It had science script checkers and sought to bring the nerdy culture of physics into the mainstream. My wife (then girlfriend) and I started watching it while we were both undergrads – me in engineering physics and she in physics. While it’s predominantly male cast and token ditzy blonde was problematic from the start, it was relatable for us and our friends. Even if none of us were a Leonard, Sheldon, Raj, or Howard, we saw bits of each of those characters in each of us. Even Penny started to develop into a rounded character and slowly they introduced a couple female scientists. Overall, it was good.

But it’s moved so far from that. Many of our friends gave up on it years ago as the show drifted toward the lowest common denominator. The physics jokes are almost entirely gone and the humour is more about laughing at the gang for being nerdy and socially awkward than the humour in the situations they get into.

This latest episode – the ninth season premier at that – reached an incredible new low though. Amy’s escape from her joyless relationship with Sheldon was seen by Sheldon as an indictment on half the population. The script writers then chose to run with that “gag” through the entire episode. In one scene Sheldon is creeping in a window because he wanted to pressure Amy into getting back together with him. By the end he’s saying that the only good woman is scientist Marie Curie but she was “an honorary man because she had a penis made of science.”

Not to be outdone on the creep-factor, comic book store owner Stuart’s gag was to instantly prey on every female character as soon as he had a hint that she might be single. Meanwhile Leonard follows up his elopement to Penny by revealing that he works with a woman he cheated on Penny with and then offers sex as a means to distract her.

Given the deep systemic issues faced by women in science, there’s no forgiveness for this show to stoop to this level. What could be a way to make science cool, fun, and engaging has instead just become offensive for its misogyny, its disservice to the incredible women in science, and for perpetuating cruel stereotypes about men in science.

I feel betrayed.

He cites the usual tropes as the left-wing anti-science positions, yet fails to actually show any political divide for any of the claims. In fact, public opinion research debunks his two main examples: vaccines and GM. In the US, at least, there is a divide on support for nuclear power and animal research* – but a majority of Democrats still support nuclear power and the question of animal research is far more about values than evidence.

Compare this to the gap between science and reality on the right on evolution, stem cell research, global warming and corporal punishment (to name but a few)

Stossel’s final argument is that the left is styming research into IQ differences between men and women and between different races. Even though he only cites his own anecdote, given history, I’m okay with some pretty critical lenses being applied to anyone starting down this path.

So no, the evidence doesn’t support the claim the left is anti-evidence.
*I’m being charitable and assuming his rant about SeaWorld – an entertainment facility first, research second – is about animal research.

• He doesn’t believe in evolution
• He’s a chiropractor
• He’s claimed there’s a link between vaccines and autism
• He doesn’t believe the climate is changing

In his surreal press release (dated March 31, not April 1), he states that he will address his religious beliefs in Parliament at his next opportunity, which sounds like it will be a hoot. Lunney claims that Christians are being persecuted in Canada, a claim that is thoroughly debunked by the excellent Ottawa Citizen editorial:

Add MP James Lunney to the list of people who somehow have come to believe they’re being persecuted — that indeed, their fundamental human rights are under threat — when people disagree with them on Twitter.

Lunney is standing down before the election in October so we’ll only have a few more of his public gems of wisdom.

Good riddance.

Sykes previously hosted The Bigfoot Files on the UK’s Channel 4. Leake has some sharp comments on Sykes’ credibility:

Bryan Sykes, who describes himself as a ‘professor of human genetics at Oxford’…

Sykes has not published any research on these creatures…

Sykes is a fellow of Wolfson but he admitted [his Institute of Human Genetics at Wolfson College, Oxford] was mythical. “The journal required some sort of additional address in the college and, hey presto, I became an institute!”

Sykes’s book says he has been professor of human genetics at Oxford since 1997, but university officials said he had not held that post for a decade or so.

My favourite piece is the final comment from another scientist:

Tom Gilbert, professor of geogenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark, said: “Bryan’s data highlights that a lot of people strongly believe they have evidence for them (yetis etc), but none of it holds up under scrutiny.”

It’s not so much the parents who bother me in this story as the Canadian Teachers Federation, the local school councils, and particularlu the Edmonton Journal who all give far greater space to these conspiracy theories than to sound science and expertise.

Out of the 17 paragraphs in her article, journalist Andrea Sands gives just two for a response from Health Canada. She even repeats tired arguments that the World Health Organization thinks wifi is caucing cancer in children. In fact they have studied the issues and have conculded the opposite. With respect to mobile phones:

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

and low-frequency electromagnetic fields:

…there are no substantive health issues related to ELF electric fields at levels generally encountered by members of the public.

and wifi and base stations:

Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.

For more on the anti-wifi industry in Canada, see Bad Science Watch’s 2012 position paper.

I’ll leave the last word to Paula Simons, a fellow journalist at the Edmonton Journal:

Why are human beings – especially that subset of humanity known as parents – so bad at assessing risk? Why can some sorts of parents shrug off or dismiss the known risks of deadly infectious diseases such as polio and whooping cough – and then fret over the largely imaginary, unproven “dangers” of WiFi? No, we can’t insulate our children from every possible harm. But surely, we can do more to protect them from the dangers of scientific illiteracy and modern-day Luddite-ism.

Low and behold, the defendant in the case, Ladislav Mihaly, emailed me with a follow up request for help.

My name is Ladislav Mihaly, and I am the Engineer who won the case Ladislav Mihaly vs. APEGA.

I do not intend to publish my opinion regarding the Tribunal decision and fighting APEGA over the Internet as they do with me. I am writing you this E-mail, because you probably could help me to start a discussion or challenging AL GORE, APEGA and all the scientist of the World. I want to show to people that the whole theory about Human effect on climate is only spam and has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. My evidence is very clear and simple calculation. Also I want to prove that the ethanol fuel is generating around 1.8 times more carbon dioxide as the regular hydrocarbon based fuel. I already many years ago wanted to publish my evidence, but all the Canadian Universities, APEGA and Government just ignored my new development. In case if I could publish my calculation, I could prove that my Engineering skill and education level is farewell above the recent scientist level. I would like to ask you to take the position of the moderator, to avoid dirty and unhealthy discussion over the net. The calculation is only small part of my scientific study and development, but could lead to suspension of Nobel prize for Al Gore.

Please let me know if you are ready to hand this kind of open and public discussion.

Thank you in advance.

Ladislav Mihaly

Yep, our persecuted foreign engineer has a “evidence” that climate change is not human caused. This, despite the position of the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists.

So while I maintain my position that Mihaly’s complaint was valid and that his application for certification should be evaluated on its merits, I can’t say I’d be cheering for him to be certified any time soon (even though climate change denialism is rampant among engineers – here’s an enlightening survey of APEGA members).

It’s not clear yet how much the Swiss government is going to clamp down on immigration but the vote has already attracted condemnation from the editorial board of the leading scientific journal, Nature. They note that the move was fuelled by xenophobia rather than rational debate:

But direct democracy becomes problematic if it is driven by populism and irrational fears, such as those over unemployment and crime (Switzerland is, in fact, one of the safest countries in the world, and the current unemployment rate is barely 3.5%). Certainly, immigration there has increased over the past decade — but this is in large part because the economy and health system rely heavily on the services of foreign workers. Ironically, the initiative to ‘stop mass immigration’ got the highest level of support in rural areas, where there are relatively few foreigners. In cosmopolitan cities, such as Zurich, Basle and Geneva, a majority of voters rejected the initiative.

I’m encouraged to see Nature weigh into this debate. Often scientists are wary of stepping into political debates – either for pragmatic reasons (you need to keep everyone happy to keep funding up) or personal disinterest (they’d rather focus on their experiments). But in USA under George Bush and in Canada under Harper, we see a continued assault on science and pure research by those who would rather focus on industry and climate change denialism.

Similarly, immigration debates have a huge impact on the exchange of ideas. Here in the UK, there are many stories of professors, professionals with PhDs, who are unable to secure the proper visa to begin employment, due to draconian anti-immigration laws.

Differences abound from the widespread use of uniforms, to near-universal behavioural challenges, to the fact students don’t earn diplomas but are expected to either take the right classes to go to college (a step toward university) or just drift off into the workforce. There is also an intense effort by the government to oversee every aspect of the system through a convoluted merit-pay system and the teacher’s unions were debilitated by Margaret Thatcher.

Beyond all of that though, England has never had elected school boards – or Local Education Authorities as they’re called here. Basically, the local municipal or city council just appoints a few bureaucrats to run the schools.

This naturally raises the question: Are appointed or elected school boards more effective?

Interestingly, this question was raised by the City of Chicago, where there is a push is on to create an elected board. Currently the mayor appoints the Board.

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago wanted to give the question the academic treatment and following a review of the research and their analysis of the effectiveness of the Mayor’s Board gave the following key findings [pdf]:

1. There is no conclusive evidence that mayoral control and mayor-appointed boards are more effective at governing schools or raising student achievement.
2. The Board’s policies of top-down accountability based on standardized tests, and its simultaneous expansion of selective-enrolment schools, expanded a two-tier education system in Chicago.
3. Under the mayor-appointed Board, CPS has made little progress in academic achievement and other measures of educational improvement, and on nearly every measure there are persistent, and in some cases, widening gaps between white students and African American and Latino students.
4. The Board’s policy of closing neighbourhood schools and opening charter schools has generally not improved education for the students affected. In some cases, it has made things worse.
5. Although data on charter schools, nationally and locally, are mixed, there is no evidence that, overall, CPS’ charter schools are significantly better than its traditional public schools.
6. Chicago’s mayor appointed board is comprised of elite decision makers who are neither representative of the student population of CPS nor directly accountable to the public. Board structures and processes severely limit public input in decisions.

Based on this, the authors come out strongly in favour of an elected board and call for an urgent course shift.

While the background in England is different than Chicago, I think there are important similarities.

First, England has a very heavy top-down school system. Teachers are responsible to the school administration, who is dually responsible to the local authority and government regulators. Lessons will be observed randomly and students performances are almost uniformly judged on nationwide standardized tests (which are of extremely dubious pedagogical value).

Second, by keeping school control out of democratic accountability, similar closure and transparency issues are inevitable. In Edmonton a few years ago, parents protested continual school closures and influence the Board to put a moratorium on closures until the issue could be studied. This wouldn’t happen in a system where bureaucrats don’t need to worry about their job security every 3-5 years. Here in England, this means council staff are more than happy to outsource school administration to corporate academies and religious institutions if it means cost savings. The effect on the students and community becomes irrelevant.

Finally, the last point is especially pertinent as demographics in England’s larger cities begin to shift. While democracy doesn’t guarantee representative diversity, it does offer non-traditional routes to give voice to often-marginalized groups. One doesn’t need to be Oxford-educated or a party hack to be elected to a school board but the path to influencing backroom bureaucrats is less clear.

It’s also important to note that the Chicago study pre-empts some of the eventual arguments against any change. They note that the appointed boards are not necessarily more efficient and in fact, since a democratic board is more responsive to local needs, may actually put its limited funding to better use.

Of course there is little to allay concerns that elected local education authorities would simply introduce another field for the bitter partisanship of English politics to do battle on. Already Conservatives, Labour, and Lib Dems (and I guess the Greens and UKIP to a lesser extent) fight for control over Westminster and local councils, but the experience of the Vancouver School Board, which does feature partisan politics, suggests it may not be that damning.

Perhaps the biggest danger though is for the ability of local boards to introduce anti-science measures – whether it’s creationism, anti-vax, or anti-wifi, school boards in North America tend to be easy targets for the pseudoscientific forces.

Because of these limitations, you can wind up with articles like “Energy-based therapies and cancer” from Macmillan Cancer Support, the UK’s leading cancer charity.

This article naturally falls under the “Complementary therapies” section of information about treating cancer. It’s designed (I’m assuming) to answer questions that patients may have when facing tough treatment decisions and a wealth of pseudoscience from everyone who’s second aunt twice removed once beat cancer with a mixture of beat juice.

The need to tread delicately is apparent throughout the site, as the tough stick approach of scientific skepticism would likely appear callous to those at their weakest. Therefore, the page talks in generalities, while slipping the occasional explicit  statement like, “These therapies have no anti-cancer effects.”

Nevertheless, the page does reinforce a lot of alt-med propaganda and links to reflexology, shiatsu, and healing touch groups across Britain.

It’s tough to know whether articles like this help or harm cancer patients. While providing information (that is likely requested frequently) with clear disclaimers is arguably positive, the non-confrontational nature of the articles may serve as a tacit endorsement from an otherwise reputable agency.

It may also be the case that the staff at the charity, and is especially the case in smaller charities, aren’t well versed in the scientific efficacy of various treatments, and the desire to do something to improve the lives of others is strong, especially in the kind of people who work for charities. Therefore, promotion of alternative treatments is seen as one way to help, especially when science-based medicine provides few options.

So in general I’m reticent to criticize charities too much for promoting pseudoscience and woo. In most cases, it’s likely harmless and may provide some placebo comfort for clients and it’s beyond the means of many groups to keep up with the latest studies.

Except in cases like Canadian Blood Service’s sloppy blood astrology program. That’s just patent nonsense.