Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

[Disinfo Agent]

'The Celebrities and Science Review 2008, prepared by the group Sense About Science, identifies some of the worst examples of scientific illiteracy among those who profess to know better – including top politicians.' The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-among-the-glitterati-1212406.html)

[galacsi]

'The Celebrities and Science Review 2008, prepared by the group Sense About Science, identifies some of the worst examples of scientific illiteracy among those who profess to know better – including top politicians.' The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-among-the-glitterati-1212406.html)

I don't think it is fair to evaluated scientific knowledge with answers on controversial subjects.

This is propaganda disguised as a cross examination of people opinions.This "Sense about Science" group is a lobbying group.

[Moose]

Galacsi, these are the topics mentioned in the article.

* The claim that vaccines cause autism.
* Research using fruit flies (a good candidate for genetic research, shares 50% of their genes with humans, rapid generations)
* "Natural" good, "unnatural" bad.
* "Mind meals"
* Eliminate all sugar from diet
* Detoxification using diet and/or "highly trained medical leeches".
* And the supposed (but unsupported) "benefits" of vitamin supplements.

I find myself curious as to which one of those topics you consider to be (scientifically) controversial.

[davidlpf]

There is no scientific controversy on vaccine just ones made up by quacks. The increase in autism is because they changed the defination of autism to include several other disorders.
the only comment I have to make about politicians and celebraties knowing nothing about science is, no really.
yes there are esceptions but very few it seems nowadays.

[galacsi]

Galacsi, these are the topics mentioned in the article.

* The claim that vaccines cause autism.
* Research using fruit flies (a good candidate for genetic research, shares 50% of their genes with humans, rapid generations)
* "Natural" good, "unnatural" bad.
* "Mind meals"
* Eliminate all sugar from diet
* Detoxification using diet and/or "highly trained medical leeches".
* And the supposed (but unsupported) "benefits" of vitamin supplements.

I find myself curious as to which one of those topics you consider to be (scientifically) controversial.

The last five , I have no opinion about autism. The Palin remark on fruit flies is clearly from ignorance.

Added remark : You did not speak of PSYCHIATRY. A problem with it ?

[captain swoop]

BBC News presenters take great delight in appearing to know or care nothing about science.

Radio 4 has the 'Today' show from 7.30 to 9 am every day, it's supposed to be the 'Flagship' news prog. Brian Humphreys the main presenter seems proud he knows nothing about any of the science or technology news or features.

IN the the UK the Middle Classes would be ashamed to display any ignorance of the Booker Prize shortlist or Turner Prize entries. Ask them about the LHC and they will be proud of the fact they know nothing about it.

There are even some who think Oxbridge should get rid of science and concentrate on the 'Classics', that's what is important. Who needs Calculus when you should be studying Latin, Greek or Ancient Literature.

[Disinfo Agent]

BBC News presenters take great delight in appearing to know or care nothing about science.I don't have that impression. They hosted a series of programmes on the Nobel winners (http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/78627-nobel-prize-season-2008-a-3.html#post1385534), for instance.

[TheHalcyonYear]

yeah, it's just awfu, they don't know any more than the rest of us when it comes to the complete span of human knowledge. Let us all castigate them for that!!

[captain swoop]

YOu are conflating the BBC with the Radio 4 News Presenters. ALso a series of Biographies of famous people is right up their street as long as they don't have to understand all that difficult science stuff. Radio 4 as a whole is very pro science. 'In Our Time is a first class prog, it covers history, science, philosophy etc. When it's trailed in the preceding 'Today Program' the science episodes are always met with bafflement and jokes.

[Disinfo Agent]

YOu are conflating the BBC with the Radio 4 News Presenters.You wrote 'BBC News presenters'. I watched this on BBC News. Perhaps you meant 'BBC news presenters'...

[Krel]

How do you train a leech to begin with, much less 'highly train' one for medical practices? :confused:

David.

[TheHalcyonYear]

How do you train a leech to begin with, much less 'highly train' one for medical practices? :confused:

David.
Well, now there's an open-minded comment. If someone said that about one of the beloved scientific heros of this forum they would be banned immediately. But as long as one slurs the unwashed it's ok. No banning offense here, its just some common ignorant donkey that's under discussion!!

[Neverfly]

Well, now there's an open-minded comment. If someone said that about one of the beloved scientific heros of this forum they would be banned immediately. But as long as one slurs the unwashed it's ok. No banning offense here, its just some common ignorant donkey that's under discussion!!

What on Earth are you talking about...

[Moose]

Agreed. THY, what are you talking about?

"Highly trained medical leeches" is a silly description of a concept (previously known as "restoring one's humours") that routinely killed people in the 1700s. And it would remain a silly and dangerous proposition had a Nobel laureate uttered it.

Either way, it's not wrong to call people on dangerously wrong statements. The ignorance of these people are demonstrably getting people killed.

[Cougar]

Well, I don't know where the "highly trained" comes from, but (apparently back in 2004) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave clearance to a French firm (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5319129/) to market the bloodsucking aquatic animals as medical devices.

FDA reports that leeches can help heal skin grafts by removing blood pooled under the graft and restore blood circulation in blocked veins by removing pooled blood.

[Torsten]

Right. "Highly trained" would be the medical professional who knows the circumstances in which leeches can be used. For example, the son of a friend of mine had a finger sawn off in an industrial accident two years ago. It was successfully reattached. The post-surgery treatment included the regular application of leeches to remove pooling, clotting blood as the various tissues and blood vessels regrew.

[Moose]

Added remark : You did not speak of PSYCHIATRY. A problem with it ?

Missed it, apparently.

[Moose]

Yes. Leeches do have valid medical uses. "Detoxification" is not even remotely one of them.

[Torsten]

Funny, I was re-reading my reply and thought to add that using leeches as described by that particular celeb to "detoxify" and "make you bleed" was simply ignorant.

[tdvance]

Of course I don't like it--but to be fair, we don't expect scientists to be actors :) but of course I understand the point--scientists rarely pretend to be actors.

[Krel]

Well, now there's an open-minded comment. If someone said that about one of the beloved scientific heros of this forum they would be banned immediately. But as long as one slurs the unwashed it's ok. No banning offense here, its just some common ignorant donkey that's under discussion!!

For God's sake people, at least read the article before getting your knickers in a twist. :lol:

Quote from the article:
Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore all espoused the idea that you can detoxify your body with either diet (scientifically unsupportable) or, in the case of Moore, products such as "highly trained medical leeches" which make you bleed.

Now TheHalcyonYear, tell me what is so offensive to 'one of the beloved scientific heros of this forum' in my question?

I ask again, just what the hell is a "highly trained medical leeche", and how do they train them.

David.

[Moose]

Of course I don't like it--but to be fair, we don't expect scientists to be actors :) but of course I understand the point--scientists rarely pretend to be actors.

As you say. Scientific illiteracy is a problem, but I respect those who _try_ to learn nonetheless.

Cruise, McCarthy, Stein, Winfrey (among many) actively misuse their influence to spread dangerous and sometimes deadly misinformation. The greater their influence, the greater their responsibility to _understand_ what it is they advocate.

[KaiYeves]

I wouldn't lump Obama with the rest. He seems-refreshingly-pretty nerdy.

[HenrikOlsen]

I ask again, just what the hell is a "highly trained medical leeche", and how do they train them
Since we're talking about applying them to Kate Moss, I guess the first thing to do is to get the leeches addicted to illegal substances so they are more attracted to her blood vessels.

[galacsi]

For God's sake people, at least read the article before getting your knickers in a twist. :lol:

Quote from the article:
Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore all espoused the idea that you can detoxify your body with either diet (scientifically unsupportable) or, in the case of Moore, products such as "highly trained medical leeches" which make you bleed.

Now TheHalcyonYear, tell me what is so offensive to 'one of the beloved scientific heros of this forum' in my question?

I ask again, just what the hell is a "highly trained medical leeche", and how do they train them.

David.

Leeches are coming back , you can read it in the internet.

http://www.blutegel.org/sangsue/sangsue.htm (For example)

Exactly they are not trained of course but raised and conditioned.

This is just a small funny error IMO. And detoxify is only a wrong choice of word. that's all.

[Bukovina]

Well, now there's an open-minded comment. If someone said that about one of the beloved scientific heros of this forum they would be banned immediately. But as long as one slurs the unwashed it's ok. No banning offense here, its just some common ignorant donkey that's under discussion!!

You're right about double-standards at this board, but in this case, the reference is to actual leeches. I don't think they will be offended if we call them what they are.

[mahesh]

Har Har Henrik! nice one!

By the way, Captain Swoop. Today programme on Radio 4 starts at 0600 hours, not 0730.
You've been missing out on an hour and half's fun!

And I think John Humphreys and Co are fabulous. And they do not deride Science, Sir.

[Sticks]

Brian Humphreys the main presenter seems proud he knows nothing about any of the science or technology news or features.


Any relation to the Today presenter John Humphreys :whistle:

[tdvance]

Leeches are coming back , you can read it in the internet.

http://www.blutegel.org/sangsue/sangsue.htm (For example)

Exactly they are not trained of course but raised and conditioned.

This is just a small funny error IMO. And detoxify is only a wrong choice of word. that's all.


I'm 39 years old and remember as a small child hearing that "leeches are coming back". It's kind of like cold fusion....

[HenrikOlsen]

For specific post-surgial procedures where they help to keep at least minimal blood-flow going to make healing possible, they are coming forward rather than back, as that's a new use of old technology.

For the wooistic purifying the humours thing they are unfortunately coming back, but even if they are espoused by the Church of Oprah that don't make them work any better.

[closetgeek]

yeah, it's just awfu, they don't know any more than the rest of us when it comes to the complete span of human knowledge. Let us all castigate them for that!!

I don't think it is a crime to not be particularly knowledgable in science. Most of the examples given were just people relaying their misunderstanding of a topic. The one that gets me all up in knots is the vaccination/Autism connection. Here we have two people, competing to run a nation, relaying an apparent myth. There are thousands of parents who are opting not to vaccinate their children againsts debilitating and potentially deadly, but preventable diseases because leaders and celebs tell them not to. Considering it is completely unfounded since no apparent link has ever been made between vaccination and autism, it's tragic. On Cafemom.com, there is a whole group called novacs, dedicated to mothers who opt not to vaccinate and encourage each other to scare other mothers into doing the same. They should be publicly castigated for that, alone.

[jrkeller]

Towards the end of the campaign, McCain changed his position on the autism/vaccine link. BA blogged about it.

Link (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/02/mccains-mccarthyism-mcmaybe/)

[One Skunk Todd]

How do you train a leech to begin with...? :confused:

David.

Send it to law school? :)

[Argos]

Lets see: Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore... I can´t see why they were supposed 'to know better' [and do they really 'profess to know better'?]. I have deep reasons to deem these folks complete nullities. I´d never expect anything good coming from them.

[Moose]

Kate Moss, Demi Moore, not so much. But in the case of Oprah Winfrey, Argos, yes, she does profess to know better. Constantly. Her entire marketing empire is centered around selling that very proposition.

[Disinfo Agent]

In Oprah's defence, I watched an episode of her show which was about autism, and although she allowed one of her guests to speak about the theory that links the disease with vaccination, she did not endorse it herself, and she also had a guest doctor who denied the link on the same show.

[Moose]

My goodness, a piece of new-age feel-good bunk she didn't fully endorse... _and_ presented the science in a fair way? I'm sincerely shocked. Disinfo, did Oprah have a goatee that day or something?

[Disinfo Agent]

Maybe it was her evil twin hosting the show that day. :p

[captain swoop]

Any relation to the Today presenter John Humphreys :whistle:

Erm that's the guy! lol. Barry of that Ilk is the Australian entertainer.

[captain swoop]

Har Har Henrik! nice one!

By the way, Captain Swoop. Today programme on Radio 4 starts at 0600 hours, not 0730.
You've been missing out on an hour and half's fun!

And I think John Humphreys and Co are fabulous. And they do not deride Science, Sir.

You're right of course. I start listening at 7.30.

'In Our Time' is the best of Radio 4s progs that cover science.

[Krel]

Send it to law school? :)

Okay, let's not go slandering leeches now. You'll get someone else ticked-off at me. :lol:

David.