seeking Signs of Past Mars Habitability", for example.)

The (lack of) evidence for Homeopathy

Yesterday, I mentioned the House of Commons Select Committee (Science and Technology Committee) Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy.

It's quite a long report, so I think it worth highlighting a few of the conclusions here:

54. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science.

61. We consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible.

70. In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos. The Government shares our interpretation of the evidence. We asked the Minister, Mike O'Brien, whether the Government had any credible evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect and he responded: "the straight answer is no".

77. There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities.

82. We do not doubt that homeopathy makes some patients feel better. However, patient satisfaction can occur through a placebo effect alone and therefore does not prove the efficacy of homeopathic interventions.

101. We agree with Professor Ernst and the RPSGB. For patient choice to be real choice, patients must be adequately informed to understand the implications of treatments. For homeopathy this would certainly require an explanation that homeopathy is a placebo. When this is not done, patient choice is meaningless. When it is done, the effectiveness of the placebo—that is, homeopathy—may be diminished. We argue that the provision of homeopathy on the NHS, in effect, diminishes, not increases, informed patient choice.

109. When the NHS funds homeopathy, it endorses it. Since the NHS Constitution explicitly gives people the right to expect that decisions on the funding of drugs and treatments are made "following a proper consideration of the evidence", patients may reasonably form the view that homeopathy is an evidence-based treatment.

Conclusions

110. The Government's position on homeopathy is confused. On the one hand, it accepts that homeopathy is a placebo treatment. This is an evidence-based view. On the other hand, it funds homeopathy on the NHS without taking a view on the ethics of providing placebo treatments. We argue that this undermines the relationship between NHS doctors and their patients, reduces real patient choice and puts patients' health at risk. The Government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS.

111. We conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The funding of homeopathic hospitals—hospitals that specialise in the administration of placebos—should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths.

I'm not sure whether the NHS still funds it but I am sure that it shouldn't. It appears, however, that BUPA are no do know is that BUPA no longer do, at least for its "bupa Select" cover. Point six on their notification for change states:

6. Complementary medicine practitioners, homeopathy
 We no longer provide cover for homeopathic treatment.

Homeopathy: there's nothing in it.

UK Homeopathic manufacturers might have to sell their sugar pills as... sugar pills!

If I had to draw up a top three list of irrational nonsense that makes me fear a little for the future of humanity, Homeopathy would probably be on that list. It embodies everything that is wrong about "woo" - disproven bunk supported by liars spouting pseudoscientific nonsense in order to extract money from the gullible, credulous and/or desperate.

It should be illegal to pretend that sugar pills or water are medicine. Happily, it turns out, it is! In a great Guardian piece yesterday - Homeopaths offer to rebrand products as 'confectionery' - "The Lay Scientist" Martin Robbins reports that:

Under current UK law*, it is an offence for a lay homeopath to supply or sell unlicensed homeopathic medicines for which they do not hold a certificate of registration from the MHRA. Unlicensed remedies can only supplied by those with prescribing rights - medical doctors or registered pharmacists - and then only after a face-to-face consultation with the patient. Since very few homeopathic products are licensed, this means a huge swathe of Big Sugar's products are, in theory at least, not legal.

*The Medicines (Homoeopathic Medicinal Products for Human Use) Regulations 1994, as amended in 2005.

Furthermore, under the Human Medical Regulations Act, there is an obligation to enforce this law if a complaint is made - and, thanks to Simon Singh and friends, complaints are being made! It's still not clear to me how much actual fallout from this there will be but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Martin Robbins ends his piece with this great line:

"I've got no problem with people buying and selling homeopathic remedies for their aches and sniffles. Just don't pretend it's a real medicine, and don't persuade people it can treat dangerous diseases. Is that really so much to ask?"

I hope not, Martin. I really hope not.

(And in case you are under the impression that Homeopathy might be effective, read the House of Commons Select Committee (Science and Technology Committee) Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy.)

[Edit: I was obviously having a brain-dead moment when writing this and erroneously called Martin Robbins, Tim. Doh! Sorry, Martin.]

Olympic Pride - the great BBC!

On a day that is looking like it will result in a possibly unprecedented level of Olympic medal success for "Team GB" (it's amazing that does not grate with me any more!), I thought another post of Olympic Pride was in order. As with my previous Olympics post, this is not about pride in my nation's atheletes, though. Instead, I want to give a hat-tip to the BBC.

The IOC seem to have gone out of their way to commercialise the crap out of the Olympics, which caused a lot of irritation during the build up. It is also obvious from some of the forum comments that I have browsed that this is still a big problem for some people - particularly, I think, for those in America who have to put up with what sounds like awful TV coverage by NBC.

At times like this, I realise just how lucky I am to live in the UK. Not only do we not have any time zone problems (well, except having to work during the day!) but we also have the perfect antidote to IOC commercialisation: the BBC. 24 HD channels of Olympic coverage, subscription free and advert free. Fantastic stuff! Actually, it's really more than this as the 24 HD channels are in addition to the normal BBC channels.

Possibly for this reason, I am enjoying this Olympics a lot more that the last two. Beijing always seemed very distant and there is definitely something to be said for sport being live. I know that, in theory, highlights should be more exciting as they are edited to show you the more exciting bits but, for some reason, it never seems to work out that way (for me) for Olympic events. (Except maybe the football and hockey.) I think it is the drama of seeing the underdogs and the atheletes who get personal bests and are pleased with sixth place. In 2004, I was in Australia during the games, which meant that not only was there a time zone issue but the TV stations I had access to were only showing events featuring Australians. For these reasons, I am definitely enjoying the Games much more this time around.

The other factor, I think, is Twitter. Not only has monitoring Twitter allowed me to enjoy the Nerdlympics but it also turns out to be a great way of catching up with the excitement of the day's events. Because people (and BBC Sport) tweet things as they happen, you can really capture a sense of the excitement, even if you are catching up with events a few hours later due to chores such as having to go to work during the day. Dara O'Briain's discovery of volleyball has also been fun to see develop!

As an added bonus, due to the childish nature of my sense of humour - and the necessary brevity of tweets - the BBC Sport feed sometimes throws up some mental images that make me smile. Favourites so far are references to Rebecca Adlington starting defence of her "800m Olympic crown” (that's a big crown!) and, more recently (and disturbingly):

"Watch South Korea's Ki Bo Bae take women's individual archery gold in a dramatic sudden death shoot-out."

Are they allowed to do that?! It certainly would be dramatic!

So, well done BBC (and Dara O'Briain) and keep up the good work! Another tweet has just alerted me to how good the BBC Sport app is, so I'm off to check that out now!

Getting excited about evolution with the NHM Evolution App

One of the things that saddens me most about Creationism (apart from all the lies and indoctrination) is the way that it sometimes manages to suck my enthusiasm for evolution. I don't mean my conviction - I have never seen anything from the YEC or ID crowd that even comes close to making me think "hang on a minute..." - but more my sense of excitement and wonder at real Natural History. It blows all the Creation myths away. Then there is the fascination and intrigue of some of the remaining unanswered questions, such as what sparked the Cambrian explosion. (Again, not questions that challenge the evidence for evolution, but things that we currently do not have a good/complete consensus explanation for - the stuff that drives scientific enquiry.)

Happily, the Natural History Museum have come up with the perfect antidote in the form of the NHM Evolution iPad app, which was launched earlier this month. I've only just downloaded it, so I'll have to save a proper review for another day but my initial impressions are great. It's beautiful, informative, well designed and has got me excited about evolution all over again.

Browsing through the different Deep Time features - "Timeband", "Timeline", "Timeglobe" and "Events" - I find it impossible not to be overwhelmed by how much sense it all makes. I feel really sorry for people who are made to reject the beauty and literal awesomeness of the true history of the planet we live on and the creatures that have lived on it before us. If you have any interest in Natural History - and an iPad! - this looks like it will be £9.99 well spent!

An ironic fortune cookie: it's not what you know...

I felt the need to get out the office for lunch today and combat the resumption of bad weather, so I popped to one of the local Chinese restaurants (Chan's) for Singapore rice noodles. And very tasty they were too. I was slightly amused by my fortune cookie, though, working as I do at a University (where knowledge is held in somewhat high esteem):

If only this were true, all of our students that are surfing Facebook when they should be revising (or even listening to lectures!) would have much better marks! I am sure that who you know is important at times to get ahead in life but when it comes to trying to build - or contribute to - an accurate model of the world around you, I'm afraid that it's still what you know that counts.

(Sadly, one of the things the author of this "fortune" did not know, apparently, is how to use apostrophes. If only (s)he had known a copy editor...)