Climate change is one of the most controversial topics in modern science. In particular, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become a ferociously debated subject in the political arena and in public discourse, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that humankind’s greenhouse gas emissions have led to significant increases in global temperatures over the last century. So-called climate change deniers have put forward a plethora of simplistic theories in an effort to disprove the science and find humans not guilty of causing global warming – from solar cycles to El Niño – all of which have been debunked by climate scientists. One observation has remained a source of inspiration to those hoping to derail AGW – the apparent slowdown in warming since the late 1990s which does not correlate with global carbon dioxide emissions. Now, a team of researchers has used state-of-the-art statistical analysis to not only again confirm that humankind is responsible for global warming, but that we are also the source of this trend-bucking slowdown.
After hearing about the benefits of standing desks for a while now, I finally sorted out a standing desk at work last month. It’s just an old desk I found, balanced on top of my original desk, but it puts my keyboard at a perfect height. I have to say, I don’t miss sitting at all. At the end of a long day in front of my computer, my feet hurt much less than my back used to. The only down side is that I tend to look a bit ridiculous when I’m working with headphones on and find myself dancing in place at my desk.
Being an empirical scientist, I know I can’t always trust my own perceptions about the benefits of an intervention. Any sort of change can increase productivity, so I’ve been looking for scientific evidence for the benefits of standing desks. An infographic, Sitting Down is Killing You by MedicalBillingandCoding.org, portrayed the state of research being strongly in favour of standing desks, but how accurate are the claims?
An article in the Telegraph on 21st October reported the development of a handheld bio sensing device that would scan food for the presence of bacteria to prevent food poisoning.
How was this story reported?
The Telegraph story (see text at the bottom of this piece) was briefly covered on page 3 and mentions very little of the science behind the system. Instead the article focuses very much on the impacts and causes of food poisoning, relating this discovery to the effect it could have on saving lives and preventing illness. Other reporting on the internet (story 1; story 2) gives more details about how the system actually works. However, while they mention the need to add sensors to the food the text implies this is no longer the case with the development of the handheld sensor. Many of these articles are identical, lifting text directly from the press release. This shows how important an accurate press release is in determining the quality of the reported story.
A recently published study that examined the effects of different types of childcare on children’s behaviour has been covered in the media with the question ‘Does daycare turn children into monsters?’ So I read this headline in the Daily Mail and I wondered to myself how did these researchers measure ‘monster’ behaviour? Well clearly they didn’t measure this! But what did they measure and what did they find to lead to such a headline?
Guest Post by Neil McLennan.
At the start of October, an age old debate which the media have previously fueled, reignited over the impact of homework on student’s learning. This time the spark was Edinburgh head teacher, Rod Grant (Clifton Hall School) who was quoted as calling for a ban on homework. In an article titled Edinburgh headmaster calls for homework ban, the Scotland on Sunday, quoted him as saying, “Do we really believe that homework in primary school results in greater likelihood of our five years old ending up in a profession? Because I really do not.” (13 October 2013).
The layperson doesn’t often think of scientific experiments as being quite the sort of nail-biting thriller as, say, a football match. However, a recent study conducted by the Mars rover has all the makings of mystery and suspense. This study was originally reported in the journal Science (C.R. Webster et al., Sep 2013), and covered in the media by BBC in an article titled “Curiosity rover’s methane result challenges life theory”.
Much of the excitement regarding space exploration derives from the possibility that we will find new things in other planets, in particular the possibility that we will find life elsewhere. Mars has long been a candidate, partly based on tantalizing evidence of methane (CH4) and speculation about how this could have come about due to biological activity.
A recent article in the Guardian (Mon 21st Oct) reports on “Fructose: the poison index” in which they present arguments and an outrage at the recent EU ruling to not only substitute sucrose with fructose in sweetened drinks and food products but also allow health claims by food companies for using fructose in these products. This decision was made on the advice of the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), on the grounds that fructose has a lower glycaemic index and as such does not cause as high and rapid rise in blood sugar levels as sucrose or glucose.
However, the science behind the ruling is actually more nuanced than presented: substituting sucrose for fructose may benefit some people at the cost of harming others. I’ll explain the evidence below.
If you were asked what types of food might protect or enhance your brainpower, fish is likely to be high on your list. Fish is often called brain food. It’s easy to locate reports citing the link between eating more fish and the maintenance of thinking skills; for example BBC GoodFood, WebMD and The Huffington Post were just the top three hits when I searched for “brain food”. Oily fish are reported as being the best for a healthy brain because they are rich in omega-3 fatty acids. The omega-3s are a component of the membranes of the brain’s grey matter (the thinking cells) and might also help with the transmission of signals between brain cells. However, a recent study reported no association between the levels of omega-3s and cognitive ability in a large sample of women, or with change in their cognitive ability over almost 6 years.
As university students across the UK begin their new terms, it is the beginning of a new chapter of learning as well as the forging of friendships many people keep for life. However, might there be risks associated with being a university student, such as catching a sexually transmitted infection (STI)? The Daily Mail recently headlined a piece “A QUARTER of students catch an STI during their first year at university – and half are too drunk to remember who gave it to them”, based on a recent poll of recently graduated students. The Huffington Post also ran an article about the survey findings. This post considers the Mail’s piece.
The BBC (25 September 2013) reports that the “The first computer built entirely with carbon nanotubes has been unveiled, opening the door to a new generation of digital devices.” Meanwhile, the Independent reports that “The next step towards the computers of the future has been taken, after engineers from Stanford University built the first working computer that uses carbon nanotube transistors (CNTs).” This stems from a letter, published in Nature, in which researchers from Stanford University’s Department of Electrical Engineering demonstrated the operation of the first digital computer that replaces semiconducting silicon with carbon nanotubes. The reporting of this story may has passed many people by, regardless of the fact that it could potentially have a huge impact on the world.
researchtheheadlines.org 
