Improbable Research

When a scientist says “there is no hard science” to support an idea, does that mean that (1) there really is no such research; or (2) there is research, but the the scientist does not believe it; or (3) the scientist has not kept up with research done by other people?

Consider this case. FIRST, Jillian Clarke won the of 2004 Ig Nobel Public Health Prize for scientifically testing the five-second rule (Clarke was a high-school student at the time she did the research). SECOND, in early 2007, scientists at Clemson University implied that they had just done the first scientific test of the rule.

Now, THIRD, comes a September 26, 2007 press release from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It says:

If a piece of toast fell on the floor, would you pick it up and eat it? You probably would if you believe in the 5-second rule, which suggests that your spilled breakfast stays germ-free as long as you snatch it up in five seconds.

But while the 5-second rule remains a popular rule of thumb, there is no hard science to support it, says Glenn Chambliss, a bacteriologist at UW-Madison. In fact, if you dropped food in places harboring nasties like E. Coli bacteria, any contamination would happen instantaneously, the scientist says.

Again, science moves in its customary fashion, one step forward, one back, with now and then a twirling in place.

(Thanks to investigator Sip Siperstein for bringing this to our attention.)

Question: Who has co-written a scholarly book on smoking AND co-written a scholarly book on karaoke?

Answer: Dr.Xun Zhou of The School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.

So imagine that you are a female ladybird. Because you are already four days old you feel it is really about time that you get a hold of yourself and cease to live your life in an aimless fashion. You feel that it is time to get pregnant. While wandering about on your green plant reflecting on where your life has gone you suddenly look up and see an attractive male about 2 cm ahead (which is about how far a ladybird can see)….

So the romance begins, and since you are ladybirds, and since ladybirds are fond of copulating you go on for a long time. (Here is a video of two ladybirds getting it on to the tunes of Donald Crawford’s “You Know I Know”.)

So writes Anders Rasmussen.

Among scholars of the game of rock-paper-scissors, only a tiny minority also study monkeys. This fact, by itself, may explain why no studies were published until 2005 about what happens when monkeys play rock-paper-scissors.

Daeyeol Lee, Benjamin P McGreevy and Dominic J Barraclough of the University of Rochester, New York, wrote the first, and so far the only, report on the subject. “Learning and Decision Making in Monkeys During a Rock-Paper-Scissors Game” was published in the journal Cognitive Brain Research. The test subjects were male rhesus monkeys. No one explained the rules: rock breaks scissors, scissors cut paper, paper covers rock….

So begins this week’s Improbable Research column in The Guardian.

The September issue of mini-AIR just went out. Topics include: Tea Catechins in Chicken Meat Systems; Gerbes for the Starved; Engineer’s Perspective on Socks; etc. (If you would like to have mini-AIR automatically sent to your email box every month, please subscribe to it. It’s free.)

Scientist tests DNA on husband’s underwear to check for signs of cheating

LANSING, Mich. - A state forensics scientist who said she tested DNA in her husband’s underwear to find out whether he was cheating could be disciplined if investigators determine she violated the use of state equipment.

Ann Chamberlain-Gordon of Okemos testified in a March 7 divorce hearing that she ran the test in September on the underwear of Charles Gordon Jr. Asked by his attorney what she found, she answered: “Another female. It wasn’t me.”

She also said during a May 25 hearing in Ingham County Family Court that she ran the test on her own time with chemicals that were set to be thrown away.

So says a July 3, 2007 Associated Press report.

(Thanks to investigator Richard Wassersug for bringing this to our attention.)

Landmark Study Investigates Arrogance

Arrogance is not just an unpleasant personality trait, it can also affect an organization’s morale and bottom line. There also appears to be a strong relationship between arrogance and job performance, according to Stan Silverman, dean of The University of Akron’s Summit College and co-author of the study, Arrogance: A Formula for Failure�

So says a June 17, 2007 Physorg report.

(Thanks to investigator Kristine Danowski for bringing this to our attention.)

In the September 19, 2007 episode of his weekly broadcast, Dr. Jack Van Impe explains the technological history of the automobile: the basic engineering design, he reveals, was published in the Bible.

In 2001, Dr. Van Impe and his wife, Rexella, were awarded the Ig Nobel Astrophysics prize, for their discovery that black holes fulfill all the technical requirements to be the location of Hell.

The Van Impes could not or would not attend that year’s Ig Nobel Prize Ceremony. And so, MIT astrophysicist Walter Lewin accepted custody of the Prize on behalf of the Van Impes. Lewin hailed the Van Impes’ “breakthrough contributions to astrophysics.” He then remarked that, to astrophysicists, “Black holes go beyond our wildest expectations, fantasies and dreams,” that “black holes are heaven to us.”

Click here to see video of Lewin’s acceptance speech (along with a few other bits of that year’s ceremony).

Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists Joshua Holden writes:

Due to a haircut, I am writing to regretfully resign my membership in the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists as I have made the difficult decision to resign my Luxuriant Flowing Hair.

Joshua Brandon Holden
Assoc. Professor, RHIT Math Department

For the record: The LFHCfS has no set policy pertaining to this. Like the hair of its members, the club’s ways are luxuriant and flowing.

The scene from the movie “2001 – A Space Odyssey“, in which the astronaut Dave Bowman switches the HAL9000 computer off is a landmark in popular culture….

This study analyses if a robot’s intelligence and its agreeableness influences its perceived animacy. The robot’s animacy was measured, amongst other measurements, by the users’ hesitation to switch it off. The results show that participants hesitated three times as long to switch off an agreeable and intelligent robot as compared to a non agreeable and unintelligent robot.

So write Christoph Bartneck, Michel van der Hoek, Omar Mubin and Abdullah Al Mahmud in their study “‘Daisy, Daisy, Give Me Your Answer Do!’ — Switching Off a Robot” [Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Washington DC pp. 217-22 (2007), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1228716.1228746.

They produced a short video of the moment of truth.

In a related study called “To Kill a Mockingbird Robot“, they write:

We attempted to see if users perceive ’smart’ robots more alive than ’stupid.’ We used a new method of measuring the users’ destructive behavior, since the ultimate test of determining if something is alive is to kill it. We encountered several problems…

(Thanks to Investigator Missy Cummings for bringing this to our attention.)

We chose Martin to participate because he was the closest we could find to Absolute Zero in terms of pitching ability. He made no pretense of skill. He held the baseball as if it were radioactive.

“You don’t get these things in Europe,” he said. “I wouldn’t know where to get one.”

Martin even insisted on dropping the baseball to the floor during one idle moment, just so he could kick it around like a soccer midfielder. “That’s what you’re supposed to do with a ball,” he said.

His first attempts at American-style pitching were predictably pathetic.

“He throws like a European,” Shore said, keeping score on the sidelines. “No lower body.”

Snyder’s “before” shots documented Martin’s awkward motions as the blinking lights on the ball traced a remarkably slow path.

“He’s invented a new pitch — the German change-up,” Barker said. “The ball never gets there. You can’t hit a pitch that never arrives.”

So writes Carl T. Hall in the July 9, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle, which also features a short video of Sebastian Martin attempting to throw several baseballs.

(Thanks to investigator Mark Schreiber for bringing this to our attention.)

Tad McGeer proved that you don’t need knees to walk downhill. But he also proved that downhill walking is nicer with knees.

He further proved that you don’t need a brain if all you want to do is walk down a slope. Nor do you need much else. Just a pair of legs - call them stand-alone legs, if you like - will do it.

McGeer proved these things mathematically. Then he proved them in a way that non-mathematicians seem to find more persuasive….

So begins this week’s Improbable Research column in The Guardian.

Scientists, it is said, never take any assumption for granted. A panel of amateur scientists on the American TV program “The View” debated two such assumptions. Click on the image to see and hear video. Here is a transcript covering one of the two questions (the video clip covers both questions):

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Is the world flat?

SHERRI SHEPHERD: Is the world flat? (laughter)

GOLDBERG: Yes.

SHEPHERD: …I Don’t know.

GOLDBERG: What do you think?

SHEPHERD: I… I never thought about it, Whoopi. Is the world flat? I never thought about it.

BARBARA WALTERS: You’ve never thought about whether the world was round or flat?

SHEPHERD: I tell you what I’ve thought about. How I’m going to feed my child–

WALTERS: Well you can do both.

SHEPERD: …how I’m going to take care of my family. The world, is the world flat has never entered into, like that has not been an important thing to me.

ELIZABETH HASSELBECK: You’ll teach your son, Jeffery, right?

SHEPHERD: If my son, Jeffery, asks me ‘is the world flat,’ I guess I would go…

JOY BEHAR: You know, didn’t some person already work this question out? I mean, why are we doing this again? (laughter, applause)

(Thanks to The Daily Background for bringing this to our attention.)

Dan McCune has joined the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists. He says:

My qualifications include 1) having luxuriant hair, usually flowing, and 2) I am an adrenergic pharmacologist who has investigated receptor binding and cellular signal transduction beyond the point that any sane individual would wish to do so. I (and my hair) received a Ph.D. in Pharmacology from the University of Kentucky. Subsequently we completed post-doctoral work at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Molecular Cardiology. My hair and I are currently employed in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nesbit School of Pharmacy at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Dan F. McCune, Ph.D., LFHCfS
Assistant Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences
Nesbitt School of Pharmacy
Wilkes University
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, USA

Another of BAE’s ideas is what has been described as a “bang-free bomb”.

In fact, although the explosion is quieter, the bomb has been re-engineered so the risk to the user of exposure to the bomb’s fumes is reduced.

“This is to ensure they are safe to use, that they only go off when they are supposed to go off, and that they do the minimum of collateral damage,” said Ms Allen.

So says an October 26, 2006 BBC report about arms manufacturer British Aerospace Systems (aka BAE, aka BAE Systems), which calls itself “the premier global defence and aerospace company”.

The report does not say how or whether the bang-free bomb relates to the bomb-free bang. The bang was the subject of the 2000 Ig Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to:

The British Royal Navy, for ordering its sailors to stop using live cannon shells, and to instead just shout “Bang!”

(Thanks to investigator Scott Langill for bringing this to our attention.)

PS. Of course some don’t say “bang,” but refer to it only indirectly. Tom Lehrer, for one, is a noted master of indirect indication.