Science: It's a girl thing - unlike this video!

This video is so dreadful I hardly know where to begin.  If you haven't seen it, here it is:

This video tells girls looking at science, well nothing.  It's just models dancing sexily for a guy in a lab coat, while things go wrong in the lab.

What messages could girls, as the target audience be taking away from this:

• You should look sexy for the men scientists
• You should love pink
• Stuff might be happening in labs, but you should be too busy dancing to notice
• Safety glasses are just like sunglasses
• Science - not a woman thing

There is no information whatsoever.  There aren't even any women scientists.  Or any science.  Gah!

I want to write more on this (maybe later), but I have SCIENCE to do!

(Really, I have a paper due Monday!)

Sexism in the Skeptical and Atheist Communities

There has been something of an internet storm regarding sexism in the atheist and skeptical communities. For those of you who haven't followed it, Rebecca Watson (from http://skepchick.org/) posted a video which included a brief anecdote of being propositioned in an elevator at 4am in a hotel at a convention (having earlier that day spoken on a panel about sexism in that community). She said "Guys, don't do that". This was picked up by PZ Myers and that post attracted a lot of comments. Amongst the discussion were some comments by Richard Dawkins that showed a spectacular lack of understanding of the issue.

You can find some really great posts on the situation, here are a few:

• http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifbadastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifmale-privilege/


• http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/


• http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

I wanted to post about this for one reason: The issue really needs highlighting. For someone as prominent as Richard Dawkins to have such a fundamental lack of understanding and empathy is sad. That so many of the other comments are so similar is worse.

Yes, there are worse problems, and worse instances of this problem. That doesn't make this not a problem. If we can't do something to fix sexism in our own, supposedly enlightened communities, how are we going to make the whole world a safe place?

I wrote a letter to Richard Dawkins that I have sent to Skepchicks to add to their collection. In case it doesn't make the site, here it is:

Dear Professor Dawkins,

You asked (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/oh_no_not_againonce_more_unto.php#comment-4309418) for an explanation of what you aren’t getting (i.e. why Rebecca’s experience was bad), so I thought I would write to you to explain.

I count myself lucky, because I have never suffered serious physical injury as the result of an assault. That does not mean I have never been assaulted; it does not mean I have never feared for my safety; it does mean that I will (must) continue to conduct myself with my personal safety being a conscious priority at all times.

This may seem a bit extreme. Particularly given that you don’t see an elevator as a threatening context, I’m sure you wouldn’t see any issues with a relatively crowded train carriage in the middle of the afternoon. And yet, that was the location of my first negative experience at just 17 and newly arrived in a big city. The carriage was sufficiently crowded that when a stranger sat next to me, it was to be expected. When he struck up a conversation (asking me the time), it seemed perfectly natural. When he asked if I had a husband, that struck me as odd, but before I could react he had pinned me to the seat (using his body weight which was significantly more than) mine. While telling me he was going to marry me, he started removing my skirt. I vocally and physically resisted, of course, however, I was trapped and nobody came to my aid. I did manage to escape when he tried to drag me off the train.

You may ask how this relates to Rebecca’s experience. Firstly, was the location; in a seat on the train or in an elevator, neither location allowed for a quick or easy escape from danger. Secondly, was the time frame, it took seconds for things to go from perfectly normal to horribly wrong. If Elevator Guy had not taken the initial “no” for an answer, Rebecca would not have had time to press a button and wait for the elevator to stop. While you are right, the situation did not escalate this time, there was a situation. How bad do things need to get before they are bad? Touching? Forcibly removed clothes? Rape? Murder?

This kind of situation occurs all the time. Sometimes things escalate, sometimes they don’t. But you can never tell when they will, and when the do escalate, you don’t have time to act. So I have found it necessary to pre-empt things, to conduct myself with my personal safety being a conscious priority at all times.

Perhaps, you are dismissing my anecdote as just that, a one-off experience that is unlikely to be repeated. Unfortunately it was not a one-off experience for me (and it was by no means the worst), and I’m sure that it wasn’t a one-off experience for Rebecca. The 2006/2007 British Crime Survey, 1 in 200 women aged 16 to 59 reported that they had suffered rape or attempted rape in the previous year. That’s approximately 85,000 rapes and attempted rapes in England & Wales in only one year. Given this prevalence, and the rapidity with which a situation can escalate, it is only rational that women are cautious in potentially dangerous situations.

Rebecca’s elevator situation could have been easily avoided. That’s all she asked for. If you don’t have to regularly think about your personal safety, if you haven’t ever experienced or witnessed a situation go horribly wrong, then I’m sure it isn’t obvious when you are creating that situation which is indistinguishable from one that ends in assault. Rebecca asks, I ask, society asks that you try to notice and that you try not to create those situations in the first place.

Surely it is common decency not to put someone in a situation where they are genuinely and reasonably afraid for their safety. That is what you aren’t getting.


Sincerely yours,
Kristen

Disappointed

I've just read through a brochure produced by a large Irish construction consultancy. Of the 36 "Senior Personnel" listed at the back, there was not a single woman!

Guylène Proulx #ALD10

It's Ada Lovelace Day! Ada Lovelace Day is an international day of blogging to celebrate the achievements of women in technology and science. There's not a whole lot of women in my little corner of the industry, so one name in particular sprang to mind: Guylène Proulx.

Dr. Proulx was a Senior Researcher in the Fire Research Program at the National Research Council Canada. She had a Ph.D. degree in Architectural Planning from the University of Montreal. She had a unique expertise in human behaviour studies in emergency situations. Her research involved interviewing survivors after fires and conducting evacuation experiments in buildings. She was on the Board of Directors of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers and she was also teaching in fire protection
engineering at Carleton University and at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Sadly, Dr Proulx passed away late last year. This is from an announcement of her posthumous appointment as an Officer of the Order of Canada:

Announcements - NRC Researcher Dr. Guylène Proulx is appointed to the Order of Canada

January 11, 2010 — Ottawa, Ontario

Dr. Guylène Proulx was posthumously appointed as an Officer of the Order of Canada on December 30, 2009, by the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean. Dr. Proulx was recognized for her contributions to fire safety research during her career, more specifically, for her studies on photoluminescent material, smoke alarms and human behaviour during emergencies, the majority of which were undertaken at the National Research Council of Canada.

Dr. Proulx joined the Fire Research Program at the NRC Institute for Research in Construction (NRC-IRC) in 1992. Some of her many areas of research included the investigation of human response to alarm bells, voice communication messages, evacuation movement, typical reactions and social interaction — all during emergency situations.

Dr. Proulx's research has had a profound impact on fire safety worldwide —the impact of her work not only has helped save countless lives but will continue to do so far into the future. Her findings on smoke alarms and photoluminescent materials are currently being used to ensure safety in buildings across Canada and around the world. Considered as one of the leading experts in her field, she was invited to participate in many post-event investigations, including the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. As a result of her findings, a new emergency way-finding system and evacuation strategy was implemented at the World Trade Center, which has been credited with helping to save lives during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Although most people will probably never know her name, her research has contributed to saving countless lives.

Finding Ada

I've just heard about Ada Lovelace Day 2010!

From the website:

Ada Lovelace Day is an international day of blogging (videologging, podcasting, comic drawing etc.!) to draw attention to the achievements of women in technology and science.

Women’s contributions often go unacknowledged, their innovations seldom mentioned, their faces rarely recognised. We want you to tell the world about these unsung heroines, whatever they do. It doesn’t matter how new or old your blog is, what gender you are, what language you blog in, or what you normally blog about – everyone is invited. Just sign the pledge below (click ‘pledge’ after you have completed the reCaptcha) and publish your blog post any time on Wednesday 24th March 2010.

I will be posting on the 24th :)

Please help spread the word!

Swine Flu

Reading this blog reminded me that I wanted to look into the real risk of swine flu. What are the chances of catching it? What are the chances of dying from it? Is this all a storm in a teacup?

Typing "swine flu mortality" into Google yields this article (as the first page, no less) that nicely explains the concepts of virulence, case fatality ratio (CFR) and mortality. I'm not a medical expert in any respect, but it does pass my "common sense test", so I will summarise it (although I really recommend that reading it for yourself if you are interested):

• virulence is severity of the disease the virus produces (note that this is related not only to the virus, but also the host. I'm only going to be talking about humans)


• CFR is a measure of virulence - it is the probability of someone who has caught swine flu dying from it


• mortality rate is the percentage of the population that die from swine flu


• it is very difficult to put accurate numbers to these rates

However I have noticed that many places are using mortality rate interchangeably with CFR, but I will try to stick to the definitions above.


World Health Organisation (WHO) figures (via the UK government) as of the 26th June are 59,814 cases worldwide and 263 deaths. This gives a CFR of just over 0.4%. For comparison Wikipedia gives the following figures:

1918 flu pandemic >2.5%
Asian flu <0.1%
Hong Kong flu <0.1%
Seasonal flu <0.05%

So, it looks like swine flu is more deadly than normal seasonal flu, but not nearly as deadly as the 1918 pandemic, once you've caught it. But how easy is it to catch it?

The WHO has declared swine flu to be a phase 6 pandemic, meaning that there is widespread human infection. Their assessment of the pandemic includes:

"H1N1 appears to be more contagious than seasonal influenza. The secondary attack rate of seasonal influenza ranges from 5% to 15%. Current estimates of the secondary attack rate of H1N1 range from 22% to 33%."

So swine flu is easier to catch than normal flu, as well as being more virulent. However is is worth noting that the World Health Organisation FAQ about swine flu "what is level 6?" says that the pandemic is moderate.

The moderate assessment reflects that:

* Most people recover from infection without the need for hospitalization or medical care.
* Overall, national levels of severe illness from influenza A(H1N1) appear similar to levels seen during local seasonal influenza periods, although high levels of disease have occurred in some local areas and institutions.
* Overall, hospitals and health care systems in most countries have been able to cope with the numbers of people seeking care, although some facilities and systems have been stressed in some localities.

Based on the above, I conclude that swine flu is indeed worse than seasonal flu, but not the end of life as we know it that some people fear. Luckily, the recommended precautions are not too onerous:

* cover your mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing, using a tissue
* throw the tissue away quickly and carefully
* wash your hands regularly with soap and water
* clean hard surfaces (like door handles and remote controls) frequently with a normal cleaning product

It's been a while...

... but I think it is time to dust this blog off again. And maybe this time I will get around to publicising it ;)

The current case (discussed by New Scientist here) of Simon Singh being sued by the BCA has caught my interest. I want to do more research before I make public comment, but at this stage it has me worried!

Men on the moon again?

The US seems to be planning it, but it will be a while before it happens:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4406564.ece

NASA are planning "moon town" and hope to start construction within a decade. The first residents are due to move in 2024, if all things go according to plan.

Batman!

For the comic lovers among us, here is an article on the plausibility of Batman:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=dark-knight-shift-why-bat