Another way of looking at life

Posted by on

“May not the goose say thus: All the parts of the universe I have an interest in: the earth serves me to walk upon, the sun to light me; the stars have their influence upon me; I have such an advantage by the winds and such by the waters; there is nothing that yon heavenly roof looks upon so favourably as me. I am the darling of Nature! Is it not man that keeps and serves me?” (Michel de Montaigne, Book II, ch. 12. Apology for Raimond Sebond)

A wonderful lateral thinker was Montaigne. Nowadays, we are so obsessed with the importance and achievments of mankind and its survival that we barely notice the damage we are doing to other creatures with whom we share the planet. We should remember that we are but one species among many and depend on them as they depend on us. For the time being at least this is the only planet we can all live on. We humans are collectively too arrogant.

Too many words, Sir

Posted by on

“The secret of a good blog posting is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible”. (Taking off on George Burns)

I’m sure you have noticed the incredible prolixity of the commentariat. My blog task is to take information on interesting topics, to sum it up as succinctly and grammatically as possible, then provide a comment, where appropriate from an Epicurean point of view. When I was at school this activity seemed to be what English Language lessons and exams were all about. Back then it bored me hugely, and I longed for, say, a lesson in Higher Mathematics or something simpler like that, with a correct answer at the end of it.

What a shame magazine and newspaper writers never learned the art of the brevity. Some articles go on, and on…and on. Yes, I know. The authors are paid by the word, or, more likely, the half mile. I am sorry to say that American writers are particularly bad about this (to mention the New Yorker is sufficient). Surely they can empathize with us, desperate as we all are for precious time. Cannot they understand that we are not all sitting by the fireside, eating chocolates, with nothing else to do? Would it not be a courtesy for them to say what they have to say shortly and memorably, instead of lengthily and repetitively? Enough already.

The BBC News is just dismal

Posted by on

A few weeks ago Owen, a contributor to this blog, criticised the BBC news as being superficial and lacking substance. This got me looking more often and more critically at it in its broadcast and web page forms. I have to conclude that Owen is absolutely right. For instance, yesterday the BBC carried a story about an American teenager who blackened her face and apparently said or implied something derogatory about Black Lives Matter. This woman was crass and insensitive. Her taste was appalling but in the end she is just one young stupid ditz misbehaving. The item has “gone viral”. Good gracious! Loads of teenagers do stupid things and display crass judgment, but how does a story like this count as “news”?

In years gone by the BBC was the news provider of record. Some say that honour goes to the New York Times. Well, maybe now, but a generation ago it was the BBC. How the mighty have fallen. Why? Because they were accused of “elitism’, that is, they provided researched and thoughtful international news. They were encouraged to cover the interests of the whole population, not just the interests of those who liked to be reliably informed. Now they provide third rate stuff because that is what they think the public want. Actually the public gets its news from Facebook, and that “news” is mostly about personalities and sport. The BBC cannot compete, and shouldn’t try. We desperately need a thoughtful and intelligent source of information.

They are all at it

Posted by on

At a time when voters are raging about greedy, self-serving elites, you’d think those in power would want to avoid playing to type. You’d be wrong. José Manuel Barroso, former president of the European Commission, has a new job at Goldman Sachs, the bank that “helped Greece mask its fatal debt problems”. He has nor alone. Between 2009 and 2010 alone, six out of 13 departing EU commissioners moved into new corporate or lobbying roles. Further signs of the beginning of the end of the EU as we know it?

Such revolving-door practices aren’t confined to Brussels. The UK has long been the European market leader when it comes to ex-politicians and civil servants taking handsomely paid roles related directly to their former jobs. A recent report found 25 ex-ministers in the coalition government had taken paid roles in sectors they once oversaw. Former energy minister Ed Davey now advises the lobby firm that helps EDF, the French energy giant to whom he awarded the contract for Hinkley Point C power station. It’s shameless and brazen, but these people don’t care what we think, and don’t think they have to, either. No wonder angry populism is bubbling across Europe. (prompted by an article by John Harris, The Guardian, reproduced in The Week).

Under an Epicurean government (yes, a contradiction in terms) it would be illegal for anyone to take a senior job in a company which he or she had overseen or regulated while in a position of government power, and the organisation that tried to employ them would be banned from the corridors of power (although, how can companies be blamed if they find back doors into influence? It’s the whole system that is wrong). This slimey “thank you” for past services rendered should be halted – it brings government into disrepute. Ditto in the US.

Is it unethical not to publish the results of medical studies?

Posted by on

About one third of all medical studies in the United States involving children never end up being put to use because scientists frequently don’t publish the results of their work. 19 percent of the studies that recruited children didn’t run to completion because researchers weren’t able to recruit as many volunteers as they needed to run the experiments. And of the 455 trials that were completed, the results from 30 percent weren’t published.

If you don’t publish failed trials it is quite possible that other researchers wiil waste time re-doing the same trials, to no effect. The problem is ending up with scientific literature that only shows all the things that do work, but not the measures that do not.

Parents volunteer their children for these studies with an understanding that their efforts are contributing to the advancement of medical science. They frequently don’t learn the results of the experiments involving their children. It’s time – and hope – wasted. Even if the research has come to nothing at least one knows.

Scientists have many explanations for this situation. Maybe the results don’t show what the investigator wants and they move on. More often they are busy and don’t focus enough time and attention on getting those results out.

I personally would consider this an ethical lapse. When you do a clinical study and you’re asking patients to participate and subject themselves to a risk, in order to inform science and generate knowledge, you have an ethical obligation to broadcast those results to the wider scientific community. (Adapted from the NPR website)