RIP: Augusto Odone – creator of Lorenzo’s oil

October 26, 2013

Augusto Odone, a former World Bank economist who challenged the world’s medical establishment and created Lorenzo’s Oil has died in Italy aged 80,

The story of Lorenzo’s Oil is now well enough known (and not least because of the 1992  film). Augusto Odone’s effort is the ultimate example of Citizen Science prevailing over Big Science, of a lone, non-establishment individual battling, persevering and triumphing over an establishment view.

Augusto Odone with his son Lorenzo

Augusto Odone refused to accept medical opinion that his son Lorenzo would die in childhood – BBC

And it is becoming increasingly obvious that Big Science, whether in Medicine or in Physics or in Climate Change suffers from the fundamental weakness which results from a massive inertia which prevents the non-establishment view from surfacing. Consensus Science smothers creativity and ingenuity.

India Unlimited in Sweden

October 25, 2013

Banashri Bose Harrison

“Swedes are well-travelled, they are well-educated. They really have no excuse to know so little about India,”  – India’s ambassador Banashri Bose Harrison.

And so the Indian Embassy is organising India Unlimited to create a platform with the objective of promoting better economic relations and connecting the peoples of India and Sweden.

The intention is to connect to a broad Swedish public by showcasing Indian food, art, philosophy, culture and design capabilities through film screenings, music and dance
performances, literature evenings, fashion shows, art exhibitions and, specially, children & youth-friendly cultural programs and to present the diversity of India for travel & tourism.

The program for the next few weeks includes

31st October 2013 – Fusion-concert by a 9 member troupe from India led by legendary violinist Dr. L. Subramaniam at Berwaldhallen. Tickets are now available at Berwaldhallen.se.
3rd November 2013 – A tribute to Ravi Shankar, Stallet/Stockholm, 14:00 – 18:00. Read more at www.stallet.st and buy your tickets at www.tickster.com.
November 2013 – “India-Your cup of Tea” Business Seminar with tea tasting
Further events including  an India Unlimited Week  next year (21-27 April 2014) are being planned. 

European Parliament: where they don’t know what they are voting about

October 25, 2013

This only reconfirms my view that the European Parliament is not worthy of any respect and is worthy of much contempt.

(found at Guido Fawkes’ Blog)

A typical day in the European Parliament as MEPs get ready for a vote. But there is a problem. One MEP stands up and explains that the room has no idea what it is voting on, as they haven’t yet been given a chance to read the alterations to the amendments about to be passed.

The response? – “That’s the way we do things here”.

Men walk slower when walking with romantic (female) partners!

October 24, 2013

This is published in PLOS ONE.

Wagnild J, Wall-Scheffler CM (2013) Energetic Consequences of Human Sociality: Walking Speed Choices among Friendly Dyads. PLoS ONE 8(10): e76576. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076576

I am still trying trying to decide whether this work is incredibly profound or incredibly trivial.

The authors conclude that “When walking with female romantic partners, males tend to slow down by about 7%,”. They claim that “these findings could have implications for both mobility and reproductive strategies of groups, and could help interpret fossil footprint trails and hunter gatherer strategies”.

Their results.

  1. Partners: Male Partners had faster preferred speeds when walking alone (average: 1.53 ms−1) than the Female Partners (average: 1.44 ms−1; p = 0.05). When Male and Female Partners walked together, the Male Partners significantly slowed their paces in order to walk with their Female Partners (average: 1.44 ms−1; p = 0.009). When asked to hold hands while walking with their Partner, the Male Partners slowed their paces further (average: 1.43 ms−1; p = 0.007). The walking speed of the Female Partners only slightly changed when walking with the Male Partners, with or without hand-holding.
  2. Opposite Sex Friends: When the Female Partners walked with the Male Friends, the Female Partners increased their speeds (from 1.44 ms−1 to 1.48 ms−1; 2.8%; p = 0.410) while the Male Friends decreased their speeds (from 1.52 ms−1 to 1.48 ms−1; 2.6%; p = 0.255), thus demonstrating a compromise of speeds. Similarly, when the Male Partners walked with the Female Friends, the Female Friends increased their speeds (from 1.41 ms−1 to 1.47 ms−1; 4.3%; p = 0.391) while the Male Partners decreased their speeds (from 1.53 ms−1 to 1.47 ms−1; 4.0%; p = 0.146), again demonstrating a compromise of speeds. In summary, when males and females who were not romantically involved walked together, there was not a significant difference in either’s walking speeds away from solo walking. Males did not significantly slow their speeds to walk with females who were their Friend, though their speed choice did decrease slightly.
  3. Same Sex Friends: When Male Partners walked with Male Friends, walking speeds were faster than either individual’s preferred walking speed (4%; p = 0.716 for Male Partners and p = 0.595 for Male Friends). When Female Partners walked with Female Friends, walking speeds were slower than either individual’s preferred speed (3%; p = 0.351 for Female Partners and p = 0.571 for Female Friends)

From their Discussion:

….. The data do show however, that there is a decrease in the speed choice between males walking alone and males walking with females; the degree of this speed “accommodation,” however, is linked to the relationship status of the male-female pair, such that males will nearly match the females’ paces only if they are in a romantic relationship. In friendships, the male slows down, but to a lesser (non significant) degree. Furthermore, the differences found between male-male dyads and female-female dyads are also consistent with the hypothesis that social closeness will be mirrored by speed choices. …….  In recent hunter-gatherer populations, males and females often travel similar distances making the energetic consequences of daily mobility an important selection pressure on both sexes. When people of both sexes walk together, either both sexes must pay an energetic penalty by compromising speeds (as seen in the Partner-Friend dyad) or the male must pay an energetic penalty to accommodate the female’s speed (as seen in the Partner-Partner dyad). To alleviate this energetic penalty, many populations travel in single-sex groups in which males travel alone or in pairs and females travel together ……

So I suppose I should conclude that when hunter-gatherers moved from one place to another, the men went first, the women followed and romantic couples followed last – whether holding hands or not?

EurekAlert: 

When walking with female romantic partners, males tend to slow down by about 7%, according to new research published Oct 23 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, by Cara Wall-Scheffler and colleagues at Seattle Pacific University.

People have an optimal walking speed that minimizes energy expenditure. This optimal speed varies with physical features like mass and lower limb length, and therefore males in any given population tend to have faster optimal walking speeds than females. Given this difference, it is not clear what happens in walking groups of mixed-sex. In order to walk together, someone in the pair will need to pay the energetic cost of deviating from his or her optimal speed.

The authors here examined individuals’ speed choices when they walked around a track alone, with a significant other (with and without holding hands), and with friends of the same and opposite sex. They found that males walk at a significantly slower pace to match the females’ paces, only when the female is their romantic partner. The paces of friends of either same or mixed sex walking together did not significantly change, suggesting that significant pace adjustments occur only for romantic partners.

These findings could have implications for both mobility and reproductive strategies of groups, and could help interpret fossil footprint trails and hunter gatherer strategies.

David Cameron snubbed by Obama and left off the NSA spy list

October 24, 2013

Information is now filtering into the public space that the Heads of friendly nations including Brazil and Mexico and France and India and now – horror of horrors – Germany have had their communications bugged and mobile phones tapped by the US intelligence Agencies (mainly the NSA).

BBC: 

Germany has summoned the US ambassador to Berlin over claims that the US monitored German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone. Foreign minister Guido Westerwelle will personally meet US envoy John Emerson later on Thursday.

Mrs Merkel has demanded a “complete explanation” of the claims, which are threatening to overshadow an EU summit on Thursday and Friday.

She discussed the issue with US President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

President Obama told Mrs Merkel the US was not monitoring her calls and would not in future, the White House said. However, it left open the question of whether calls had been listened to in the past.

The list of governments, companies and people who have been spied on by the US is now getting very long. But what is also very clear is that anybody – who is anybody – is or was on the spy list.

But poor David Cameron was not / is not quite important enough to make the NSA spy list as The Telegraph reports:

The White House has explicitly said US spies never monitored David Cameron’s communications but refused to say whether it had ever tapped Angela Merkel’s phone in the past.

A spokesman for President Barack Obama told The Telegraph that the US never targeted the prime minister but the White House would not offer the same assurances about the German chancellor.

But what would really be almost impossible for Cameron to bear would be if Ed Miliband has made the list and that adds to his consequence.

Melendez challenges murky process at National University of Singapore

October 24, 2013

Alirio Melendez has not distinguished himself by his less than rigorous supervision of research carried out under him. So much so that 13 of his papers have been retracted and there be many more retractions to come. But the National University of Singapore has also shown itself to be less than transparent in handling cases of alleged misconduct. And now Melendez, while acknowledging his failings in supervising research, challenges the NUS on two counts; first for not being specifically able to detail any misconduct directly by him and secondly for its “unfair” process of investigation which ignored his submissions. Retraction Watch has been following the case(s).

Now the murky story reaches the Nature News Blog. The National University of Singapore does not come out of all this very well. When there is muck – they first try to hide it. If that doesn’t work they carry out opaque investigations and political considerations and protecting the “reputation” of the University seem to take priority.

An immunologist accused last year by the National University of Singapore (NUS) of “serious scientific misconduct” relating to 21 research papers says that he refutes the accusations and is calling on the university to make public its report into the matter.

“I categorically deny having been party to any fraudulent or scientific misconduct,” Alirio Melendez, who worked at NUS before joining the University of Glasgow and the University of Liverpool in the UK, wrote on a new website on 16 October, and at the site Retraction Watch, which has been tracking the case.

Melendez has maintained for two years that he is not to blame for the problems found in papers that he co-authored. Yet in December 2012, NUS said that a committee report had found fabrication, falsification or plagiarism associated with 21 papers, and no evidence indicating that other co-authors were involved in the misconduct. Or as Melendez sees it: “without showing any proof whatsoever that I am the guilty party for scientific fraud”.

Thirteen of those papers have now been retracted, and Melendez concedes that as corresponding author he is at fault for signing off the work without overseeing it adequately — a form of misconduct in itself. But in seven of the papers in which NUS found irregularities, he stated last week, he did not contribute data generation, analysis or any part of the manuscript writing.

So far, Melendez’s counterclaims have lacked convincing detail. That is, in part, because neither Melendez nor NUS would provide details of the papers, nor the committee report. Now, Melendez tells Nature that he will shortly post a “paper-by-paper response” on his website, but that it will be his “personal statement” on the papers, not the whole report. “Since this report is confidential I cannot publish it myself without NUS permission,” he claims. ……. 

……. There is also dispute about whether Melendez’s concerns have been given a fair confidential hearing by  NUS. The university says that it “conducted interviews with as many authors as possible” and that Melendez declined responses when a committee visited the United Kingdom in 2011 (which Melendez puts down to ill health).

Melendez says that last year, he did send two replies to the NUS investigation, but that they did not take these responses into consideration for their final report. The NUS spokesperson agrees, and says that Melendez’s responses in 2012 did not address the irregularities that NUS found and were also not sent in time for the deadlines that the university allowed, as guided by its research integrity code. Therefore, they “were not considered part of the record of the inquiry”. But Melendez says he was never made aware of this.

There would seem to be a whole lot of muck hiding under the carpets of the National University of Singapore and while the dirt may be invisible, the smell is spreading.

Russia downgrades Greenpeace 30 charges from piracy to hooliganism

October 23, 2013

Ria Novosti reports:

Investigators in Russia said Wednesday that they have dropped piracy charges against environmental activists and freelance journalists detained last month aboard a Greenpeace ship.

Investigative Committee chief Vladimir Markin said the group will instead be charged with hooliganism.

……. Hooliganism in Russia carries a maximum penalty of seven years in jail.

Russian authorities seized Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise icebreaker in mid-September after activists tried to scale an oil rig in the Arctic in protest against offshore drilling in the area. All 30 people on board – comprising 28 Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists – were detained and later charged with piracy, which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. …

Markin of Russia’s Investigative Committee also said some members of the group could face charges of using force against state officials.

He said the Greenpeace group’s lack of cooperation with investigators had unnecessarily drawn out the process.

“The failure of the accused to give evidence gave cause for investigators to carefully consider all alternative versions of what took place,” Markin said.

He said investigators needed to consider whether the Greenpeace group had attempted to board the oil platform for financial gain, terrorism or to conduct illicit research activities and espionage.

 

Pope Francis slaps the Bishop of Bling gently on the wrist

October 23, 2013

A temporary suspension from his episcopal duties and a 3 month paid vacation is about all that Pope Francis could impose on the rich and powerful Bishop of Limburg, Franz-Peter Tebartz van Elst.

The Bishop of Bling was summoned to the Vatican to be chastised for his extravagance and was even forced to travel by the modern equivalent of travelling on an ass. He flew Ryan Air!!

But he’s come out of it pretty well. No long drawn out trial. Just a 20 minute chat with the Pope. No inquisition or torture. He probably was not even shown the instruments. No hair shirts, no public penances, no washing of the feet of the poor in his diocese. (Mind you, the diocese is so rich they may not have many poor to speak of). No ceremonial unfrocking. Just a removal of his Bishop’s stole for a few weeks. It all seems very reminiscent of the high and the mighty being treated with kid gloves for their transgressions.

At which mountain resort he is going to spend his 3 month vacation has not been announced but I doubt if it will be uncomfortable or involve any “gardening leave”.

Pope Francis may have some new brooms but he will have to tread lightly when it comes to the traditional centres of power and wealth in the Church.

The Local (Italy): After private meetings with Pope Francis, a bishop who squandered millions on a luxury headquarters has decided to step down – for just three months – the Vatican confirmed on Wednesday.

Bishop of Limburg, Franz-Peter Tebartz van Elst was summoned to the Vatican more than a week ago after reports of his enormous spending emerged at his new complex in western Germany emerged.

…. He met the Pope on Monday for a 20 minute discussion and on Wednesday the Vatican said: “The Holy See deems it appropriate to authorize a period of leave from the diocese for Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst. The Holy Father has been continuously and objectively informed of the situation,” it said. A situation has been created in which the bishop can no longer exercise his episcopal duties.”

It is understood the bishop will resume his duties in three months and in the meantime the church is conducting an investigation into his spending at Limburg

Deutsche Welle:

 Limburg Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst shown taking off his stole. Photo: Boris Roessler/dpa

The Bishop of Bling – Photo: Boris Roessler/dpa

Vicar general Wolfgang Rösch from the neighboring city of Wiesbaden was named as the temporary caretaker for the bishop of Limburg’s diocese. Rösch had already been selected to become Limburg’s vicar general beginning January 2014.

Wang versus Wen at the Chinese Academy of Sciences

October 23, 2013

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), formerly known as Academia Sinica, is the national academy for the natural sciences of the People’s Republic of China. Collectively known as the “Two Academies”  along with the Chinese Academy of Engineering, it is an institution of the State Council of China, functioning as the national scientific thinktank and academic governing body, providing advisory and appraisal services on issues stemming from the national economy, social development, and science and technology progress. It is headquartered in Beijing, with branch institutes all over mainland China. It has also created hundreds of commercial enterprises, with Lenovo being one of the most famous.

Sun tzu

Being selected as  a full member of the Academy is the most sought after position for a Chinese scientist. Selection takes place every two years and this year there are 391 “candidates” and probably no more than 5 – 10% will be selected. At the end of 2008, there were 692 CAS members, including 40 female members and 51 foreign members. So roughly one in 2 million Chinese gets to be a member of the Academy.

Politicking and lobbying are not unknown in the selection of new members. This can be quite cut-throat and vicious as is quite normal in academic rivalry. In this particular case Physics Professors Wang and Wen were competing for a place. Wang – in a master-stroke worthy of Sun Tzu – accused Wen of academic misconduct with regard to a paper published in Nature Communications. Each fired off their ammunition on their blog posts. Three co-authors claimed – or were persuaded to claim – that their names had wrongly been included on the paper by Wen. This effectively killed Wen’s chances. While Wang had won the battle he may have lost the war. The Academy was not amused. Wang had rocked the boat too much. And in the latest development Wang  has now withdrawn – or has been persuaded to withdraw – his candidature. It could be some time before he is allowed to be a candidate again.

South China Morning Post:

A prominent physics professor at Nanjing University, Wang Mu, 51, announced on his blog on Monday his intention to withdraw from this year’s selection race for new members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), a title only given to leading scientists and academic authorities in China.

His decision has shocked many in Chinese academic circles. To many, the reason behind it is even more shocking. Wang has withdrawn from the race so he can investigate another candidate, his colleague, 49-year-old physics professor Wen Hai Hu, for alleged academic fraud.

On September 15, Wang informed the Division of Mathematics and Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that in May Wen had published a fraudulent research paper in Nature Communications, a journal focusing on advancements in the field of physical, biological and chemical science.

According to Wang, three co-authors of the published paper didn’t participate in any of the experiments or analysis mentioned in it, and they had never seen the article before it was published. Wang said that in July this year the editorial department of Nature Communications had received a request from the three co-authors to remove their names from the paper. …..

….. While many were disappointed by Wang’s decision, some questioned his motive, which provoked further discussion on whether the CAS member system should be abolished.

“As far as I know, it is a close race between them. To Wang, Wen has become an obstacle on his path to promotion. The fact that Wang bypassed the university and reported to CAS directly has killed Wen’s hopes of becoming a member of CAS. The last thing CAS wants is to see a dirty fight,” a commenter posted on sciencenet.cn.

On October 13, the Ministry of Education of China ordered Nanjing University to investigate the scandal. And the Chinese Academy of Sciences also formed a team to conduct an independent investigation.

UPDATE!

The paper in question seems to be this one:

Influence of microstructure on superconductivity in KxFe2−ySe2 and evidence for a new parent phase K2Fe7Se8, Xiaxin Ding, Delong Fang, Zhenyu Wang, Huan Yang, Jianzhong Liu, Qiang Deng, Guobin Ma,Chong Meng, Yuhui Hu & Hai-Hu Wen, Nature Communications 4, Article number: 1897 (2013) doi:10.1038/ncomms2913

 If the news story is correct Hai-Hu Wen is the senior author and 3 of the 9 other co-authors are the ones who have apparently written to the Editor complaining that their names have “been used in vain”!!

Has Facebook reinstated beheading videos for the NSA or just for revenue – or for both?

October 23, 2013

That Facebook allows NSA access to all its material has become clear from the Snowden leaks.

In addition to phone records and email logs, the National Security Agency uses Facebook and other social media profiles to create maps of social connections — including those of American citizens.

That beheading and other videos with gratuitous violence are often uploaded on  Facebook is apparent (and whichever way Facebook twists and turns it is equally apparent that they must stand as the publishers – if not the authors – of such material). That much of the uploaded material is faked is also apparent (especially from areas of conflict). It is the gratuitous violence which attracts the voyeuristic surfers like a crowd gathering at the scene of a bloody incident. The sight of vultures gathering at the carcass of a kill attract even more scavengers of all kinds. It is the gatherings of the crowds which increases the revenue generating traffic for Facebook.

The more bloodstains on the road the larger the crowd of ghouls who gather. But among the ghouls are also perpetrators returning to the scene of their crimes where the “incident” was not just an accident. And that interests the NSA.

Why then has Facebook removed its ban on such material? There are very few voices supporting the move.

Who gains? Why the NSA and Facebook. The NSA needs material to mine in its search for the “bad” guys. And people who behead others or fake such pictures or are inspired by such material are of special interest. And Facebook wants the revenues.

ArsTechnica: Facebook said that overall, it received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests from authorities in the second half of 2012, pertaining to between 18,000 and 19,000 individual Facebook accounts. …. By the end of July 2013, we learned directly from an FISC judge that no corporation ever served with a “business record” court order under the Patriot Act has ever challenged one. This is despite the fact that the law provides them a means to do so.

Judging by what Facebook does – and not by what it says – also suggests that they are a lot closer to the NSA than they would like their users to know.

Beforeitsnews: About a year after Facebook reportedly joined PRISM, Max Kelly, the social network’s chief security officer left for a job at the National Security Agency, either a curious career move or one that makes complete sense. The Chief Security Officer at a tech company is primarily concerned with keeping its information inside the company. Now working for an agency that tries to gather as much information as it can, Kelly’s new job is sort of a complete reversal.

And it does not matter where in the world you are. If you are on Facebook your information is in a security agency’s database somewhere. It may not have been flagged as being of special interest but it’s there. If not at the NSA then surely at GCHQ or with the Germans or with the Russian agencies. Even if meta-data is only kept for some limited period of time – once your existence has been registered it can never be deregistered. And if the initial data was “flagged” for any reason then that individual will forever be under surveillance.