I have a piece on New Scientist blogs today, about whether scientists should rule the roost when it comes to policy decisions. It comes from a talk I went to last night at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Just wanted to flag up something else that came up, though.

DEFRA, the dept for food, environment and rural affairs (though not necessarily in that order) has downgraded some of its research lines. One of those is animal welfare: there’s a feeling, it seems, that they now know what they need to about the subject.

I reckon that’s pretty good news. It suggests that the animal welfare campaigns of the last decade or so have succeeded in bringing these issues to the fore. Kudos to the campaigners. It’s also good news for the campaigns of now: raising public awareness works.

Other downgraded issues include noise, pesticides and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (eg BSE and CJD). On the up? Biodiversity, food chain, soils and sustainable development, as well as the inevitable adapting to climate change.

You can get the DEFRA document here, or watch Bob Watson present it (at breakneck speed, if last night is anything to go by).

I received a fascinating insight from a reader who had a special interest in the “Free Will” chapter of 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense. In that chapter I talk about the surgeon Itzhak Fried who discovered he could give people the “urge” to perform an action just by stimulating certain areas of the brain with electricity. This reader reports similar urges as a result of Tourettes - or something.

I’ll keep the action anonymous, but the back-story is that “Ralph” has had Tourettes since the age of 7. He was only given medication when aged 32. He has to concentrate incredibly hard if he wants to fend off the verbal tics, and can only manage it for about 5 minutes at a time. But here’s the real grind: he also has murderous thoughts if not medicated:

“I would sit drinking tea with my mum and be constantly having the urge to kill her, in fact every person I met I had the urge to attack, not just the thought but the urge - suppressing these urges was/is a constant strain. However, I can suppress them (maybe because the voice suggesting I attack others is my own and does not seem external to me as maybe some voices heard by schizophrenics do). But I can suppress them. Of course it could be said that my urges are not as strong as some which is why I don't act on them (and never have), however, perhaps it is the complexity of an urge which makes a difference, and complex urges we can control which does suggest a level of free will.”

It doesn’t seem a stretch to me that there are electrical misfirings that cause such urges, just as Fried was able to create urges to move in his patients (they gave in to the urge if he increased the current). So is “Ralph” fighting against electrical currents in his brain, and if the currents were stronger, would he not be able to fight them?

This scenario creates a nightmare when this is translated into issues of legal responsibility. I can imagine “Ralph” could be sectioned under the mental health act if things got any worse and he was considered a danger to others. Yet judging by his email, he is entirely lucid and rational.

This is such a difficult area and we’re only scratching the surface. Neuroscience is a ticking timebomb. Are we ready for the blast?
 

There's not many days in your life when you have two books come out. By coincidence, the UK paperback of 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, and a new book of mine - The Big Questions: Physics - are both out today. The day has gotten away from me, so I'm going to do little more than highlight them here - more (especially about the new one) very soon.

Yes, it really does have a moleskine-style elastic cover strap.

Here's what's on the back:

THE BIG QUESTIONS series confronts the fundamental problems of science and philosophy that have perplexed enquiring minds throughout history, and provides and explains the answers of our greatest thinkers. In Big Questions: Physics, Michael Brooks demystifies 20 mind-stretching questions about quantum physics, relativity and the true nature of reality.

• WHAT IS THE POINT OF PHYSICS?
• WHAT IS TIME?
• WHAT HAPPENED TO SCHRÖDINGER’S CAT?
• WHY DOES AN APPLE FALL?
• ARE SOLIDS REALLY SOLID?
• WHY IS THERE NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH?
• IS EVERYTHING ULTIMATELY RANDOM?
• WHAT IS THE GOD PARTICLE?
• AM I UNIQUE IN THE UNIVERSE?
• CAN WE TRAVEL THROUGH TIME?
• IS EARTH'S MAGNETIC SHIELD FAILING?
• WHY DOES E=MC²?
• CAN I CHANGE THE UNIVERSE WITH A SINGLE GLANCE?
• DOES CHAOS THEORY SPELL DISASTER?
• WHAT IS LIGHT?
• IS STRING THEORY REALLY ABOUT STRINGS?
• WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?
• DO WE LIVE IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?
• WHICH IS NATURE’S STRONGEST FORCE?
• WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE NATURE OF REALITY?

Big enough for ya?

And here's the very nice cover for 13 Things - complete with some very nice people saying very nice things about it...

There’s a brilliant story on New Scientist today about why you should draw second in a gunfight. The best thing about it is the recollection that Neils Bohr, the father of quantum theory, used to force his colleagues to participate in gunfight experiments:

Niels Bohr once had a theory on why the good guy always won shoot-outs in Hollywood westerns. It was simple: the bad guy always drew first. That left the good guy to react unthinkingly – and therefore faster. When Bohr tested his hypothesis with toy pistols and colleagues who drew first, he always won.

Turns out Bohr was right: the circuits involved in reacting to a threat work faster than those that are self-stimulated. But it puts a whole new spin on Heisenberg’s troubled relationship with Bohr. Bohr was a big bully, and the man behind the uncertainty principle recalls one discussion over the implications of quantum theory ending “with my breaking out in tears because I just couldn't stand this pressure from Bohr.”

Heisenberg should be glad that quantum theory was invented before paintball – otherwise Bohr really would have given him something to cry about…
 

So it’s been a very long break from blogging, while I work out what’s coming next. I’m now focussed on a new book, provisionally titled The Nobel Prize for Anarchy. My aim with this is to show that science isn’t what most people think: in fact, it could be described as entirely the opposite of what most people think. Scientists – at least good scientists – defy all the stereotypes. To get science done, you have to be willing to break all the conventional rules: in fact, anarchy is built right in: the very core of science is about overturning received wisdom, proving your predecessors didn't have it right - and that you do.

In 1974 there was an article in Science that asked, “Should the history of science be X-rated?” The author, Stephen J Brush, argued that the idea that the scientist is a rational, open-minded investigator who proceeds methodically, is grounded in the outcome of controlled experiments and seeks objectively for the truth, is "a useful one”. If young scientists were to find out what really happened in the history of their subject, it might “do violence to the professional ideal and public image of scientists," Brush said.

I don't agree. I’m not out to do any violence. But surely the truth is to be celebrated? The book will look at how real science, as done by very human beings, happens. And this is good science. It is the way progress has been made.

So here goes – I’m going to make the argument that science is a lot more rock ‘n’ roll than you might have thought: there’s drugs, fraud, near-death experiences, religious mania, hallucinations… and, remember, these are not the “crazy scientists”, but the successful ones. It raises an obvious question: are we missing something when we describe science as a “beacon of rationality” in an increasingly irrational world? Is it possible that, in reacting to the perceived threat from an “anti-science” lobby, scientists are in danger of cutting themselves off from the source of many of their best ideas?

What I’d really like to know is, how does science actually happen today? Most of the juiciest stories seem to come out decades later; so what are you privy to? I’m not asking for whistleblowers to come out of the woodwork, but it would be useful to collect some reliable tales of what fascinating (and maybe a little bit scandalous!) things scientists are up to, things that they, perhaps, wouldn't necessarily want the funding bodies to know about. If you’re working in science, or know someone who is, perhaps you could spread the word and put some feelers out.

I’m going to start putting some stuff out on Twitter too (related to this, not what I had for breakfast, I promise) that I hope people will respond to. I reckon new technologies can provide a new way to research books – it can’t still only be about losing hours in fusty libraries, surely?

Anyway, check back soon, and look out for the Twitter feeds (drmichaelbrooks). Let’s see where this goes!

 

I have an article on the nuclear fusion reactor being built in the south of France in this week’s New Statesman. ITER ( the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is an incredible project – the idea is to build something on Earth that operates at 150 million degrees, but generates useable, controllable energy through the same process that powers the sun.

The most interesting aspect of researching the piece was the fact that scientific objections are incredibly thin on the ground. There have been objections in the past, but now the project seems to have gathered enough evidence that it might just work.

It’s still an incredible longshot, though: a whole lot of factors have to come together to make it work. As someone said, "we're trying to put the sun in a box - but we don't know how to build the box." Others have been more directly scathing, and called it  “the science of wishful thinking”. Charles Seife’s book The Sun In A Bottle, for instance, concludes that, "so long as there are other energy sources available, fusion is unlikely to make a huge dent in humanity’s energy needs.” (It's a great book, by the way – Charles is an incredibly gifted writer)

For decades, people have joked that nuclear fusion is “just forty years away – and has been for forty years”. I don’t think that’s quite fair any more. Having said that, when you read the New Statesman article, you’ll find that it is still forty years away. At least...

I’m hoping that something staggering happened this morning. At 7.45 GMT, about an hour and a half ago as I write this, the spacecraft Rosetta performed a slingshot manoeuvre, using the Earth’s gravitational field to change course, rather than burning extra fuel. That’s not the staggering thing: that trick has become quite routine for spacecraft on long journeys. What is staggering is the possibility that, during the slingshot, Rosetta gained an extra 1mm/s in speed.

When the craft is travelling at 13 km/s, that doesn’t seem like a lot. But the gain in speed, if it happened, stands in defiance of all known physics. The prediction of an extra 1mm/s came from John Anderson, the man behind the NASA Pioneer missions in the 1970s. He has noticed that many spacecraft see anomalous speed changes during a slingshot. There is no law of physics that says why this should happen, but Anderson has worked out a formula that accounts for all previous speed changes in terms of spacecraft velocity, angle of approach relative to the planet’s spin, distance of closest approach and so on (you can hear him talk about it here). And, with Rosetta coming in for a near-Earth flyby, he was able to make a prediction about what would happen.

It’s scientific progress, right here, right now. We’ll find out what Rosetta did in a few days or maybe a few weeks. If Anderson is right, we have spotted a phenomenon that defies explanation. The history of science is full of such things; that’s how we got quantum theory started, for instance. If Anderson’s formula also works for Rosetta, maybe we will see the birth of something fundamentally new in science. It’s not often you can say that. Watch this space!
 

So, if you have a genetic predisposition to aggression, you can get a reduced sentence for murder. In Italy, at least.

As I mention in 13 Things, Patrick Haggard is trying to avoid a similar problem: defence lawyers want to use scientific arguments (such as “he has no free will”) to sway legal judgements. Haggard, an expert on the neuroscience of free will, says he can’t be sure enough of anything that neuroscience is saying to testify about it in court.

What’s more, would we even want him to? I don’t think anybody in their right mind likes the idea of a murderer being released earlier because he is predisposed to aggressive behaviour.  And we feel that way precisely because of what the science says, not in spite of it!

At the risk of repeating myself, this all plays into the same tricky territory as the Nutt case. Who says science is a neutral, implication-free pursuit of the truth, or that we should blindly say that if the scientific evidence says something, that trumps experience, culture and context?

On yesterday's George Lamb show, I mentioned how researchers have discovered that there might be gene variants that can make you a bad driver. Does this mean these people should be excused from prosecution if they kill someone in an accident? Or does it mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to drive?
 

The government’s scientific advisory panel on Free Will has made it clear that science has shown there’s no such thing. Despite this, the government insists on holding people responsible for their actions. Should the chair of the panel resign?

Here’s the thing. Just because you’re a scientific expert on a particular subject, does that mean people should do what you say? Or should they take your scientific opinion and weigh it up against other, non-scientific factors that also matter to them?

If you’re a believer in the supremacy of science, then I guess you’re going to be astonished and exasperated when people shrug their shoulders and decide that, despite what you say, they’re going to stick with their own worldview. I’m not a believer in the supremacy of science as a viewpoint: I think it’s one (very important) angle on how to run a society. There’s more to being human (and being in a human society) than can be measured and reported in scientific terms.

I’m talking, of course, about the David Nutt affair. The UK government’s advisor on drugs resigned last week after the government decided not to follow his advice. I won’t repeat the story: there’s loads of stuff about the controversy at the Guardian.

Yes, science says that alcohol and tobacco are worse than cannabis in terms of harm. But we have a cultural tradition of accepting their use – and we have developed ways of coping with the impact. With cannabis, it’s different: we don’t know how to deal with it. Science has little or nothing to say about the various ways our culture deals with these issues, and so a simple measure of harm can’t be the only factor involved in deciding how we deal with their use.

There’s a video interview with Richard Dawkins at Big Think in which he talks about the irrationality of sex – much as I do in 13 Things. The basic problem is that it involves sharing genes and reproducing half as fast as asexual species. Each of these halves the rate at which you pass on your genes, which is why John Maynard Smith called it the "fourfold cost of sex".

I can’t help wondering whether horizontal gene transfer seen in rotifers may have provided some of the answer since the book went to press, but Richard doesn't seem to mention that (hence my title!). There are still unanswered questions, of course. The importance of sexual vs social selection is one, and the role of parasites is another. Then there’s the issue of whether the shuffling of genes in sexual reproduction does give survival advantage in a changing environment. The literature is mixed on this, as I explain in 13 Things, but this recent piece of research, published in Nature, suggests it does help. Still an open question, I think – but maybe it’s closing. If only Maynard Smith were alive to see it.

As a postscript, I feel bound to mention that I live about a mile from where Maynard Smith lived. He once told me his neighbour was a creationist, and wouldn't talk to him because of his scientific take on existence. If God does exist, there's definitely a divine sense of humour. In the UK, such hard-line creationists are pretty rare. The idea that the greatest living exponent of evolution would be living right bang next door to one is too delicious...