Skepticism.Net

Proving that it’s not just nutcase religious types who are wont to give firm predictions about the end of the world, British astronomer Martin Rees received a lot of credulous news coverage for his claim that human species only has a 50 percent chance of surviving the next 100 years. Conveniently, should such an apocalypse strike it will not threaten sales of Rees’ new book our Final Hour.

Rees’ book appears to be a rehashed version of every other “technology is going to kill us all” book. In the 1960s and 1970s the theme was that previous technologies were somewhat benign, but recombinant DNA technology was a serious threat that could endanger life as we know it. Now the watchword is that recombinant DNA may not have been all it was cracked up to be as a method of doomsday, but nanotechnology and genetic engineer really are the real deal.

As Clive Cookson put it in a review of Our Final Hour,

The flaw in this book, however, is easy to identify and it is a surprising one for an eminent scientist known for his intellectual rigour. Rees outlines a series of Doomsday scenarios, all quite unlikely, and he makes little effort to quantify their probabilities and none to bring them together into an overall risk estimate. His assertion that human civilisation has only a 50 per cent chance of surviving into the 21st century is plucked out of the air without justification.

Another problem is that Rees emphasises the growing vulnerability of humanity to scientific progress, while neglecting the increasing resilience of new technologies such as the Internet. Biotechnology will make it easier to produce deadly germs but at the same time it will offer a huge range of diagnostic and therapeutic defences against them.

Of course adding such provisos doesn’t do as much for book sales as does yelling that the sky is falling.

Sources:

British scientist puts odds for apocalypse at 50-50. Deena Beasley, Reuters, June 9, 2003.

Apocalypse, now? Clive Cookson, The Financial Times (London), May 3, 2003.

In 1992 Anthony Bragdon was convicted of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to 30 years in jail. Bragdon’s conviction was recently reversed by a Washington D.C. Superior Court that found an FBI expert on fiber and hair evidence had given false testimony at Bragdon’s trial.

FBI Agent Michael Malone’s supervisors had been warned by a whistleblower three years prior to his testimony in Bragdon’s case that Malone may have given false testimony in a previous case, but that warning went unheeded.

In Bragdon’s case, the only scientific evidence linking Bragdon to the crime was fibers that were carpet fibers found on the body of the victim. Malone testified in court that the fibers were consistent with the carpet found in Malone’s apartment.

In 1997, an internal Department of Justice investigation concluded that Malone’s testimony to that effect was false and recommended he be disciplined. Instead Malone was allowed to retire in 1999. Not until 2001 did the government notify Bragdon’s lawyers of the problems with Malone’s testimony.

The major problem with Malone’s testimony is that he never bothered to conduct the tests that would have determined if the carpet fibers found on the woman’s clothing were the same as those from Bragdon’s apartment. In addition, Malone claimed that the type of fiber found on the woman’s clothing could only come from a carpet fiber, which was not true, and he failed to disclose that he found other fibers on the woman’s clothing that did not match the carpet in Bragdon’s apartment.

The National Whistleblower Center claims that problems like this could plague as many as 3,000 criminal cases at which FBI agents provided expert testimony.

Source:

Conviction tossed on FBI lab misconduct. Associated Press, May 28, 2007.

DOJ to Open its Brady Task Force Files Overturned Conviction Brings New Questions to Light. Press Release, June 5, 2003, National Whistleblower Center.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researcher Steven Leadon resigned from his position in June amid allegations that he “fabricated and falsified findings.”

Leadon was a professor of radiation oncology and headed up Chapel Hill’s molecular radiobiology program.

In 1998 Science published research by Leadon and four other researchers claiming to show that the BRCA1 gene plays a critical role in repairing damage to DNA. Defects in the BRCA1 gene have been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Leadon was the last author on the paper which Science formally withdrew after a committee at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill judged that its findings were at least in part fraudulent.

Leadon disputes this, however, saying that although the data may be incorrect, there was no fraud involved. Leadon told the Raleigh News and Observer that he is disputing the university’s finding that he fabricated any results. Leadon told The Scientist,

The pathway that we initially characterized is still a valid pathway. I think that some of the data that we had which pointed to the pathway was flawed, but fundamentally the results still stand.

Sources:

N.C. researcher resigns over allegations of fraud. Martha Waggoner, Associated Press, June 14, 2003.

Researcher Resigns Amid Fraud Allegations. HealthCentral.Com, June 14, 2003.

Repairing BRCA1 science. Peg Brickley, BiomedCentral.Com, June 18, 2003.

Writing for TechCentralStation, Iain Murray did an excellent job in April of pointing out some flaws in the way that the latest report from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on traffic accidents and fatalities was covered.

As Murray notes, a lot of the coverage focused on the increase in the number of people killed while offering up SUVs as the problem. But digging deeper into the study makes one wonder what the fuss was all about.

In 2002, 42,850 people were killed in 38,356 fatal automobile accidents. This compared to 2001, when 42,116 people were killed in 37,795 fatal accidents. So the increase in traffic fatalities was only 734, or a 0.018 percent increase. Much of that was accounted for by the growth in the U.S. population which the U.S. Census Bureau estimates increased by 0.009 percent from 2001 to 2002.

The rest of the difference is likely accounted for by slight changes in driving patterns. As Murray points out, the NHTSA’s statistics show no change in the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled which remained at 1.5 for both 2001 and 2002 (in contrast, in 1991 the figure was two fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled).

Injuries, Murray points out, decreased despite the slight population increase. There were only 103 injuries per 100 million vehicle miles in 2002 compared to 109 in 2001. According to Murray, injury rates have been decreasing since 1995, which is likely attributable to newer cars with more advanced safety features replacing older cars with less sophisticated safety options.

Now here’s where the statistical trickery really comes in. The NHTSA noted that a whopping 59 percent of the increase in fatalities were in accidents involving SUV’s. So of those 734 additional people killed, 434 were killed in accidents involving SUVs. But again, as Murray points out, not only as the nation’s population been increasing, but the number of SUVs has been increasing as well. A decade ago there were hardly any SUVs on the road, whereas today they are everywhere and seem to be multiplying like rabbits. As Murray writes,

There may be a safety issue with SUVs, but it is also possible that reckless drivers who would get into an accident anyway are now more likely than before to drive an SUV. It would therefore be useful to know the number of fatalities per SUV registered, but the NHTSA does not provide this information. It is also noticeable that the number of injuries sustained in SUV, pickup and van accidents declined from 861,000 to 840,000.

I wonder why the NHTSA did not deem it relevant to provide that information?

Sources:

Statistical Traffic Wreck. Iain Murray, TechCentralStation.Com, April 28, 2003.

Annual Projections of the Total Resident Population as of July 1: Middle, Lowest, Highest, and Zero International Migration Series, 1999 to 2100. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

In May the New England Journal of Medicine published two new studies looking at the Atkins Diet which, oddly enough, received diametrically different spin from different news agencies.

Here’s how the Associated Press covered the new studies,

Atkins Diet Bolstered by Two New Studies

A month after Dr. Robert C. Atkins’ death, his much-ridiculed diet has received its most powerful scientific support yet: Two studies in one of medicine’s most distinguished journals show it really does help people lose weight faster without raising their cholesterol.

But here’s how Reuters covered the exact same story,

Atkins Diet May Be No Better Than Just Cutting Fat

Shunning starchy foods in favor of meat and fat helps obese people shed some weight faster than a standard low-fat diet, but over time there may not be a big difference, researchers said on Wednesday.

In reality, these two studies really did little more than affirm previous research about the Atkins Diet. Can you lose weight on the Atkins Diet? Absolutely, especially in the short term. But in the long term, as with most fad diets, people tend to give up on the diet and/or weight loss tends to stop.

The two studies tracked people on the Atkins Diet for 6 months and 12 months. In the 6 month study, people on the Atkins Diet lost 13 pounds compared to just 4 pounds for people on a low-fat diet. But in the 12 month study, there was no significant difference in total weight loss between the two groups.

On the other hand, while showing that people can lose weight on a high protein diet, this just reinforces the likelihood that what is really going on is simply that people on these diets are simply switching from high calorie high carbohydrate diets to low calorie high protein diets. The Atkins nonsense about needing to cut carbs to burn fat is simply that — nonsense.

The magic formula for losing weight remains the same — increase exercise and reduce calories.

Sources:

Atkins diet bolstered by two new studies. Associated Press, May 21, 2002.

Atkins diet may be no better than just cutting fat. Reuters, May 21, 2002.