Evidence Soup

Fun with recreational evidence.

Happy Fun-with-Evidence Friday. I'm the first to admit that talking about "evidence-based ___" isn't the best way to attract a crowd. Making evidence interesting - and, with any luck, fun - isn't easy. Here's how some folks are doing it successfully.

Recreational probability. The site Book of Odds presents the statistical odds of all sorts of things: Having twins between the ages of 40-44, being unemployed, throwing a no-hitter. They make it relevant by answering the question "What are the odds of me?" And they have fun features such as The Odds Couple (see comparison below - odds of being unemployed in the U.S. in 2008 vs. 2009). 

The Book of Odds uses what could be mind-numbing probability and statistics to give people something useful to think about. And they do a fantastic job of presenting the evidence. The site is well-designed, using graphics and layouts that rival top-tier commercial sites.This is a web property I wish I'd thought of myself.

Recreational mathematics. The amazing Martin Gardner is being recognized for turning 95 years old, and for releasing his second book *this year*. He presents difficult concepts in entertaining ways and encourages people to look critically at evidence.

John Tierney of the New York Times quoted Ronald Graham (UC San Diego) as saying: “Martin has turned thousands of children into mathematicians, and thousands of mathematicians into children.” I can't think of a higher compliment for anybody.

Gardner was an early debunker of pseudoscience. His Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science is considered a classic in scientific skepticism. Wikipedia says "Martin Gardner more or less single-handedly renewed and nurtured interest in recreational mathematics in North America for a large part of the 20th century. He is best known for his decades-long efforts in popular mathematics and science journalism, particularly through his 'Mathematical Games' column in Scientific American.... [which] ran from 1956 to 1981 and introduced many subjects to a wider audience, including flexagons, polyominoes, M.C. Escher, and fractals."

Besides his magazine columns, Gardner has authored more than 70 books. I believe my favorite title is Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries?: Discourses on Godel, Magic Hexagrams, Little Red Riding Hood, and Other Mathematical and Pseudoscientific Topics. It doesn't hurt that he's a good writer who isn't afraid to say what's on his mind. Gardner's latest book is When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish: And Other Speculations About This and That.

Bill Maher attacks U.S. vaccination program because of pharma, government interests. But he usually supports science and evidence, not unsubstantiated belief.

Bill Maher -- who is sometimes funny and insightful, and sometimes insulting and vulgar -- is questioning U.S. vaccination programs, saying he doesn't want to trust the government, and wondering aloud whether there are forces who want people to stay sick in the interest of corporate profits. Hmmm... he sounds like one of the crazy types he's made a career of mocking.

Is Maher just messing with us, playing this for ratings? Maybe. If he is, he should say so. The evidence shows that vaccination programs typically offer benefits far outweighing their risks. Michael Shermer wrote an interesting Open Letter to Maher, examining many of the contradictions in his statements. I recommend it -- Shermer expresses his points quite effectively. 

By the way, the U.S. government has an interesting site at flu.gov. They're also on Twitter and Facebook.

There's no evidence to justify copper bracelets & magnets for arthritis.

New evidence shows that magnetic and copper bracelets and wrist straps for relieving arthritis pain are ineffective. This means many millions of dollars are being wasted. According to the press release announcing the research study: "The devices are used worldwide for helping to manage pain associated with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. The results of this trial conflict with those from previous studies, by showing that both magnetic and copper bracelets were ineffective for managing pain, stiffness and physical function in osteoarthritis. The research is published in the latest issue of the journal Complementary Therapies in Medicine."

The Daily Mail did a respectable job of explaining the research methods in an everyday way. [Photo courtesy of Daily Mail.]

These findings received wide coverage, including BBC and Medical News Today. A gold star goes to Catharine Paddock, PhD, of Medical News for explaining the research methods quite well, and unlike most media, including the name of the actual research study and a link to the published source: "For the randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial, the researchers recruited 45 people aged 50 and over from general practices in rural and urban areas of Yorkshire. All the participants had already been diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Each participant was asked to wear four wrist strap devices over a period of 16 weeks. The order in which they wore them was randomly determined. The four types of device were: two wrist straps with differing levels of magnetism, a demagnetised wrist strap and a copper bracelet.... The results showed there was no meaningful differences among the devices in terms of their effect on pain, stiffness, and physical function."

The study tells us that "any perceived benefit obtained from wearing a magnetic or copper bracelet can be attributed to psychological placebo effects." said Stewart Richmond, a Research Fellow in the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York, who headed up the study.

But still... The BBC story quoted Jane Tadman of the Arthritis Research Campaign: "Although there is a big public appetite for non-drug treatments from arthritis patients, we would not encourage them to spend a lot of money on products for which there is very little scientific evidence." Nevertheless, I know some sharp, interesting people who have bought into the expensive magnet/watch phenomenon - for treating arthritis, lifting their mood, etc. It's their money, and they claim to get a benefit (I won't be the one to tell them it's a placebo effect).

'Sniffer bees' can detect evidence of explosives, TB, food spoilage, and other stuff.

Happy Fun-with-Evidence Friday. This is very cool. A U.K. biotech firm is harnessing the olfactory ability of bees for trace vapour detection. Apparently they can reveal evidence of spoiled food, explosive chemicals, and disease, among other things.

Just the name of the company alone - Inscentinel - makes me want to work with these guys (didn't Agent Smith use inscentinels in the first Matrix?)

Sniffing the evidence. From the Inscentinel site: "The science is based on the acute olfactory sense of honeybees. Bees are trained to recognise particular odours (e.g. that of explosives) and associate that smell with a food reward. When the bees detect the odour, they extend their tongue or proboscis (the Proboscis Extension Reflex or PER) in expectation of food. Honeybees make excellent detectors because they are inexpensive, quick to train (a few minutes per bee) and have extremely low limits of detection (odours can be detected to parts per trillion levels).

"Our system has the potential to be deployed rapidly and quickly retargetted to new compounds when required. There is a large scope of possible applications ranging from explosives and drug detection to the diagnosis of tuberculosis and food spoilage.... Bees are not harmed undertaking their sniffing tasks... only healthy bees work effectively."

These are early days, so on their web site I didn't see success stories or published studies demonstrating the effectiveness of their system. The company is currently seeking commercial partners.

WillYouJoinUs.com is guiding people's conversations, and encouraging them to show us the evidence.

Providing a public soapbox is problematic: If you allow anyone to say pretty much anything, the quality of the commentary can suffer, and you risk driving serious participants away. But if you control contributions too tightly, you run the risk of not drawing people in.
The site WillYouJoinUs.com does a good job of striking a balance: Inviting people to discuss energy-related issues — while specifying topics and moderating comments to keep the discourse at a level appropriate for serious contributors. The community, sponsored by the energy giant Chevron, addresses one topic at a time, continuing each discussion for several months. A panel of experts jump-starts these discussions and writes concluding remarks.

As shown above, a discussion on "Energy Efficiency and Conservation" ran from Sept '08 to June '09; other topics have included global food prices and new energy technologies. WillYouJoinUs specifies a set of community guidelines, including these member obligations: "To participate in the discussion, users must complete a simple registration, sign in, and comply with the following guidelines: Address the specific topic of the discussion. Support your point of view with well-founded arguments and facts. Identify yourself by name, unless doing so will compromise your personal security or livelihood, or that of others. Respect the views of others and consider them carefully before responding with a posting of your own."

Guided conversation is good. I'm always looking for new ways to approach the discussion dilemma. My passion is helping people explain evidence, and an online community is one of the most important places where that happens. By asking contributors to support their statements with well-founded arguments and facts (and by moderating comments), WillYouJoinUs is guiding the conversation and raising the level of discourse.
Some suggestions. What more could WillYouJoinUs be doing? They could structure the expert analysis and community comments even further by setting expectations for how participants make their claims and provide evidence — the way it is now, although users are asked to support their points of view with well-founded arguments and facts, nothing in the design of the site requires them to do that. Instead of the free-form comments currently allowed (see example below), the site could designate a place where people:

• Make summary statements, saying explicitly what actions they advocate (or oppose), and explain what results they expect.
• Identify what type of supporting information they have: Data, examples, observations, or other evidence.

For example. An online community can set expectations for how people make arguments and provide supporting evidence. Take a look at my Tiny Soapbox demo project, designed to guide people’s conversations by following a defined format: Each contribution associates a specific action or occurrence with a particular goal, outcome, or expected result. Backup evidence is required to support each association.

Who knew? Graphic novels are a great way to present evidence and argue logic.

I once took a course on the history of mathematics -- it was quite interesting, but would have been better if one of our texts was Logicomix, a cool, new graphic novel exploring the quest for mathematical certainty. Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth, by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou, was a best seller in Greece and is now out in English. It's a fun and informative way to address important concepts about logic and argumentation. 

The amazon.com review says: "This exceptional graphic novel recounts the spiritual odyssey of philosopher Bertrand Russell. In his agonized search for absolute truth, Russell crosses paths with legendary thinkers like Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert, and Kurt Gödel, and finds a passionate student in the great Ludwig Wittgenstein. But his most ambitious goal -- to establish unshakable logical foundations of mathematics -- continues to loom before him."

The New York Times Book Review ran a really nice review of Logicomix last Sunday: "Improbable material for comic-book treatment? Not really. The principals in this intellectual drama are superheroes of a sort. They go up against a powerful nemesis, who might be called Dark Antinomy. Each is haunted by an inner demon, the Specter of Madness. Their quest has a tragic arc, not unlike that of Superman...."

Happy Fun-with-Evidence Friday. It's not every day that I come across such a clever, light-hearted approach to explaining serious concepts.

 

Exploding the myth of the online 'page fold': Evidence from user testing.

Well, I stand corrected. CX Partners, an agency focused on creating good online user experiences, reported evidence that explodes a common myth about web page design. In The myth of the page fold: evidence from user testing, they explain that the online equivalent of the page fold is not an impenetrable barrier for users: "Over the last 6 years we’ve watched over 800 user testing sessions between us, and on only 3 occasions have we seen the page fold as a barrier to users getting to the content they want."

They go on to explain: "What is the fold? Above the fold is a graphic design term that refers to important content being on the upper half of the front page of a newspaper. It’s commonly used on the web to describe the area you see on a web page before you have to scroll down the page.... People tell us that they don’t mind scrolling and the behaviour we see in user testing backs that up. We see that people are more than comfortable scrolling long, long pages to find what they are looking for. A quick snoop around the web will show you successful brands that are not worrying about the fold either."

Sage is giving away the evidence for free (this month only).

Sage Journals Online is offering free access to 250,000+ articles from 500 of its journals. Everything from Anthropology & Archeology to Information Science to Vascular Medicine & Surgery.

The program ends October 31. You can register here.