Recently in Surely You're Joking Category

The World of Silver Spoons and Golden Specks and All that Disinfects

Did you know that a Hong Kong company makes "Antibacterial Table Ware" that can "prevent people from the following diseases: duodenitis caused by spirillums, virosis hepatitis, dysentery caused by salmonella and food poisoning caused by golden staphylococcus"? Such wishful thinking is common in the product claims featured at the Project For Emerging Nanotechnologies' inventory of available nanotechnologies. (PEN is a collaboration of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts.) "Antibacterial Table Ware's" antimicrobial power stems from the "nano silver coating" but the technology has some fine print limitations. During holiday dinner when you're sitting at the table laden with such utensils you would need to urge your mom to "please dawdle", as she ladles the gravy and potatoes onto your plate, so as to give the "Antimicrobial Table Ware" enough time to "kill the attached bacteria and microbial [sic] in ten minutes". (emphasis mine)

The company also makes hairdressing tools that "protect people" from diseases they would (never but for horrendous circumstances) pick up at the beauty parlor, "hairdressing-related infections such as trachoma, conjunctivitis, virosis hepatitis, dermatitis and AIDS." Nanotechnology claims by companies in the US tend to be slightly more responsible, but the precociously labeled products available as imports litter the internet, while regulation and oversight lags behind prolific headfirst investment in the new technologies.

In real life, nanotechnology is not as fantastical as some marketing boasts but is very impressive. Products incorporate elements that are 1-100 nanometers in length -- a nano being a billionth of a meter, and scientists can change the structure of an element in the lab to give it unique properties. So although Carbon nanotubules can be found in nature, in soot for example, one of the most common carbon nanotubules is produced when scientists vaporize carbon between two carbon electrodes. When you think of carbon you'd probably consider the soft form of it -- graphite, or the very hard form -- diamond; however, from carbon nanotubules, scientists now construct materials that are both very light and incredibly strong -- perhaps a hundred times stronger than steel. Carbon nanontubules are used to make electronic brushes used in engines and for future applications in optics, electronics and material science, .

Silver is a proven anti-microbial -- the FDA recently approved silver coated breathing tubes used in ventilators, that may help reduce the risk of pneumonia in hospital settings. Researchers use nanotechnology for drug development and are advancing sophisticated technology to accomplish feats such as delivering drugs to a specific location in the body or building scaffolding for the regeneration of bone, nerves and other body parts. Nanotechnology offers promising advances for almost every field, medicine is just one example. However before much of this promising research yields viable products, nanotechnology will also be relentlessly hyped for selling more mundane items with dubious benefits such as "antimicrobial" socks and refrigerators.

Gilded Age

Nanotechnology products tout anti-bacterial, anti-reflective or stain resistance properties, many of which are not yet proven. Just as flatware marketing preposterously proposes to protect you from infections like Hepatitis A, hundreds of other products collectively promise to erect a magical nanotechnology barrier, a personal missile shield between you and the millions of germs that threaten you.

When you're done sipping your silver nanoparticle preserved soup from your special silver spoon you might want to brush your teeth with "cutting edge toothpaste which innovative nanotechnology is applied", made from "pure nano-sized gold that is highly effective in disinfecting the bacteria in your mouth". And if that company went out of business (likely), you can find some Korean made silver nanotechnology toothpaste that will serve the purpose. The PEN inventory lists hundreds of products with these sorts of thrilling if unsettling properties.

More concerning than blatant labeling for the benefits of nanotechnology however, is the empty labeling from companies which choose not to advertise their nanotechnology because of federal regulations. For instance, the "FresherLonger Miracle Food Storage" containers used to be marketed as "infused with silver nanoparticles that will keep soups, sauces, meats and vegetables "fresher three or even four times longer". Now the same product doesn't mention the silver nanotechnology, only the "airtight silicone-gasket locking system" which helps "retard spoilage". The change in product literature was made to avoid the EPA's regulation of products claiming to be pesticides -- antimicrobials are considered by the EPA to be pesticides.

$50 billion dollars worth of goods incorporating nanotechnology were sold last year, and nanotechnology is entering the consumer marketplace at the rate of 3-4 products a week according to the Project on Emerging Technologies (PEN). There are over 600 consumer products currently on the market, everything from utensils to washing machines to teddy bears, camera lenses, make-up, hearing aids, suntan lotion,clothing, and waterless car washes.

NanoNannies?

Beyond the veracity of labeling, is consuming particles that can't even be seen under a microscope floating around in your body safe? One skin care product called "DNA Skin Optimizer" notes that "Nano technology was chosen because it makes it possible to place the sensitive ingredients in the form of tiny crystals directly into the cell nucleus" -- which, were it true, is certainly not a comforting prospect. Scientists don't know if how nanoparticles accumulate in the body and what interactions and effects they might have, since there are very few studies on the safety of these products.

Last week, however, Nature Nanotechnology published a pilot study suggesting that the safety of carbon nanotubes warrants further investigation. (Poland et al. "Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study"; doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111) The researchers subjected the meseothelial lining of the body cavity of mice to carbon nanotubules of varying lengths. Like asbestos, the long fiber carbon nanotubules created an inflammatory response in the mesothelium and scarring, while shorter fibers did not, which indicates (at least) that people who work with carbon nanotubules in manufacturing might be at risk for the same types of problems seen with asbestos exposure.

The environmental risks of this new technology explosion are also unknown but disconcerting. Last month researchers from Arizona State University did some experiments on silver ion containing socks that were marketed for their ability to cut down on foot odor. The researchers washed several brands of socks, and the silver washed out of the socks at various rates. The study motivated concern that the inevitable increase and indiscriminate use of nanotechnology would cast silver into streams and run-off causing environmental damage and endangering the health of species that live in and depend on streams and rivers. Products like Samsung's EPA approved washing machine releases silver ions into every load of wash, a gimmick Samsung calls: "Silver Wash that sterilizes your clothes".

Nanotechnology has broad funding support from Congress and research in this area is flourishing. However scientists and some consumer groups are worried that there are too many unknowns about nanotechnology's safety and that more research should be aimed at investigating the potential hazards. Scientists from industry, environmental groups and academia acknowledge that not only are we producing products with unknown risks without regulation, but that the lack of regulation may cause consumers to become skittish about nanotechnology.

Earlier this month a group of consumer groups recently petitioned the EPA to take a stronger stance on nanotechnology, specifically on products that market silver as a pesticide (antimicrobial). Congress is currently considering legislation on nanotechnology but legislators pared funding for studies on the health and environmental risks of the technology.

Barack Obama has wide appeal. Democrats, Republicans, commentators, opponents, they find themselves tagging along, like he's the new cool kid on the block. Sometimes the support is overt. John Edwards endorses him, as does Senator Byrd, Congressman Henry Waxman, and the United Steelworkers. But sometimes an endorsement is more subtle.

When Barack pulled ahead of other Democrat contenders under the banner "Change You Can Believe In", Hillary Clinton decided to adapt his slogan as her own, calling hers "Change and Experience". Clinton promised voters that "change" would happen on "Day One". Same, same, but different.

After springing into "change" mode though, Hillary began leaving audiences around the world spinning with her own image defying change. She morphed from one character to the next, leaving people gasping in her wake. What accent? Southern y'all? Gravely, standing on a flatbed truck? What new activity?

When she was swilling beer and flipping back shots with some Pennsylvanians, she reminded Bill Moyers of Marlene Dietrich in Destry Rides Again, specifically the song "Go see what the boys in the back room will have, and them I'll have the same." As time went on Clinton began to remind more people of more movie characters.

Hillary's Change

Hillary herself decided her image resembled the determined boxer in the movie "Rocky", but others had different ideas. To some, she was the Black Knight in Monty Python. To Scranton, Pennsylvania voters, she was the home girl, and then in West Virginia she was a West Virginia girl. But she's no coal miner's daughter, her victory speech in West Virginia reminded one reporter of the character played by Warren Beatty in Reds cheering for a revolution.

I found this tendency to compare Clinton to various movie characters fascinating, since for months I had found myself thinking she was a bit Reese Witherspoon in Election. Over time, I wondered whether she might be more like Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton. While mine were contemporary, human, female characters, however, other depictions were less flattering. Dana Milbank in the Washington Post recently compared the ongoing debate over Clinton's electability to the fate of the parrot in the movie "Monty Python's Flying Circus".

Customer: "That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk."

Pet-shop owner: "Well, he's, he's, ah, probably pining for the fiords."

Customer: (Takes parrot from cage, bangs its head on counter, lets it drop to floor.) "Now, that's what I call a dead parrot."

Pet-shop owner: "No, he's stunned! . . . You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian blues stun easily, Major."

Customer: "He's not pining! He's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! . . . His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!"

Why do so many of us compare Hillary to movie characters? Is it that we're so unaccustomed to a strong woman in the President role that we have no real comparisons we can make? She's not many female politicians we know, Margaret Thatcher or Nancy Pelosi for instance...Unlike countries where female presidents or prime ministers are the norm, we have few figures to cast from (aside from The West Wing). This is not the first time people have looked to the movies to reflect a reality they can't fathom. People exclaimed that being in lower Manhattan when the terrorists flew into the World Trade Towers was "like being a movie".

Baking Cookies, Making Tea, That's Just Not Me

Some people, like Boll Moyers, welcome the Clinton change, say she's found her voice. Clinton recently spoke on behalf of her gun-owning church-going supporters when Obama "insulted" her working class compadres.

But mere months ago she was hanging out with Bill in the country diner all homey and copacetic wondering idly about Chelsea's whereabouts. Journey's 1981 "Don't Stop Believing" hummed nostalgically in the background, which sounded very much like Fleetwood Mac's, "Don't Stop", which Bill's theme song. While the Clintons awkwardly but quaintly attempted to build edge-of-your chair suspense at the diner over her campaign theme, Celine Dion's "You and I", their spoof of the Sopranos seemed one drive-in away from On Golden Pond.

After declaring her new change theme, every day forward left quaint 'ole Hillary-and-Bill-at-the-jutebox a little farther in the dust. Perhaps Hillary has found her voice. Male working class voters are warming to strong women, and maybe women wouldn't be as indignant as they were when she mused back in 1992 on Nightline "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession". This prompted William Safire to offer: "You do not defend yourself from a conflict-of-interest charge by insulting a large segment of the voting public." He advised Clinton that her remarks were: "elitism in action". 16 years later You can't say she hasn't absorbed the lesson. Hillary went on to leap past her 'elitist gaffe' and has since been appeasing voters left and right.

But when she took the Obama change challenge last fall was her intent to prove herself more adept at corralling the "white non-college educated vote"? Is that what Democrats aspire to? Has the change helped her break through a glass ceiling? While some argue yes, other voters and superdelegates have veered over to Obama's side, and he's pulled ahead.

The question remains, why does Clinton remind everyone of fictional movie characters, while Obama reminds everyone of male presidents like John F. Kennedy, or Ronald Reagan (not in ideology, they quickly say), or George H.W. Bush? Hillary may have changed, from moseying through oldies with hubbie to being one tough bitch who'll obliterate anything in her way. But have we?

Star power

All the while Clinton strode defiantly, talked stridently, slagged Obama, and sank still lower with her the traveling hillbilly act, Obama coolly brushed it off. He refreshingly acts like he's being himself. An article in the New York Times yesterday quoted a publisher who said Obama's feat was to make millions writing autobiographies..."two books not based on a job of prodigious research or risking one's life as a reporter in Iraq. He has written about himself. Being able to take your own life story and turn it into this incredibly lucrative franchise, it's a stunning fact."

Perhaps Hillary could have taken away another Safire nugget before hiking up her pantsuits with such abandon to wade into the rhetorical swamp. Safire's advice to the Clinton's in 1992 for what he gratingly labeled "The Hillary Problem", was a six step solution: "1. Hillary: Stop defining yourself by what you're not." Who is she?

Just as Safire raked Clinton across the coals in 1992, Maureen Dowd recently eviscerated Obama for making comments about arugula and bitterness which made him, in her eyes, a "charter member of the elite". However a lot of working class people I know know arugula quite well. So remind me what is the working class cred of New York Times columnists to finger-wag at candidates about elitism? Aren't they the ones whose capital is hobnobbing with the ruling class in fine restaurants ? If Clinton has progressed to a more modern time, then perhaps media has not.

Republicans' Me-Too Change

As he accumulates endorsements and attracts 75,000 people to his stump speech in Portland, at times he even seems to have the Republican party skipping along after him acting for all intents and purposes like Democrats. The Republicans just launched their new slogan "Change You Deserve" -- hat tip to Obama's "Change We Can Believe In". [update: And an Effexor commercial apparently]

They're out to remind us to keep YOU in Republican, I guess. Do you see a "we" in Republican? Certainly not. If too many Republicans started saying "we", who knows the trouble it would cause? The whole country might slip into socialism. Or worse. Would everyone's voice be important, would all votes count? That Obama "we believe" phrasing sounds like the U.S. is a team, like there's no decider in charge. Republicans can't have that.

Republicans may have deduced from polling that people feel like they "deserve" change. But which slogan would you bet on? People may feel like they "deserve" change after the last eight years but McCain will continue the tax breaks and war so what are the Republicans talking about? You know they don't mean "deserve" as in entitlement -- they're virulently opposed to Social Security, safety nets and all that. So then what does "deserve mean? Anything? And looking at Hillary's record, will the Republicans lose themselves like she did by trying to emulate Barack Obama?

Not if some people can help it. David Brooks suggests that Obama is actually co-opting Republican politics. Brooks grilled Barack Obama after George Bush described the candidate's foreign policy statements regarding Hezbollah as "appeasement." Not grilled as in Chris Matthews and Mark Green, on Crossfire, mind you, but as in conservative NYT columnist grilled. Brooks writes in "Obama Admires Bush" that he wondered whether Obama would really consider approaching Hezbollah diplomatically as George W. Bush implied last week. If so, the pundit said, affably of course, "[h]e's off in Noam Chompskyland".

No, when they spoke, Obama "reaffirmed" for him that Hezbollah is "not a legitimate political party", but a "destabilizing organization...", supported by "Iran and Syria". Brooks goes on to explain some details of Obama's foreign policy before concluding (seemingly approvingly) that it reminds him of George G.W. Bush's approach to foreign relations.

So which brand will win? Will Barack Obama prevail by being "himself" as the Republicans dance around chanting "me-too" change? Or will the Republicans win by making it look like they have all the ideas?

A couple of weeks ago, the journal Nature wrote that Stephen Johnson should step down from his post at the EPA (Nature 452, 2; 6 March 2008). Commenting on the unlikelihood of that, Nature suggested that since the White House "doesn't want the [EPA] to do anything" for the environment, "we can only offer [EPA] employees a fantasy...shut it down until next January. Take some fully paid sabbatical time to relax, and prepare for a return to the old-fashioned protecting of the environment that so many of you joined the agency for."

It seems the EPA thought that a grand idea. Stephen Johnson heads to Australia on a two week trip with about eleven staff. Of course Johnson's travel plans infuriate Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who wrote a letter to Stephen Johnson, demanding to know where the travel budget was coming from:

"I am deeply concerned that you will be spending a large amount of scarce agency funds and staff resources on such an expensive trip while the President has proposed a series of devastating cuts in EPA's budget for environmental programs....hundreds of millions of dollars from EPA's budget for such important activities as reducing pollution of streams and lakes by sewage treatment plants, cleaning up hazardous waste sites, conducting global warming research and programs, ensuring environmental justice, and carrying out many other crucial programs."

The letter advised: "If your goal is to learn about actions to address global warming, I suggest that you visit California, which has moved ahead aggressively with greenhouse gas controls". She noted that Johnson's trip coincided with a number of hearings the EPW scheduled for him during the month of April. Let's see -- on one hand, Byron Bay and scuba-diving in the Great Barrier Reef; on the other, being interrogated by Senator Barbara Boxer. Why would Johnson choose Australia?

PZ Goes to The Mall of America

PZ Myers of Pharyngula got booted from the line of registered guests to see the movie "Expelled", a creationist production about intolerance towards religion. In an act of abject poltroonery the movie's producer ejected PZ while the rest Myers family and his other companions, Richard Dawkins and staff, were allowed to stay. The "Expelled" producer, perhaps charmed by the English accent, said he allowed Dawkins to watch the movie because he was a 'guest to our country' and had probably 'flown a long way'. (Better than saying he didn't recognize him). In this amusing YouTube video Myers and Dawkins explain what happened.

"Expelled" is a flick of reportedly dubious quality not to mention phantasmagorical content that showed at the Mall of America. (There's the religion we know and love.) Dawkins, in good form, calls the movie "shoddy", "boring", and "bad in every possible way", filled with "Lord privy seal" moments and attended by a completely "sycophantic audience." He calls the whole production "second rate in film-making and public relations", to which Myers suggests that "second rate" might be a tad complimentary.

PZ Goes To The Apple Store

Mild mannered PZ, albeit with the ferocious quill, appeared in the movie at the request of the filmmakers. Then for his contributions, whambo, out on his 'arse, whereupon he whiled away some time in an Apple store blogging. Meanwhile, in the movie showing across the way, the helpful Myers explained that he wishes to increase science literacy and make religion a "side dish rather than a main course", something 'to do on weekends'. His tone is notably conciliatory, comparing religion to knitting, as in -- "we're not going to take their knitting' needles away".

His is a charming analogy. There is a 21st century knitting revival and as many religious people in the US as ever. I used Google's totally unreliable "Trends" to compare "religion" to "knitting" here, and if you squint carefully you can see an inverse relationship. (Either that no relation whatsoever or the two trend together.)

The Economics of Antediluvian Intolerance

Coincidentally, I'm reading Dawkin's "The God Delusion" now, along with "Christopher Hitchen's "God is Not Great". You've got to be impressed with how Hitchen's waves his pen around, regardless of what he says, and while Dawkin's book is milder, he has little tolerance for my tolerance or anyone else's. Serious books with bits of entertainment, and I'm sure good screedy profitable fun for the authors.

------------------------------------------

Acronym Required wrote about science and religion in "Science Faith and Books", in "Dover: Science Prevails over Intelligent Design: Judge Doesn't Monkey Around", in "Evolution v. Not Evolution" among others. We looked at quests for fame and PZ Myer's reception for Stuart Pivar versus Lynn Marguis in "Science Fame: Million Dollar Minutes" and mentioned Hitchen's writing in "FISA: Turning Orwell On His Ear".

In an essay on how to pronounce the surname of the Putin's presidential successor Dmitri Medvedev, Serge Schememann writes of English speakers vexed by the Russian language, and gently mocks language teachers who guide them. The author quotes a bilingual journalist from the Moscow Times, who once tutored an American actress how to pronounce the consonants T,D, and N: "the tongue must touch the upper teeth, not the alveolus like in English".

Schememann adds, "Russians have their own problems with American names". I bet. He writes, "I never touch the upper teeth with my tongue nor anything that comes up when I google 'alveolus'". Which is unfortunate, since I hear Ringley Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus salaries are somewhat comparable to journalists'.

"Alveolus", is simply a "a small cavity or hollow", and often refers to the pulmonary alveoli (plural) in the lungs, which function during respiration to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from the blood. Accordingly, the Russian reporter's alarming suggestion -- tongue to alveolus -- might actually constitute a medical emergency. "Alveoli" also refers to other hollows, such as the sockets in which the teeth are rooted.

If a Tree Falls in a Forest, 364 Days a Year, Does Anyone Hear It?

One day a year we celebrate Arbor Day by planting trees, then we have the other 364 days that aren't Arbor Day. (We'll disregard Christmas, the sort of a pro-logging holiday.) Of course the general mood of the world is plant trees. Plant trees to keep the cities shady, plant trees to keep the forests thriving, to provide shelter and food for birds and bugs and animals, and to capture CO2, which in turn helps reduce global warming. Saving trees is the choice of the day, the prudent much ballyhooed choice. But day in and day out, people are compelled to cut trees down.

Brazil's rate of deforestation increased last year despite efforts to stop illegal logging. The rate of deforestation in the 1990's was 7,000 square miles per year. Starting in 2000, the rate was ~9,500 square miles per year. Then the rate seemed to decrease in the last couple of years until the last 5 months of 2007, when loggers cut 7000 square miles. What happened?

The environmental minister told the Financial Times in last week's article, "Brazil takes battle to the Amazon", that the rate of deforestation had temporarily decreased because of government crackdowns and the arrests of corrupt officials. Brazil is in the midst of renewing its forest protection efforts.

But some say that Brazil's deforestation due to illegal logging results from a more complicated mix, including public policies and populist local politicians which encourage logging. Others tie the rate of deforestation directly to commodity prices. According to this account the recent rise of illegal logging occurred when farmers, especially cattle ranchers, cleared land to meet the demand and to profit as food prices rose. So we can see that arguably, rising food prices might be a reason to cut down trees.

There are many other reasons why people fell trees besides for food. In each case there's a logical, rational reason. Here are some recent examples:

• To Protect Your Truck: A mailman in Vancouver, Washington hacked at more that 30 fruit trees along his route because the city wouldn't trim them and he wanted to protect his truck.
• For Your Solar Panels: For six years two neighbors in Sunnyvale, California engaged in a legal battle to resolve whether a resident who wanted solar panels could force his neighbor to cut down some redwoods. The 30 year old Solar Shade Control Act outlines the rules governing neighbors trees and solar panels.
• For Aesthetics: Every so often a corner estate gets sold and the new owners begin refashioning it as their home. First the old toilets get discarded curbside. Last, despite the opposite trend in places like Miami and LA to replace non-native palm trees with shade trees, in some neighborhoods in California quixotic homeowners owners replace shade trees with exotic palm trees. Tequila sunrise in hand perhaps. I've seen this happen.
• To Confront the Rebels: The president of Chad cut down "centuries-old trees" so that the leader could "be adequately protected". Said one bicyclist watching the trees fall: "When I was a child, soldiers used to stop us touching the trees...[n]ow they are being destroyed."

While Chad acted in the name of terrorism, the US for some reason didn't deploy that reasoning when it moved forward to develop its national forest areas. Last week the state of California sued the U.S. Forest Service, which wants to open more than 500,000 acres of California national forest for roads and oil drilling. The state wants to keep these forests free of roads.

State Attorney General Jerry Brown told the Los Angeles Times "I find it kind of ironic that the federal government won't let us clean up our cars and they now want cars going through these forests." California accuses the Forest Service of violating the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act by moving ahead with development plans and disregarding the state's laws. California enacted a moratorium on road construction in "pristine areas of its national forests" in 2006, according to the LA Times. But sometimes federal governments make the National Forests earn their keep, come hell or high water.

And so each new day gives a fine reason to chop a tree.

You're so Sad, We're So Happy

Antidepressants have taken a beating over the past couple of years with a steady stream of difficult news, some of it contradictory -- about studies biased by doctors interests, potential dangers of the drugs for children, limited effectiveness as a result of selective reporting, and patients struggling to withdraw from the drugs. Regardless of the news, many patients critically depend on antidepressants and pharmaceutical companies invest heavily in their development.

Last week Wyeth announced the approval of Pristiq, an antidepressant they're marketing to succeed Effexor XR. Effexor was the first of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), followed by Eli Lilly's Cymbalta. Wyeth won FDA approval for the drug's use as an antidepressant and is hoping to get the drug approved for menopause. This is a savvy move. With the HRTs in decline because of cancer risks Pristiq is the first drug to be marketed as a non-hormonal option for menopause "symptoms".

Eating Your Own Dog Food?

Some doctors question whether "Pristiq", a metabolite of Effexor, is an improvement over any of the drugs currently on the market. Regardless of doubts, the drug is a lithe marketing confection, starting with the name, "Pristiq", which summons to mind "pristine", as in, that is the cleanest most crystal clear pristine lake you've ever seen, and "mystique", as in, wow, he/she has that certain je ne sais quois -- mystique. Ergo "Pristiq". Just saying it makes you want to hop out of the chair, dress well, smile brightly, finish a report, wrap up a business meeting, or throw a dinner party -- tonight, for 50 friends.

With Effexor coming off patent, Wyeth is happy to have Pristiq in the wings. As Gino Germano, Wyeth's president of pharmaceuticals told the New York Times, doctors and patients need to have options. The Times' print edition featured a photo of the beaming Germano, perhaps elated over the FDA approval news and definitely projecting a certain unique Pristiq mystique. Some analysts predict $1.5 billion in sales by 2012.

Art Tries to Imitate Science Tries to Imitate Art Tries to Imitates Science.....

Last year, Acronym Required wrote about the American Film Institute's Catalyst Workshop, which recruits scientists to train them in scriptwriting. "Science's Silver Bullet -- The Silver Screen?" described a Pentagon sponsored workshop that recruited "hard-core", "lab-certified scientists" to write scripts and portray "appealing" science protagonists.

The rational behind recruiting scientists? Back in 2005, the New York Times published a story on the Catalyst Workshop that explained Hollywood's demand for scientists: "They're compensated very minimally, they're going on blind faith that what they're searching for is going to pay off. And film making is exactly the same way". ("Pentagon's New Goal: Put Science Into Scripts", 08/04/05). An unflinching assessment indeed. We venture that "blind faith" is a slur to most scientists, no doubt filmmakers as well. As for the pay, true enough, most "lab-certified" scientists get paid pitifully. When we published the story we could only guess how scriptwriters fared.

Now with the writers strike, we have more information. According to the New York Times, some writers get paid significantly more than your average "lab-certified scientist". A recent article said that the "typical TV series writer may get $30,000 an episode, plus residuals". Movie scriptwriters get a million dollars in advance payment, according to studio executives. ("In Hollywood, a Sacred Cow Lands on the Contract Table", August 5, 2007 ). Of course sometimes the truth is found by reading between words, so we'll take that for the propaganda that it is.

While the top of the pay scale for Hollywood writers does seem like a brighter star than what scientists have to wish for, we know that only a few lucky writers get a stab at these choice positions. The rest of the labor force traipses gig to gig for what many consider menial pay: "More water sir?"

Sure, wink, wink, the writers are gouging the poor executives by asking them for residuals on digital works. The obvious question is: If the projected digital profits are such pittance, than why is the executive side of the contract table so apoplectic?

Is it "Over"?

In the case of the writer's strike, despite weekend rumors originating with a Fox News executive, claiming that the strike is over, we're waiting for the writers to make the call. We know that announcements like "it's over" are sometimes craftily used by those in charge of crisises to make the media go away.

Over or not, there's happy news from an unexpected source. Nature offers a proposal to the strikers. (Nature is a science journal.) The editors tell scientists to "saunter down to your local picket line, gather up a couple of film and television writers, and introduce them to the fascinations of the scientific life..." They add that plying them with drinks might help. ("A Quantum of Solace", Jan. 31, 2008). Who knows how the Hollywood writers will receive the offer, but I can't help thinking of the Anthony Burgess quote: "We all need money, but there are degrees of desperation."

Anyway, until we can truly cheer for the writers, we'll marvel at how the tables have turned. Last year, Hollywood sought out scientist scriptwriters, this year scientists seek out Hollywood scriptwriters.

PBS Nature, Animal Fare Light

I don't too often plunk down in front of the television and watch nature shows. The last time I watched a television show on animals was in a small restaurant in SE Asia which had the sort of overwhelming television presence that precludes conversation. Animal shows were popular fare in SE Asia. I occasionally watch PBS's Nature series. The last episode I remember watching, sometime last year, was called "Can Animals Predict Disaster?"

The show was a vehicle for elephants, hippopotamuses, tigers and fish to gambol about in zoos, deserts, forests, rivers, and oceans on various continents. "Can Animals Predict Disaster?" pondered whether animals could someday warn us of disasters, like the Sumatra tsunami of 2004. Behavior researchers investigated various related questions, like whether infrasound or geological cues warn animals of upcoming earthquakes or tsunamis.

One scientist set up large speakers on the safari and blasted classical music to giraffes and hippopotamuses over an impressive wilderness stereo system, then observed the animals' reactions. That was the control part of the experiment. I shouldn't anthropomorphize the giraffes by saying they looked bewildered. The scientist then blasted some pre-recorded hippopotamus calls. This prompted chorusing¹ from nearby hippopotamuses. The show explored at length what it meant for the hippopotamuses to chorus (in instances when a scientist regales them with his own recordings of their calls), and whether the animals could communicate impending disaster to each other.

As it turns out, animals have senses that humans don't, and unsurprisingly, communications systems we don't understand. Owls see better than humans, dogs' have more acute hearing than humans, elephants can sense vibrations hundreds of miles away through their trunks, and hippopotamuses chorus. But as one scientist pointed out, it's highly unlikely that animals evolved to run from tsunamis, since tsunamis are so rare. More likely, he said, animals would run from anything that sounded as threatening as a tsunami.

The episode crept towards its tentative conclusion: At the end of the day animals probably can't warn us of impending disaster. I say "probably" because "Can Animals Predict Disaster?" left some doubt about its answer. Perhaps PBS Nature's mission statement precludes it from completely trouncing people's fantasies about animals. On that note PBS Nature concluded ambiguously with a "what-if". "What-if" someday, humans could rely on animals to warn us before "the earth turns angry"?

These programs often feature predictable, anthropomorphic, action oriented fun. Suspense builds, large animals thunder across the plains, and the predator voraciously gets the prey. It's formulaic, family-friendly TV, with lots of death but very little copulation -- and certainly no embarrassing wardrobe malfunctions.

The extent to which these shows aim to please audiences is almost always inversely proportional to the production's potential as Acronym Required blog fodder. And we do, occasionally, mock media's science offerings, for instance our posts about Meerkat Manor, and the movie March Of The Penguins, commented on anthropomorphic edutainment. But always, even as we poke fun at these productions, we're acutely aware that the alarming pablum spooned out by the media in the name of nature or science today, can be bested with a thinner and less substantive gruel tomorrow.

TV, radio, newspapers -- they're all under the same pressure: money, money, money. The Wall Street Journal used to feature long, investigative health and technology articles, with corporate friendly front and editorial pages. But the paper's entire content is being Murdochized. CNN's home page used to highlight flimsy science coverage. Now we often find a CNN front page slathered with lurid crime tales. The network even managed to get itself panned as "corrupt" for its debate hosting tactics, on the front page of last Sunday's LA Times.

TV producers seem to forever probe the depths of available content, seeking the lowest common denominator, raking up muck from ever deeper ponds, flinging it out, wrapped with delicious advertising, to the apparently hungry masses. Since I watch TV infrequently, I don't get pulled imperceptibly into watching stupider and stupider shows until one day I find myself enthusing about some reality show contestant's outfit to a stranger on the bus -- no offense. Every six months I watch TV again and it hits me -- wow, is this it?

"Inspiring People to Care About the Planet": National Geographic, Aircraft Carriers, and Automobile Factories

In some blip of high expectations and naivete the other night, without considering any schedule, I turned on the TV and flipped to the National Geographic channel. I grew up reading National Geographic, along with Scientific American. Somewhere along the line, Scientific American changed. It used to carry long science articles with great graphics and lucid explanations of physiology and geology and other interesting topics. I still like it, but my impression of the current format is that it falls somewhere on the spectrum between USA Today and Highlights magazine -- albeit SA's website is better than Highlights'.

National Geographic used to feature anthropological articles on people and places around the world. Of course I wouldn't expect the same stories today, about some never-before-discovered jungle tribe that fashions strong vines for transportation,and brews therapeutic teas from the roots of exotic plant species, for example. But that evening I thought I'd learn something at least vaguely interesting, about a place, an animal, an ocean, some fish, a spider, an expedition. So I was surprised to tune in to the National Geographic channel and find myself watching a feature about the world's largest aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan.

The USS Ronald Reagan is in the Seventh Carrier Strike Group led by Rear Admiral Wisecup. I sat through a segment on loading supplies from the supply ship, everything slung onto the carrier via a pulley system set up between the two ships. What was I watching? Could this be right? I met the supply chief, Commander Pimpo. National Geographic? I checked the channel to make sure I hadn't landed on the wrong channel. The USS Ronald Reagan is big. Its run like a small city, with its own fire department, hospital, and police force. Maybe the remote is broken? No, all of this and more was the subject of National Geographic's "Supercarrier: USS Ronald Reagan." I guess it had been a while since I watched National Geographic. I suddenly yearned for a goofy show with the snake gulping down the bird.

The supercarrier has won several best in class awards, such as the "Ship's Store Retail and Services Excellence Award", for the U.S. Pacific Fleet for fiscal year 2006 in the CV/CVN class"; the excellence in food service award for its class; and the "Battle "E"" award, for its condition and wartime readiness. All of this is interesting if nuclear powered aircraft carriers interest you. You'd find this story fascinating if aircraft carrier logistics stories excite you as much as stories about animals, history, science or space. You'd be intrigued if patriotism to you means appreciating the fine tuning necessary for "prompt and sustained combat" by 6,000 people manning a ship longer than the Empire State building, that costs taxpayers $2.5 million dollars a day to run.

National Geographic claims its mission is: "Inspiring People to Care About the Planet". I'm sure some people would argue that a show about the Navy's USS Ronald Reagan fulfills the mission. Anyway National Geographic can feature any type of show it wants. And it does. Take for instance "Ultimate Factories". There's "Ultimate Factories: Ferrari", "Ultimate Factories: BMW", and "Ultimate Factories: Corvette". Sure, ok, car factories are fun. But does a Ferrari factory inspire you to "care about the planet?" Yes, these are slick cars, but am I total stick in the mud, given NG's mission statement, to point out that Ferraris get 7-10 mpg in the city and 12-16 mpg on the highway?

On National Geographic's "Advertise with us", website page they advise hopeful advertisers: "Now we are placing more emphasis on preservation, seeking a sustainable relationship with our planet, and promoting greater public understanding that will lead the way to global balance." When does it start? Or is the sentiment reserved for the "Global Warming" section of the website, where they dare not mention that cars contribute to global warming? Oh well. I'm sure that National Geographic's hat tip to the US military and car manufacturers is rewarded.

Discovery: Future Weapons

Where else would one turn for a good nature show these days? The Discovery Channel? In 1985 the fledgling cable network was launched to be "Scientific American of the air", as a spokesperson told AdWeek. When asked how Discovery Channel planned to compete with other networks (at a time when cable TV hadn't taken off), he said "If we are a 'dark-horse' to be a fourth network, we're almost invisible because we're so dark". He added, "To be a fourth major network, we'd have to add a lot of stuff, which we are not going to do. The true beauty of The Discovery Channel is that it's differentiated and focused." In 1988 about one-third of the network's programming was nature documentaries, one-third was documentaries about "other lands and their cultures", and the rest was devoted to shows on science, technology, history, and human adventures such as trekking and mountaineering,according to a Christian Science Monitor article at the time.

But things change. Today the vast Discovery Communications, produces multiple channels; Discovery, Health, Science, Animal Planet, Travel, HD theatre, and TLC ("an affirmative and connective experience"). They launched the "Military Channel" in 2005. The channel was a rework of an aviation show that producers expanded because of "viewer demand" for land and sea --not just air-- military content. Last February, when Discovery added home-grown content to "Military Channel", Vice President Bill Smee enthused to USA Today about the US soldiers' videos they planned to air. The films wouldn't always be "feel-good", he assured, because they were filming on the job: "...I don't want to overpromise firefights, but you may see the aftermath of an improvised explosive device."

So why not I guess? Shouldn't gore be part of the "The Military Channel"? Granted, no one in their right mind would go there looking for basic science or nature shows. But fight fervor is not confined to the "Military Channel". If you happened to naively click over to Discovery Channel at 11:00 on a Thursday evening, you wouldn't find "Planet Earth", or "Shark Week", or "Man vs. Wild", or "Storm Chasers". You'd be watching "Future Weapons".

"Future Weapons" is now in its second season. The show created a stir last year with its special website dedicated to building audience enthusiasm for weapons. BAE Systems helped sponsored the site. The defense contractor told AdWeek in June, 2007, that their media goals for working with Discovery were "to keep the Non-Line-of-Site (NLOS) Cannon front and center in terms of the Army and people who are interested in the military'". BAE found Discovery's content so useful that it used the Discovery Channel's NLOS site as "real third-party validation that we could show to our prospective customers".

To be fair, defense contractor advertising has always been a part of Discovery Communications, even when the network wanted to be "Scientific American of the air", back in 1985. Shiny spiffy weapons just haven't been quite so "front and center". Also to be fair, Discovery Communications' mission is more in line with its commitment to military content than National Geographic's. On their "About" page, the corporation proclaims: "Discovery, it's not just our name, it's our very calling". A little dull, but universally inclusive, which gives the corporation an opening for all programming, even military recruiting.

Discovery Communications offers no pretense about saving the planet. Nevertheless, if "discovery is [y]our calling", forgive your audience for thinking along the lines of exploring the Amazon, or investigating bone marrow cell transplants, or climbing Everest, or observing some animals on the Kalahari -- without the NLOS Cannon and its "unprecedented responsiveness and lethality". Sure military technology is based on science -- but building enthusiasm for weapons is used for the purpose of exciting people about war, not science. From "discovery is our calling", its only a hop, skip and a jump to historical slogans like "it's not a job, it's an adventure", or the current Navy slogan of dubious meaning: "accelerate your life". ²

More, New Science on Cable

I do sometimes lament what passes for science programming these days, and I'm not alone. In 2003 there was a flurry of announcements and excitement around a proposed C-Span like science station called Cable Science Network - CSN. Science, and Scientific American, and Wired announced the program. The founders wrote in Scientific American: "Wouldn't it be great to watch congressional hearings on cloning, bioterrorism, global warming and aging? Wouldn't it be fabulous to attend--via cable--cutting-edge lectures given by scientists at various annual scientific conferences?" I'm not sure how the public answered, but CSN apparently never got off the ground.

There are other efforts starting however, and while programming can get worse, it can surely always get better. The National Science Foundation (NSF), has teamed up with the Research Channel to produce programs for national and international cable, TV, and internet audiences. There's also a PBS/Wired program called Wired Science. I'm sure there are others, I'll just have to channel surf a little more. Then there's always Second Life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹Documented in various insects and amphibians. William Barklow has done (and popularized) the research with hippopotamuses, (ie, J. of Animal Behavior March 28, 2002, "Amphibious communication with sound in hippos, Hippopotamus amphibius").

² Granted, "discovery is our calling" doesn't fit too well with the new army slogan, "Army Strong" -- too many words in the former, whereas-latter-distorted-English --grunt. See more about "Army Strong" at goarmy.com.

Acronym Required writes frequently about science and media and has also written about global warming and cognitive dissonance, for instance in Cars: Buying Cognitive Dissonance", Sea Change or Littoral Disaster, Science Communication, Communicating Climate Change, and Climate Change, Fueling the "Debate", and others. Links to other Acronym Required articles are included in the text.

When Fear of the Internet Manifests as a Desire to Throw Cheerios?

In Time magazine's "When the Patient is a Googler", Dr. Scott Haig constructs a straw lady for our entertainment. His female patient "brandish[es]" information during an office visit and her unruly child spews chocolate milk and Cheerios about his office. Haig holds up his caricature of a harried mom and compares her to his ideal patient, the engineer who is "accustomed to the concept of consultation". The engineer's kids are no doubt being cared for somewhere else, and his Mr. or Ms. "Logical" probably sports a pocket protector to prevent ink from the Pilot Extra Fine Point permanent marker from accidentally marring the doctor's fine upholstery. Kudos to engineers for knowing their rightful place.

To be fair, Haig likes nurses too. They're his "favorites", because "they know our language and they're used to putting their trust in doctors. And they laugh at my jokes."

The doctor holds a seemingly exalted position in New York's medical circles. He teaches, runs a private practice, and "punts" his undesirable patient, her "mispronounced words and half-baked ideas", after only one short visit. Such skill! Such fortune! Hospitalists, emergency docs, managed care docs, brilliant and dedicated private practice doctors, nurses, lab techs, physical therapists, administrators and medical workers are often stuck with their clients -- even when said individuals taunt outrageous anti-medical ideas like "yin-yang", or "nutrition"! But imagine Haig's scenario. Imagine if after a mere twenty minutes of your insufferable patient, co-worker, doctor, or boss, you could simply opt out? You could just bid that arrogant pill adieu and never have to endure whatever blah, blah, blah, blah...again? Without sacrificing your (let's say) $500,000K+ salary? Oh, should such a world be mine! To hell with compassion.

For a man of his stature, Haig's stereotyped "brainsucker" female protagonist with her wayward toddler provokes a strong reaction -- "I soon felt like throwing Cheerios at her too", "I couldn't dance with this one". Why such indignation? In Haig's telling she knows his address, but it's hard to imagine any real rage or paranoia built around that. It's easy enough to keep an address private, and she's obviously harmless.

Haig did not write 'Googler Patient' for Acronym Required's rhetorical amusement. If we were to hazard a guess, we'd suspect there's something more, and the doctor didn't diagnose his problem correctly. We'd suggest that it's psychological. That he's upset, unsettled perhaps, thinking about how the internet might further disrupt the cozy information asymmetry implicit in doctor patient relationships. Does Google masquerade in Haig's tale as some pushy female, "rude" and "too personal"? Does "she" jostle the power structure? Does "she" psychophysiologically unnerve the doctor?

An Apple a Day....More Pablum For Busy, Distracted Minds

When patients visit the doctor they generally get one 10-30 minute office visit with the "expert". Doctors are pricey, even if insurance buffers the $200-$500 bill. "Personalized" medicine? Patients are often lucky if the doctor gets their name and age right. Stressed by whatever ails them, patients don't see doctors for a living, as doctors do patients, so they could be forgiven their unpracticed manner. Think of your dear grandmother, born in a time not too long after the town doctor made patient rounds with his horse-drawn carriage. Does she have to ape the behavior of a dispassionate engineer in order to avoid the scorn?

Many doctors agree that patients should be as informed as possible for their own health. We all acknowledge that American medicine is often a broken system. Sure "experts" abound, but complacent doctors are easy to find too. Medical errors occur in "44,000 to 98,000" patients a year according to the FDA (via Google). Patients, being human, aren't all equally subtle or adept at integrating their new found internet information with the doctor's expertise. But doctors should be able to adjust to this. They should be able to relate to inevitable unevenness in "bedside manners", and the variable ability of patients to see the body in the same way that the well-trained and indoctrinated doctor does.

There's a phenomenon at work here concerning the internet, medical information, and doctor/patient relationships. Unfortunately this Time column doesn't get around to exploring the more subtle and interesting aspects of the story.

'Fessing Up For Health

In a related piece, Tom Delbanco, M.D., and Sigall K. Bell, M.D write in "Guilty, Afraid, and Alone - Struggling with Medical Error", (New England Journal of Medicine NEJM Volume 357:1682-1683, October 25, 2007), about mutual fear on the part of patients and doctors that exacerbates suffering due to medical mistakes. They note that "because of the power dynamics between physicians and patients, questioning the expertise or skill of an authority figure is particularly fraught for the least empowered members of society". The authors have made a film for third year medical students and suggest that in the case of medical errors, there should be a forum for some sort of reconciliation: "patients and families will bring ideas to the table that expand the horizons of health care professionals".

Today, Craig Venter published his genome sequence in the journal PLoS Biology, along with a self-portrait so large, in the journal's 'Synopsis' version, that this startled reader recoiled with fright.

Sheesh. Science should be soothing...first you have your abstract, your introduction, the methods, results, discussion...No unassuming reader seeking to understand science's newest frontiers, for the greater good, should ever be confronted with SO MANY individual facial hairs, in such...lewd...detail. Shotgun sequencing indeed, he's a bit in the reader's face, as they say.

The published sequence is diploid, both his mother's and father's contributions. Much of the sequence may seem familiar, due to the fact that Venter contributed his DNA to the first composite sequencing human genome effort made by Celera (his company, which is also behind the current effort), the results of which were published in 2001. His genetic contribution to that effort was 60%. According to today's Financial Times unique scoop, Venter is predisposed to "novelty-seeking behaviour and a preference for evening rather than morning activity". News you can use.

However both the journal and the author stress that individual human traits are each influenced by many genes. The PLoS paper concludes that human-to-human sequence variation is five- to seven-fold greater than earlier estimates, which Venter says, proves that we are in fact more unique at the individual genetic level than we thought.

Yawn. Good enough. Nevertheless, maybe next time, a composite photo? Perhaps? To display your essential humanity?

"Art is What You Can Get Away With." -- Andy Warhol

Scienceblogs', scientist, PZ Myers of Pharyngula, one of the first and most entertaining science bloggers, was recently sued 15 million dollars by Stuart Pivar for Myers' critical review of his book. Myer's 2005 review of the book is here, and an updated review from last month is here. Lawyer Peter Irons wrote a response to Pivar here. Pivar dropped the suit, but until then feverish speculation and analysis prevailed on some blogs. 'It will be dismissed' some said. 'It's groundless' everyone agreed. But there was also unexpected and deafening silences from other corners, as if a cold wind had blown through some warm cozy blogospheric goodness. Some just had no comment. But others asked, what if people start suing individual bloggers?

What if? Would all bloggers just be quiet?? Tell me it's not so. If it weren't Seed, and a famous blogger, would there be any point of a suit? We were left to ponder what the suit was really all about.

When I first tried to search for "Pivar" and "science" it was slim pickings. Did I mean "Pixar", as in Pixar Entertainment? "Picar"? "Piper"? My search terms were wrong, and as it turns out "science" was throwing off the results. Well-known in art and New York Society circles, Pivar's name is often associated with famous people, sometimes deceased -- Andy Warhol, Diana Vreeland, and recently Stephen Jay Gould. He has been featured in popular magazines, in the New York Times "Public Lives" section, and in New York tabloids' "celebrities" sections for over 30 years.

His media coverage has always been impressive. In 1975 Newsweek profiled Pivar curating a show on "Schlock Art" (not an insult in art, apparently). In 1979 he was featured in Time magazine's profile on artists. Then he paid $223,250 for a rare sabre-tooth tiger skull to add to his collection of skeletons and bones. He spent oodles of time and money delving into the provenance of a life sized statue called "Roman Bronze Boy" that may have been fake.

Pivar is often the highest bidder, as the Boston Globe reported from one elephant art auction in 2000: "'This is an excellent painting,'" Pivar exclaimed. "'It's what we call a W.C.M. - a world-class masterpiece.'" (Boston Globe, March 22). He referred to art painted by elephants and a foundation that teaches Asian elephants to paint and sells the proceeds, thereby extending the boundaries of art. The foundation also develops "an affordable line of non-toxic quality paints for use by elephants and caretakers as well as underprivileged children in developing countries".

Writing for the New York Times Claudia Steinberg once interviewed Pivar about his home, his decorating, and collecting (September 9, 2004). '''You need 300 objects to furnish an apartment, just for the record'", Pivar said. Steinberg noted his "'grand tone"', reminiscent of a friend who had "'taught him the effectiveness of pontification.'" He continued the pontification:

"'Every time I see an example of something that is better than what I own, I buy it... otherwise for the rest of my life I have to live with the knowledge that someplace in the world something is floating around that is better than mine, and that's intolerable.'''

Pivar frequently targets various parties to sue and was once called "'an institutional stalker"', by the president of the New York Academy of Art. (The New York Post, June 20, 1998). He's apparently not afraid of provoking a scene. After suing the Academy (which he had founded), one night he showed up at their "Take Home a Nude fundraiser", which the Post explained was "where flesh-filled works donated by students and supportive artists are auctioned off." Unwelcome because of his lawsuit, he was "barred at the door, then thrown down into a puddle", according to the Post article. "'Ass over teakettle'", he said, and his effort landed him in the New York Post. He slapped the Academy with another suit for assault. Then he dropped the suit.

Your 15 Minutes? Again?

Perhaps the decorum he's accustomed to in New York art society differs from that on the internet among scientists? Somehow PZ and Pharyngula figured into Pivar's marketing plan, but beyond trying to attain some vague name recognition, Pivar's efforts are confusing. For someone who pursues fame so relentlessly, who has so many well-connected friends, can't he simply get himself listed on Wikipedia? It seems that this sort of internet play, while surely a low ball bid, might have been easier.

Did he not understand the internet? He certainly must not have looked too closely at the articulate, analytical, opinionated and more than occasionally biting Pharyngula blog. I would certainly think twice before submitting a book for review there. But that's just gauging the landscape. Knowing that Pivar lives with "wallcovering of rose-gold silk brocade", and hundreds of art objects ( NYT, September 9, 2004), I wouldn't solicit his opinion about certain things either; like the design-sense of my blog or my attitudes towards pursuing fame, for starters.

But then again perhaps he was coveting a more cordial reception, like the one Pharyngula gave to Lynn Margulis when Myers hosted her earlier this year. True, Margulis is renowned for cell biology she did 15, 20, 30 or so years ago on endosymbiotic theory. She's earned plenty of street cred -- of the science type, both for her science and writing. But she's also well-known for putting forth "non-traditional" ideas like this:

"In the nerve cell, the axons and the dendrites that make the physical connections that allow us to communicate are latter-day spirochetes. Nerve cells, having long ago discarded the rest of the spirochete body, use the fundamental motility system of spirochetes. Think of the nerve as coming from what had formerly been a bacterium, 'trying' but unable to rotate and swim. Thought involves motility and communication, the connection between remnant spirochetes. All I ask is that we compare human consciousness with spirochete ecology."

You can imagine a simple schematic that suggests the relationship.

"Don't Worry What They Write About You...."

Of course all fame, whether it's in science, art or blogging, demands selective use of charm. When granted the opportunity by Pharyngula for an on-line chat forum, Margulis gamely mastered the medium, tutoring the likes of a participants with handles like "Hairhead" on her theories. But at the same time, being that she's so well-established and somewhat revered, Margulis didn't hesitate to use the opportunity to put forward her harebrained and definitely controversial ideas.

With PZ Myer's moderation, Margulis reiterated her idea that HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, citing in the comments during her online exchange at Pharyngula that a convincing case against HIV viral causality of AIDS was given in a thoroughly refuted and completely infuriating article that Harper's published last year. This article was roundly dismissed by scientists, public health and policy experts, as well as AIDS patients and activists around the world.

If HIV virus did cause AIDS, Margulis persists, than why didn't the CDC respond to her written demand for proof? This feigned helplessness from someone whose tenacity and research skills led her to unearth useful obscure microbiology references from 19th century Russian publications and to question prevailing theories of evolution year after year as she pursued acceptance of her symbiosis theory. This assertion despite CDC's explanation of HIV virus causing AIDS here, and NIH's explanation here.

Reading the Margulis' post on the Myers blog, as well as the chat he hosted, it's hard to tell what would or wouldn't have gotten axed under PZ's "no-trolling" rule. These forums tend to go sideways, especially after a hundred or so comments, and not just because of trolls. With such a wide audience, some people don't know the basic background science, while others get distracted. Following both the thread of comments and the on-line forum transcript sometimes reminded me of trying to watch a parade while a posse of kids fights over some gumdrops that rolled on the ground in front of me. That being the level of the enterprise, Margulis got off lightly on her anti-science AIDS ideas.

It all seemed boring, with a civility that bordered on intellectual stupor. While the subject was promising, Margulis ably chose what she presented and answered. It was certainly not the kind of place where an open exchange could take place, but it was a place where she could get coverage for her particular ideas. Margulis is savvy and used PZ Myers forum well. Pivar, obviously, played his unique hand with Myers differently, with different results.

....Just Measure it in Inches." -- Warhol

Scientists employ well established rules of engagement in academia. There is an old adage that the feuds are intense in academia because the stakes are low, which is only partially true. We generally don't sue fellow scientists -- historically it just didn't make sense because there was nothing to gain -- "I'll confiscate all your test tubes!" It's about intelligence or at the very least creating that image. Equally powerful tools are words, wit, aplomb, and most of all, renown from previous accomplishments -- all of which Margulis employs with rigor.

On balance Margulis seems to relish controversy and certainly slings mud far better than most, a well-honed and essential skill. Years ago she would malign molecular biologists for (generally but not excluded to) being reductionist. Margulis has criticized evolutionary biologists for ignoring chemistry and microbiology in evolution, and chided developmental biologists for not understanding important components of evolution like geology. She refused to talk to journalists because she said they 'always misrepresent' her ideas. Nowadays she decries online sources which she says always distort her theories. Despite her formidable offense skills, she forever portrays herself as someone who has been pushed in a mud puddle.

Scientists' methods of acquiring prestige are not to be underestimated as they can make or break careers and hold scientists and lay audiences in hypnotized sway. Clearly Pivar's background hasn't given him the chance to cultivate these unique science combat skills, I mean if you make a living by being the highest bidder on modern art, and promote art made by elephants with their trunks with a cute acronym like "W.C.M.", for "world class masterpiece", if your highest publicity bid takes the form of a lawsuit, well there's a very different recipe for fame in the science world.

Eccentricity however, is one trait that seems to be leveraged both by art world and the science world. Once you accept how common eccentricity is, cranks and crackpots are just one step removed. When scientists mutter poetry or mismatch socks it merely adds to their aura of mystique. Eccentric? Or crank? Einstein was famously "eccentric". Margulis herself observes how "'it's easy to be dismissed as a "crank" or "on the fringe"'.

Yet unlike the artist who is new to the party, her past publications give her the leeway to remind us of this fact all the time, and so the ghost of Thomas Kuhn lingers in the background, throwing an inkling of doubt on all our rock solid reality-based paradigms. The technique of reminding people how often paradigms are shattered to reveal new truths seems especially effective when used by someone of the slimmest fame like Margulis on non-scientists.

"It may not be Raining. They may be Spitting on Us." -- attributed to Warhol

So if one is a lay-person, how should one tell if the famous scientist knows what they're speaking of? It's tricky. Obviously, if the person doesn't have an established biography in science, it's easy to doubt their credibility. If you're a scientist, should you call out scientists who are more famous than you on tenuous or disproved theories? How does one deal with cranks? PZ might say the Margulis exchange was an open forum, and indeed some people asked very pointed questions. But does the rather warm reception send a mixed message to those who don't know, those who swoon before fame rather than examining each new proposal anew, with equal analysis or skepticism?

It used to be that scientists rarely entered the public forum. They didn't blog, and if they were very famous they only occasionally emerged into the light of day from their labs, personas confused with public awe. In 2000, James Glanz of the New York Times wrote "Geniuses, Crackpots and a Grand Unified Theory", which recounts the rare interactions between scientists and the public, generally when well meaning fans contact scientists to insist that their wacky ideas are worth a Nobel hearing. Margulis herself contends that new-age Gaia people usually misinterpret the science behind her's and Lovelock's ideas.

The NYT article details some funny incidences of "nimble circumlocutions on the parts of legitimate scientists". Some scientists are diplomatic, hoping to encourage people to like science, others tend to be wary, for good reason. There was no internet forum at the time, so most of these interactions took place in person. One former physicist told of a "frightening experience"...

...a man claimed that he had invented bulletproof paint. Sitting in Dr. Moyer's office and clutching a paper bag, the man said ominously that the paint was also resistant to intercontinental ballistic missiles and suggested that Dr. Moyer would want to arrange a test.

The awkward exchanges the author depicts range from dealing with "cosmic theorizers", to engaging "superannuated, formerly fine scientists who late in their careers get bored doing bread-and-butter stuff". The scientists uniformly treated these people with kid gloves:

Once, as [Moyer] was discussing crackpot theorizing with a fellow physicist in his office, his colleague took out a file marked "public relations" that was filled with letters on off-the-wall theories. When Dr. Moyer asked why in the world the folder was so labeled, his colleague explained that the writers sometimes turned up in his office, "and they get really upset if you take out a folder marked 'crackpots.' "

But science bloggers now have unique challenges. They need to do credible publishable science, maintain labs, and teach. Furthermore, we're in a political climate when fear dominates politics, driving people to faith and speculative pie in the sky theories. Don't bloggers have to be somewhat "blunt", just to get an audience? A good many science bloggers want to expose readers to solid science and give them some sort of arsenal to distinguish good from bad. But yet to attract an audience, the medium demands that the blog be frequently entertaining.

Conflict is entertaining, as those who seek fame know. Margulis has mastered this. Pivar also seems to cultivate a combative image in the art world. And certainly PZ is skilled at the use of rhetorical obliteration. It's essentially PZ's PR talk show, therefore, using measures of entertainment value and popular appeal, it all makes perfect sense. Naturally Pharyngula invites Lynn Margulis, a famous scientist who has been more or less spent her career trailed by diaphanous veil of conflict, and he allows questions but warns no "trolls". And Pharyngula agrees to review the self-published book of Stuart Pivar, a famous art collector, and does so in a frank and comedic way. Blog readers will certainly get some bang for their buck.

Just when you thought the profile of the lowly rock pigeon couldn't sink any further. "Experts say" that pigeon guano may have contributed to the Minnesota bridge failure. Apparently the acidic guano corroded and weakened the metal.

With this sort of evidence, can we really continue to lash out at legislators, the governor, tax laws, the war in Iraq, federal deficits, the inspectors, Republicans, distorted taxpayer priorities --or if you happen to be a Rush Limbaugh fan -- labor unions? Sure investigators are still "investigating", but maybe they should just stop that, given this finding.

The abundant city pigeon, known as the rock pigeon or Columba livia, is one of the least favored species. Indeed, humans refer to them derogatorily as "rats with wings". Therefore the promotion of pigeon to scapegoat is brilliant, so much more community oriented than finding lapses in official judgment and blaming politicians.

An exceptional choice to take the fall, this will be like water rolling off a duck's back to the pigeon. They'll just continue on with that jerky red-eyed strut for as long as they live, heads jutting left and right, back and forth, parading across dirty city sidewalks, cooing in the gutters. Politicians may also be oily, but they're human, weak. Therefore they're more susceptible to family stressing repercussions. When civilians who have been bopped over the head with perceived negligence one too many times start to stir, watch politicians leave in droves, tails tucked between their legs. Back to their "families". Not a problem with pigeons. Most people can't even figure out whether they actually have babies or not (squab, if you prefer).

So a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to oust them and suggests "netting to block holes and surfaces, spikes to keep them from landing, and sometimes poisoning, shooting or trapping the birds".

This is what they called a "multi-pronged strategy" to deal with pigeons and their guano, and it's a sublime blend of sport, family fun, and civic duty. Carefully executed, it should be warmly received with rare unilateral support from the state and federal governments, taxpayers, and officials of every stripe. Environmentalists might even be on board. The squinty, awkward pigeon is certainly no round-eyed, fluffy, cute little spotted owl.

Not only could the plan save other bridges imperiled by pigeon guano, it could redeem whole cities. Scientists should think along these lines more often. It's one of those extraordinarily rare "expert" findings that's actually useful to society. Perhaps the levees in New Orleans were weakened by Pelican guano? Oh no wait, that's the state bird...

Murdoch -- Scarred by Chapter Books?

The Wall Street Journal -- sold to the only bidder. Finally the most obvious outcome arrives after months of drama and teeth gnashing. The Bancrofts apparently hadn't had a family member on the board since 1932, and by all accounts were "hands off" owners, busy with horses, aviation and other pursuits. Cashing out, with the appropriate level of public contemplation, was a clear-cut opportunity.

People are concerned about the outcome of the sale. Their's is reasonable consternation. The New York Post is a freak show, with it's distorted portraits lurching out at you from the newsstands, fear-mongering headlines battling for your attention. This week's issue features a story "The Tragic Madness of King George" -- about George Steinbrenner, of course -- subtitled "Babbling Boss 'Shocks' Pal". I'm surprised they let the "g" stay in "babbling". The Post is world of "Pals", "Cops", "Hubbies", "60 Second" interviews, chases where the "cops" generally prevail, along with riveting human interest tales like "Castrated Dad was 'Monster'. Will the editorial page views of the Wall Street Journal change, people ask? Hmmm...doubtful?...but fair enough....

Hopefully all readers aren't getting their news from the editorial pages, if so it's a sunk cause. But there's obvious confusion, especially given the hopeful to and fro about an independent board, that led the publisher to clarify in his "Report to the Readers", earlier this week:

"...some of the concerns raised about the acquisition have been illegitimate -- and could wrongly impugn the Journal. One is the notion that somehow ownership could be separated from control."

There you have it, people do indeed acquire things to control them, that's "biz".

Shorter Articles for Our Shorter Attention Spans

I'm aware of people's attentions spans in the world of the blog, in fact, I'm quite sure only a few people have read to this point in this article. It is with this understanding that I say that my prediction that the WSJ articles, especially investigative pieces, will get shorter. Not to mention that Murdoch said as much himself when he spoke about some of his ideas for his impending acquisition in a conversation with the New York Times a couple of months ago. He said he had a hard time understanding some of the technology articles. He also expressed his distaste for longer articles: "'I'm sometimes frustrated by the long stories'", he told paper, noting that he '"rarely" finishes' them.

That Murdoch can't finish his articles is as heartbreaking as watching a toddler pick all the green things off her highchair tray and hurl them onto the floor. Indeed it was Murdoch's "unfinished" bits, I'm sure, that most interested us. We noted this in Coke, Teaching the World to Sing (June 7, 2005).

"The Wall Street Journal article takes an interesting approach in its article ["How a Global Web of Activists Gives Coke Problems in India",Steve Stecklow, June 7, 2005]. The intended audience seems to be the corporate world, when the author writes about exaggerations made by exuberant NGOs (Non-Government Organizations). The Wall Street Journal informs readers in the second paragraph that Mr. Srivasta is a "pony-tailed, 39-year old college dropout."

However turning off the front page, you learn that the Wall Street Journal visited the bottling company in Kerala where Coke was accused of dumping toxic waste and found that required soil sample testing was not routinely done. As well, reporters found that while the Coca-Cola corporate website virtuously announced the results of a study that purportedly found a Kerala plant's waste material not hazardous, but that other independent studies concluded the opposite...."

It's exactly these stories that we devour, as they elucidate the complexities of issues, or at least pique our interest and stimulate further research. It's not a rule, but some of the most distorted news spews forth from short pithy sound bites, as on the FOX news network or in other Murdoch publications.

The "Old" WSJ?

Most people don't think of the Wall Street Journal as focusing on public health or environment issues, but we wrote quite a few stories over the past few years referencing Wall Street Journal articles, on diverse subjects, such as:

• Endocrine disruptors, particularly bisphenol-A found in plastics: ("Plastic Bottles- Protecting Your Baby, by the ACC")
• The oil spillage after Hurricane Katrina: (The Environment & Katrina - Slick Oil Fallout")
• Polyheme, a blood substitute product, and clinical trials being conducted by Northfield Laboratories, (Polyheme and The Newest Plastic Bracelet), and it's competing product, Hemopure (Polyheme & Hemopure: Life Savers? Products to Die For?")
• Autism research conducted by economists (Autism Research Revisted")
• The TXU buyout by KKR (TXU - Greenmail?")
• Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) (The Companions of Mad Cows")
• CocaCola's manufacturing practices in India, especially related to pesticides and water use: (Coke, Teaching the World to Sing)
• IT project challenges in healthcare ("Kaiser IT: Whistleblowing in Internet Time")
• Potential encroachment of academic publishing by online, open source journals ("Accessible Research For All, By All- The Government, State, Universities and NGO's")

Some of the WSJ articles were extensive, like Peter Waldman's article on endocrine disruptors (one of a series). Others brought national attention to important issues, such as Thomas Burton's articles on Northfield Laboratories' clinical trials. A few were pure blog fodder, as may more often be the case in the future.

It's Not His Fault

As disappointing as this seems, the trend towards shorter enlivened content preceded Murdoch's incursion. Last January, the WSJ publisher L. Gordon Crovitz, announced changes to the paper that he called, "the first newspaper rethought for today's needs".

"..This includes more interpretation, analysis and context -- more focus on what the rush of news truly means....As Managing Editor Paul Steiger puts it, today perhaps a bit over half of our news space is devoted to exclusive, differentiated information and the rest to essentially what happened the day before. Our goal is to move to 80% exclusive news, with 20% making sure you're aware of the key developments of the previous day. ...Expect to see more forward-leaning coverage, with headlines featuring predictive and explanatory words like "will" and "means" and "why."

This is a more straight-forward admission than the crafty FOX News claim: "We Report, You Decide". The WSJ slant is obviously familiar to us. As Gordon Crowitz stated in his latest, "A Report to Our Readers", two days ago: "Opinions represent only the applicable publication's own editorial philosophies centered around the core principle of "free people and free markets".

Supporting free market ideology isn't new. It's "forward-leaning". Not to be confused with "right-leaning", or "left-leaning", but definitely, positively pro-business. Although FOX and other Murdoch publications broadcast far-right Republican political agendas, Democrats are also "forward-leaning" and pro-business -- albeit more supportive of government regulation and socially liberal values. Remember, Murdoch supports Hilary Clinton. Harper-Collins, owned by Murdoch, published John Edward's last book and provided hefty advances to the now indignant candidate.

News to Hypnotize the Masses - and No Democrat Left Behind

The WSJ also changed the format of the paper last January, because a businessman wrote in and said that when he flew first class, he would knock over his fellow passengers' orange juice, thus... "an easier-to-handle size, to a more standard width" -- New York Post-like. All the better to capture those can't miss opinions about what it all the days events mean. It's unfortunate that the first class businessmen are apparently too distracted to sort out their own opinions.

Hopefully the new Journal will continue providing a certain depth of coverage. If not maybe the analysis and opinions the editors feed to readers will help this broad new population alleviate what The Atlantic last month labeled "Cognitive Dissonance".

The Atlantic proposes a phenomenon where "rational voters", who watch certain cable stations, that feature news about the late Nicole Simpson, for instance, but not than the Iraq War, are dulled by the assuaging effect of the biased news for simpletons. As a result of the networks manufactured lack of concern, say about the Iraq war, these people are prone to support obviously failing government policies, like the war. Why did so many people re-elect Bush when his record was so bad, the article asks? Given the mass audience of WSJ readers, and the potential for the content to spiral south, The Atlantic presents an uncomfortable notion.

But maybe there aren't any "rational voters" anyway. An alternative theory is that maybe the WSJ readers aren't innocent lambs bound for a future shearing. They're self-interested voters, free market adherents both Democrat and Republican, who Murdoch has found corralled together reading the Wall Street Journal. They have already asked for and received WSJ publication changes that trend towards his 'ideals'. Perhaps he increases his personal power by adding Democrats to his audience, which coincidentally benefits his bottom line. So what, we'll ask impudently? Isn't that an accomplishment that all free-market thinkers should applaud?

EPIDEMIC!

You will be fat if friends in your social network are fat. Really?

It seems anecdotal - either completely obvious or an urban myth, but Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler claim to show proof of the pudding in their study, "The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years", published in this week's New England Medical Journal (NEJM).

The authors used data from the 'never stops giving' Framington Heart cohort, and importantly "quantified" what many people presumed to be a given, as Christakis explains in this video from Harvard's Office of Public Affairs. Apparently, they conclude, obesity spreads via social clusters which extend to three degrees of separation. Subjects who had a close friend who became obese within a particular time interval increase their own chances of becoming obese by 57%. An obese spouse would increase their chances of becoming obese by 37%, and an obese sibling would increase their chance of obesity by 40%.

Thus, the authors "document" a "higher order effect", "a spreading process through the network", "a cascade", whereby the fat begets fat, a meme perhaps, for those who like memes, or as Christakis put it, "like an epidemic, a real epidemic".

The video backdrop in Christakis's press release is a white board, heartily marked with technical scribblings. Obviously the authors slaved through the night to unveil these exciting results for us. You can make out some of the variables. T is for time I suppose, S - ok, R - sure, F is for..umm...fat? You can't gnash your teeth trying to discern the meaning of these scientific meanderings -- or is that a supply and demand curve? And what's that tic-tac-toe-game to the left of the speaker's head? Christakis helpfully explains all that we the lay audience need to know (except the white board doodles) in this 2 minute and 36 second video.

Genes, Memes, the Environment

It's fashionable these days to let genes off the hook. This study acknowledges genes but targets environmental factors -- sort of. The authors seem to ease by that too. They found that proximity doesn't necessarily influence obesity. If your next door neighbor is obese, this won't influence your own chances of obesity, and thus they say, "local" environment doesn't matter.

"Our findings that the weight gain of immediate neighbors did not affect the chance of weight gain in egos [primary subjects] and that geographic distance did not modify the effect for other types of alters (e.g., friends or siblings) helps rule out common exposure to local environmental factors as an explanation for our observations."

But what might "local" environmental factors of obesity be? Intuitively, we surmise there's nothing unique about Framingham or Massachusetts, obesity-wise. That is there's no rural diet these days that differs significantly from the the urban diet, not Southern diet radically different from a Northern Yankee diet. Sure maybe you can find grits more easily in the South, but local traditions have usually been replaced by not-so-quaint global alternatives.

The old-fashioned soda-fountain has been replaced by McDonald's. Fast-food habits aren't local, nor are habits of allaying thirst with Coca-Cola. Watching TV for 4 hours a day isn't a local habit. Nor is the propensity to drive endlessly around parking lots in a Jeep Patriot or Liberty vying for a parking space less than fifteen paces from the mall entrance.

These not-so-local habits make the jobs of photographers tasked with capturing footage for the ubiquitous evening news about alarming obesity trends easier every day.

It is a "real epidemic", but disease language only gets us so far. Sure it may be interesting to acknowledge that friends and family influence your perception of acceptable weight, as well as what you eat, your religious preferences, voting habits and almost all other choices or beliefs. But does this add meaning to the dilemma or is it just comfort food?

Spend Money, Preserve our Way of Life

In the end, the authors predict that people get fat together, therefore they'll get thin together, although in the study, there was a (to be expected) preponderance of weight gain. A seemingly obvious solution is to dump your fat friends, but the authors say no, no, no! -- don't "get rid of" any friends, since research "suggests" friends are good. What to do then, with this health fad, this obesity meme? As we all know, change is the tough part. We've already errantly tried various flawed experiments to clamp down on the trend.

Cristakis's concludes in his video that "interventions that target groups of individuals rather than sole isolated individuals are likely to be more effective". Aha! Like so many CDC recommendations? Trans-fat legislation? We'll institute more gym. Not possible? Cristakis manages to cover all bets with his third point, hedging, "to the extent that prevention or treatment of weight gain in one person works, you're more likely to contribute to avoidance of weight gain in others." Somehow I sense a collective "PHEW!" from corporations and individuals who would favor this obesity conclusion, this new social network phenomenon, because it requires no policy change.

This is a win, win, win type of study. The media snuggles up to this stuff like cats to catnip despite the very thin veneer of revelation. Weight loss enterprises will smile and thrive on the news. The study won't alarm fast food companies, since it hand waves in other directions. And finally, smart, self-promotional research that it is, presented via video press release, it of course suggests future research. Some scientists fret about the likelihood of not being able to repeat the result, given the uniqueness of the Framingham cohort. But can't intrepid investigators recruit chubby-faced cabals from Facebook to study perhaps? Can't epidemiology take advantage of these free-wheeling information yielding Web 2.0 types? Who needs nurses?

Of course, we've all been holding our breaths, waiting for a breakthrough in the obesity problem. Cristakis adeptly delivers, winding down his 156 seconds by hopefully noting: "the amount of money you spend in helping a person lose weight has much more benefit than you might have imagined". Waddle on then friends, the obesity solution is around the bend, just keep shopping.

(Image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Soda_jerk_NYWTS.jpg)

------------------------------

Related posts at Acronym Required:

Common Sense Food in Schools
"Why So Fat? It's Systemwide",
"Childhood Obesity, The American Way"
"Survey Says: Pop's Out Drugs are In"
"News of Lightweight Study: 'Obese Should Walk Slowly'"
"Coke: Teaching the World to Sing"

--------------------------------------------------------------

Flying Tedium

Sometimes you forget about the tedium of modern day air travel because the destination turns out to be so educational, enlightening, adventuresome, or fun. Your meetings, regardless of their purpose or outcome -- obligatory, joyful, fruitful, or entertaining -- redeem your travel efforts. But there's no denying that air travel can be tedious.

In previous eras travel at least required attention to your surroundings. Compared to a trek through the Amazon in the early 1900's, the riverboat tour today promising a piranha supper is no doubt cozier, but today's Homo sapiens vigor pales next to our swashbuckling, nature enduring ancestors. The intellectual or physical engagement once necessary for travel has been commercially scrubbed from most of today's mind numbing excursions.

U.S. airline travel offers the ultimate somnolent experience, with all the industrial efficiency required to fly 30,000 commercial flights a day in the US. Save the occasional blunder, air travel has been reduced from exotic to a mundane necessary evil. Sure, you don't want your flying experience to be "exciting". But we've been systematically trivialized to mindless beings who welcome the airline's beverage service with saucer eyed eagerness.

We put Pavlov's drooling dogs to shame with our anticipation of that one-ounce packet of salty peanuts doled out on a precise timetable; barring of course, the unforeseen "water landing" that would ultimately illuminate the utility or futility of grasping for our seats-cum-flotation-devices while the plane plummets towards the water at unfathomable speeds.

It's like being anesthetized during an operation -- you generally wake up alive, although there's a palpable risk that you may die -- but in that case you'll most likely succumb without too much of a fuss. Once we're sufficiently numbed for the flight, with all good fortune the plane will eventually bump us out of o