A Letter to Georgia's Rep. Franklin

Jill at Feministe posted this fantastic letter that we should all send to Georgia's crazed Re. Franklin who is sponsoring legislation that will require all women to file police reports every time they miscarry:

Dear Rep. Franklin,
I applaud your efforts to support the rights of zygote citizens of Georgia by criminalizing miscarriages and investigating every instance of fetal death as a potential crime. The Georgia State Assembly knows that life begins at the moment of conception, and a fertilized egg death is a human death — a death that we should all grieve, and of course investigate to the fullest extent until we find the responsible party and bring them to justice (the death penalty, which your bill prescribes as the punishment for killing a pre-born Georgia citizen, is definitely appropriate here). I couldn’t agree more, and I would like to help.
As I’m sure you know, more than 50% of fertilized eggs –Georgia citizens! — naturally don’t implant, and are flushed out of the body during menstruation. I am personally concerned that my own murdering woman-body may have flushed out some human beings, and I may have flushed them down the toilet without knowing that I was disposing of Georgia citizens in such an undignified way. This must be remedied. I would like to be sure that I am not killing any more Georgia citizens — and that if I am, they are able to receive a proper funeral and not a burial at sea, and that our state police can dedicate valuable time and resources to investigating their deaths.
To that end, I attach a picture of my latest used tampon. I am preserving this tampon, as well as all of my other tampons, pads, feminine hygiene products and soiled panties from my current menstrual cycle, so that the Georgia State Police can come collect them as evidence. I would also be happy to drop the specimens off at your office, should you want to examine them yourself.
Please let me know if I can make an appointment to give you these items. Or, since I appreciate that you are a very busy man, please let me know when the police will be by my home to collect them, as my next cycle is rapidly approaching and they are starting to smell. I cannot keep them in my refrigerator for much longer.
Thanks for all the work you do to further the pro-life cause.
Sincerely,
Jill Filipovic

This is Rep. Franklin's contact info:

Rep. Bobby Franklin
401 Coverdell Legislative Office Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

Phone: 404.656.0152
Fax: 404.656.5562

bobby.franklin@house.ga.gov

Funny Video on Science

The very first real reader of this blog V. just shared with me this great video. Watch it if you are either in sciences or love to make fun of Lady Gaga:

Dorothy Seymour

I'm sorry for posting so much, people. I often resolve to stop inundating people with posts so often but there are so many things going on everywhere that are worth commenting on that I just can't help myself. This is a story that was brought to my attention by reader Patrick whose controversial comments we all appreciate. Thanks, Patrick!

The baseball lovers among us must have surely heard about Harold Seymour's seminal studies of this sport. I know nothing about baseball but even I have heard his name and know of his importance to the writing of baseball's history. Now it turns out that much of the research for all of the books and most of the writing for the last one had been done my Seymour's wife Dorothy, his life partner of 30 years whom he refused to acknowledge as a co-author. 

Dorothy contributed a lot to Harold's career from the moment they married. She was helpful in helping him get through the writing of his doctoral dissertation:

As a good '50s wife, she typed the 632-page dissertation in which Seymour traced baseball from a childhood pursuit of boys into a full-fledged business and American cultural centerpiece. Cornell University awarded him his doctorate in 1956, and the dissertation helped launch sports history as a legitimate scholarly pursuit. It grew into his first baseball history book, published in 1960.Dr. Seymour's wife knows now that she probably contributed more to that dissertation than the academic world would consider appropriate. In the preface, Seymour acknowledged "the help of numerous individuals and organizations."He did not mention Dorothy.

Everybody knows that being the partner of a person in the throes of writing a doctoral dissertation is very hard. Those of who who suffered through the process of researching, writing, revising and going nuts over the dissertation know how much we owe to those people who were by our side and put up with us in the process. Seymour, however, felt nothing similar. A wife for him was not as person. She was a convenient object who was supposed to produce and shut up.


The most frequent argument male chauvinists use to disparage women is that the entirety of human civilization was created by men while women just sat there twiddling their thumbs and sometimes managing to look pretty which only served to distract men from their all-important endeavors. I wonder how many of the great works of literature and scientific advances owe their existence to the silenced wives who toiled in the background and whose input was never recognized.

Harassing Posters in the Classroom

Fellow blogger Izgad was kind enough to allow me to share with you this picture of a posting board that is located in the back of the college classroom where he teaches.

I'm completely incensed by this. In would refuse to teach in this classroom. Then, I would bring one of the administrators to look at the board and ask them to explain why it is OK for me to be harassed in the workplace. Then I would get in touch with the feminist organization on campus and ask them what it is they see as their mission if something this egregious slipped right by them.

I'm sure there will be readers who will not understand what the big deal is and why I find this offensive. Something tells me these readers will be male. So for them, I found the following picture:

How would you like to teach your classes while staring at this the entire time?

Ricardian

I have a host of weird hobbies and interests. One of them consists in collecting materials coming from Ricardian Apologists. To honor this interest of mine, I will regularly post reviews of Ricardian sources and start a new page on this blog where I will gather links pertaining to the topic of Ricardian Apology. It might seem like a boring subject at first, but bear with me, and I will tell you why it's fascinating.

We have all heard the opening lines of Shakespeare's Richard III:

Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by this sun of York.

In Richard III, Shakespeare presents Richard as a nasty, ugly, humpbacked character who compensates for his lack of male charms with an unquenchable thirst for power:

Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace, 

Have no delight to pass away the time, 

Unless to spy my shadow in the sun, 

And descant on mine own deformity: 

And therefore,--since I cannot prove a lover, 

To entertain these fair well-spoken days,-- 

I am determined to prove a villain, 

And hate the idle pleasures of these days. 

 Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 by Henry Tudor who started the Tudor dynasty. His death is often considered to be the symbolic end of the Middle Ages in England. Richard has been accused (and this is very important) of murdering his two young nephews who were legitimate successors to the throne. Ricardians believe that Richard was unjustly accused of killing the boys. They have offered very strong arguments as to why it makes no sense to accuse Richard of killing the two young princes and as to who was the real murderer. I will acquaint you with the Ricardian version(s) of events little by little.

Now you might ask why I, who am neither a medievalist nor a scholar of English history, became so interested in Richard III. When I was 9, I discovered the story of Boris Godunov, the Russian tsar who, just like Richard III, rose to the throne against enormous odds and was accused of killing the little prince Dmitri who was a legitimate heir to the throne. There are two famous literary works in Russian literature that take competing positions as to Godunov's guilt in the murder of the little Prince. Pushkin, the greatest Russian poet, wrote a famed play called Boris Godunov that supports the version of Godunov's guilt.

A.K. Tolstoy (not to be confused with a much inferior Leo Tolstoy, the author of the vapid Anna Karenina and War and Peace), however, wrote a much better (in my opinion) play titled Tsar Boris where he suggests that Godunov was not to blame for killing the Prince. I was so impressed by these competing literary accounts that I wrote my first piece of literary criticism at the ripe old age of nine, comparing these two works of literature.

The myth of Boris Godunov, an upstart who ascends to the throne as a result of cunning and a murder of a prince of blood, is as much a mark of Russian bloody separation from the Middle Ages as the story of Richard III is of England's.

Now think about what's going on in the US today for a second. Are we not living through a very similar debate as to who is more worthy of ascending to the throne, Bush Jr., who inherited it or Obama, who forged his birth certificate? Oh, you don't think he forged it? Well, maybe Richard III and Boris Godunov didn't kill anybody either. Maybe a painful entrance into modernity is always accompanied by a debate about whether inheriting power is more legitimate than ascending to power through one's own efforts. Maybe it always involves questioning whether "the upstart" has usurped power through a crime against the true, royal blood.

The Decline And Fall of Effects In Science

Nature has a piece called Unpublished results hide the decline effect.
This refers to the fact that many scientific findings which seem to indicate something big is happening, end up getting smaller and smaller as more people try to replicate them until they, eventually, may vanish entirely.

The Last Psychiatrist's take is that "The Decline Effect" just represents sloppy thinking, treating different things as if they were all instances of The One True Phenomenon. Someone does a study about something and finds an effect. Then someone else comes along and does a new study, of a related but different topic, and finds a different result. Both are right: there's a difference. Only if you, sloppily, decide that both studies were measuring the same thing does the "Decline Effect" appear.

This is perfectly true and I've touched on it before, but I think it's a bit optimistic. It assumes that the first study was true. Sometimes they are. But because of the way science is published at the moment, a lot of results that get published are flukes. Some even say that the majority are.

The problem is that there are so many ways to statistically analyze any given body of data that it's easy to test and retest it until you find a "positive result" - and then publish that, without saying (or only saying in the small print) that your original tests all came out negative. Combine this with selective publication of only the best data, and other scientific sins, and you can pull positive results out the hat of mere random noise.

In the Nature article, Jonathan Schooler discusses this and suggests that an open-access repository of findings (meaning raw data rather than the end product of analyses) would be A Good Thing. I agree. However, he seems to think that if we did this, we might still observe the "Decline Effect", and would be able to find out more about it. He even seems to suggest that some kind of weird quantum effect might mean that scientists are actually changing the laws of reality by observing them

Perhaps, just as the act of observation has been suggested to affect quantum measurements, scientific observation could subtly change some scientific effects. Although the laws of reality are usually understood to be immutable, some physicists, including Paul Davies, director of the BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University in Tempe, have observed that this should be considered an assumption, not a foregone conclusion.

Hmm. Maybe. But there is really no need to posit such magical mysteries when plain old statistical conjuring tricks seem like a perfectly good explanation. On my view a raw result repository would not explain the decline effect, but just make it disappear.

Schooler doesn't go into detail as to how this repository would be set up, but he does cite the fact that we already have a pretty good one for clinical trials of medicines conducted in the USA. Anyone running a clinical trial is required to register it in advance, saying what they're planning to do and crucially, to spell out which statistics they are going to run on the data when it arrives.

What's really silly is that most scientists already do this when applying for funding: most grant applications include detailed statistical protocols. The problem is that these are not made public so people can ignore them when it comes to publication. Back in 2008 I suggested that scientific journals should require all studies, not just clinical trials, to be publicly pre-registered if they're to be considered for publication. This would be eminently do-able if there was a will to make it happen.

Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect Nature, 470 (7335), 437-437 DOI: 10.1038/470437a

The Decline And Fall of Effects In Science

Nature has a piece called Unpublished results hide the decline effect.
This refers to the fact that many scientific findings which seem to indicate something big is happening, end up getting smaller and smaller as more people try to replicate them until they, eventually, may vanish entirely.

The Last Psychiatrist's take is that "The Decline Effect" just represents sloppy thinking, treating different things as if they were all instances of The One True Phenomenon. Someone does a study about something and finds an effect. Then someone else comes along and does a new study, of a related but different topic, and finds a different result. Both are right: there's a difference. Only if you, sloppily, decide that both studies were measuring the same thing does the "Decline Effect" appear.

This is perfectly true and I've touched on it before, but I think it's a bit optimistic. It assumes that the first study was true. Sometimes they are. But because of the way science is published at the moment, a lot of results that get published are flukes. Some even say that the majority are.

The problem is that there are so many ways to statistically analyze any given body of data that it's easy to test and retest it until you find a "positive result" - and then publish that, without saying (or only saying in the small print) that your original tests all came out negative. Combine this with selective publication of only the best data, and other scientific sins, and you can pull positive results out the hat of mere random noise.

In the Nature article, Jonathan Schooler discusses this and suggests that an open-access repository of findings (meaning raw data rather than the end product of analyses) would be A Good Thing. I agree. However, he seems to think that if we did this, we might still observe the "Decline Effect", and would be able to find out more about it. He even seems to suggest that some kind of weird quantum effect might mean that scientists are actually changing the laws of reality by observing them

Perhaps, just as the act of observation has been suggested to affect quantum measurements, scientific observation could subtly change some scientific effects. Although the laws of reality are usually understood to be immutable, some physicists, including Paul Davies, director of the BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University in Tempe, have observed that this should be considered an assumption, not a foregone conclusion.

Hmm. Maybe. But there is really no need to posit such magical mysteries when plain old statistical conjuring tricks seem like a perfectly good explanation. On my view a raw result repository would not explain the decline effect, but just make it disappear.

Schooler doesn't go into detail as to how this repository would be set up, but he does cite the fact that we already have a pretty good one for clinical trials of medicines conducted in the USA. Anyone running a clinical trial is required to register it in advance, saying what they're planning to do and crucially, to spell out which statistics they are going to run on the data when it arrives.

What's really silly is that most scientists already do this when applying for funding: most grant applications include detailed statistical protocols. The problem is that these are not made public so people can ignore them when it comes to publication. Back in 2008 I suggested that scientific journals should require all studies, not just clinical trials, to be publicly pre-registered if they're to be considered for publication. This would be eminently do-able if there was a will to make it happen.

Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect Nature, 470 (7335), 437-437 DOI: 10.1038/470437a