Clairvoyants, palmists and astrologers are up in arms about new regulations that recently came into force.  The Consumer Protection Regulations, which will be enforced by the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards, tighten controls on disreputable trading practices and legislate against businesses making claims without providing supporting evidence. Clairvoyants and other mystics are concerned that the regulations will also affect them, by asking them to provide evidence for the claims and predictions they make during readings.

On the surface, the new regulations seem like a victory for rationalists and the evidence-based approach, with mystics having to give a disclaimer that there is no evidence they can predict the future and readings are ‘for entertainment purposes only’. The reality though, is that what scientific evidence really means, and why it is important, stands only to be diminished by this legislation.

The legislation is very broad; it encompasses everything from door to door salesmen to clairvoyants and mystics, from aggressive, unfair commercial practices to regulating products that claim to have curative capacities. What evidence means in each case is quite different—proving that a sale lasted for three and not five days is a different ball game to demonstrating the efficacy of medical treatments. If a product needs to provide evidence that it will cure insomnia, there will have to be peer reviewed papers, double-blind studies, consideration of the placebo effect and repeated studies showing similar results. This will require expert assessment and careful appraisal of all evidence. Proving the length of time a sale existed requires none of these things.  Treating all sales practices as if they need equivalent evidence devalues the true meaning of ‘scientifically-proven’.

For the thousands of astrologers, psychics, palmists and other mystics across the country potentially affected by these regulations there are other concerns. Unlike dodgy salesmen, these people are rarely vilified by the public—those who don’t believe in their abilities simply don’t visit them. For those that do, it is not scientific evidence that matters, but faith or entertainment. So is an evidence-based approach really useful in these cases?

The promotion of an evidence-based approach should be used to equip people with the tools they need to evaluate claims and make decisions for themselves. Endowing people with the ability to weigh up evidence and form an opinion creates a society equipped for healthy scepticism, whilst legislation, even such a broad one as this, is limited to the particular cases it covers.

It is for individuals to decide if, despite the lack of scientific basis for crystal balls or tarot cards, they choose to place their faith in them.

    Last updated: July 02 2008

Inspire Your Peers

Join us and become a Voice of Young Science ambassador - inspire others to stand up for science and help them to find out about VoYS.

Many of you have told us that you want to help raise the profile of VoYS in universities and help others find out about the network and its activities, but you want some resources to help you do it. To help we are putting together an “Inspire Your Peers”, a pack of materials about VoYS.

The pack will consist of the following, which you can mix and match to create your talk:

• A slide show about VoYS activities.
• Frequently Asked Questions - how does Sense About Science work? What is VoYS?
• Examples of VoYS projects such as “There Goes the Science Bit...”
• Information about current VoYS projects.
• VoYS publications.
• Copies of articles about VoYS.

To test out the packet we’re running demo talks for the VoYS network. The first will be in London (date tbc) but others will follow if there is a demand in other locations. The talk is an opportunity to raise questions, get tips on public speaking and meet other network members.

To register for the London talk, request a regional one, or be notified when the “Inspire Your Peers” pack is available please contact Alice on or 02074784331.

    Last updated: July 01 2008

Chlorinated water and birth defects

On June 1st 2008, the Mail on Sunday published an article entitled Chlorine in tap water ‘nearly doubles the risk of birth defects’ which claimed that research suggested “drinking tap water while pregnant may double the risk of serious heart or brain defects in the unborn child” and that this “danger comes from chemical by-products in chlorinated water known as trihalomethanes, or THMs, which can be absorbed through the skin”. The Daily Mail subsequently covered the story on June 3rd with an article entitled Drinking or even showering in tap water can double the risk of having deformed children, says study. Both articles were based on research published in the journal Environmental Health (Hwang B-F, Jaakkola JJK Guo H-R, Environ Health 2008, 7:23)].

The Behind the Headlines website from the NHS Knowledge Service has responded to these news stories:

“Overall, the authors themselves state that “our results showed no consistent association between exposure and risk of birth defects in general”, but go on to suggest that it is better to look at specific birth defects. However, this study does not provide results robust enough to conclude that THMs affect the risk of any type of birth defect, and should not cause women to be concerned about drinking water. Pregnant women should stick to their doctor’s advice on the foods and drink that should be avoided in pregnancy.”

More information can be found on the NHS website, which also includes links to all the newspaper coverage.

    Last updated: June 10 2008

Hi everyone and welcome to the first in a series of articles looking at some of the current issues in science today.  It’s called the Friday Comment, and it’s written by me, Frank, communications officer here at Sense About Science.  Some of you might have met me at the previous VoYS workshops, possibly we got into a heated debate over some topical science issue.  There are a lot of discussions and questions that often come up during the workshops, many covering issues that you yourselves may face during your academic career.  This column aims to keep those discussions going and get your thoughts on the matter.  If you have a burning issue you’d like to see discussed on these pages, feel free to email me with ideas here. You might not agree with what I say: I’m hoping that you won’t.  It’ll be more interesting that way.  At the end of the day, this is your chance to get involved in a spirited debate, share thoughts and experiences and just maybe change the way you see things. FS

---

Informed Dissent

If they believe the public might be at risk, do researchers have a responsibility to act as an early warning system?  How much work needs to be done before fears should be aired?

I first came across the panic surrounding sodium benzoate a year ago, when the Independent ran a front page story titled: “Caution: some soft drinks may seriously harm your health”. A salt of benzoic acid, sodium benzoate was discovered to have antifungal properties in 1875, and has been used as a food preservative ever since. However, in recent years it has been getting a bad press. The Independent’s consumer affairs correspondent Martin Hickman told readers:

“Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA. The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.”

Read the full article and have your say on the VoYS forum.

    Last updated: June 09 2008

Diet and determining your baby’s sex

On the 23rd April 2008, a story ran about how a mother’s diet could affect the sex of her baby. One article in The Daily Telegraph said:

“In other words, women who want a son should eat a generous bowl of cereal for breakfast, munch bananas, use more salt and boost their overall daily calories by 400 calories - the equivalent of a meal.” Read the article here.

Professor Richard Sharpe from the MRC Human Reproductive Sciences Unit at the University of Edinburgh, here replies:

A baby’s sex is determined by whether the sperm that fertilises the mother’s egg carries a Y or an X chromosome to join with the single X chromosome that is carried by the egg itself. So a baby’s sex is determined by the sperm not the egg.

A recent study¹ suggested that a mother’s energy intake around conception can exert an influence on the sex of the baby. How such an effect is exerted is unknown, but the chances are that diet influences which sperm fertilises the egg rather than affecting survival/implantation of the fertilised egg.

It must be remembered that for every pregnancy there is around a 50% chance of conceiving a boy, and all of the claims for factors that increase or decrease this chance involve relatively minor changes to this ‘baseline’ value. Second, a woman’s diet and energy intake in pregnancy, especially in early pregnancy, can have effects on her baby’s growth and development. Therefore, for a woman planning a pregnancy, having a nutritionally well-balanced diet with not too many or too few calories is the best investment she can make in her baby’s future. Making major changes to her diet is not a good idea, unless it is in the direction of becoming better balanced, as the study authors say.

¹ Mathews, F et al. 2008 You are what your mother eats: evidence for maternal preconception diet influencing foetal sex in humans. Proc. Roy. Soc. B: Biological Sciences You can read the paper here

    Last updated: May 19 2008

Meet our staff...

Keep up to date with the Sense About Science office team

	Tracey Brown, Managing Director
	Ellen Raphael, Director UK
	Alice Tuff, Development Officer
	Leonor Sierra, Scientific Liaison

    Last updated: April 24 2009

The Sense About Science Lecture 2008

What is Science and Why Should We Care?

by

Professor Alan Sokal

Chair: Dr Matt Ridley FMedSci

Our third annual lecture took place on 27th February 2008 at the Cruciform Lecture Theatre, UCL. Alan Sokal is Professor of Physics at New York University and Professor of Mathematics at University College, London. His main research interests are in statistical mechanics and quantum field theory. Among non-physicists, Sokal is probably best known for his famous parody of postmodern science criticism, known as the ‘Sokal Hoax’, which aroused fierce debate in cultural circles, and received widespread coverage in the media, including front-page stories in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Observer, and Le Monde.

You can listen to the lecture as a podcast on The Guardian’s website. You can also download a transcript of the lecture (pdf) here.

A few days before the lecture, Professor Sokal spoke to Alok Jha on The Guardian’s weekly science podcast. Download it here.

To read Professor Sokal’s article ‘Taking Evidence Seriously’, published in the Guardian, click here.

This event was generously supported by:

    Last updated: March 04 2009

Alice discovers her inner elf

Thanks to your donations, Alice was able to discover her inner elf, as she was coerced into dressing up as one of Santa's little helpers for our end-of-year funding drive. Each donor was allowed to vote for who they wanted to see in yellow tights, and an earlier attempt by Alice to convince sponsors not to vote for her backfired spectacularly, garnering her 75% of the ballots. Taking this landslide victory in her stride, Alice entertained small children and amused tourists as she posed for pictures in Piccadilly Circus. A big thank you to everyone who took part and made contributions - if you'd like to reward Alice for her fearless devotion to Sense About Science then please visit our donations page here.

    Last updated: February 21 2008

Peer Review Feedback

This form is for submitting feedback on Sense About Science's Peer Review Education Resource.
Name
Email address
Institution
LESSON PLANS - SCIENCE IN THE NEWS
Did you have any problems downloading the lesson plans? Are the lesson plans easy to find? Is it obvious what the lesson plans contain before you download them? Are the lesson plans appropriate and useful? Are the lesson plans laid out in an easy and accessible manner? Is there enough content? Too much? How would you improve them?
LESSON PLANS - ROLE PLAY
Did you have any problems downloading the lesson plans? Are the lesson plans easy to find? Is it obvious what the lesson plans contain before you download them? Are the lesson plans appropriate and useful? Are the lesson plans laid out in an easy and accessible manner? Is there enough content? Too much? How would you improve them?
LESSON PLANS - THE PROCESS AND ITS CHALLENGES
Did you have any problems downloading the lesson plans? Are the lesson plans easy to find? Is it obvious what the lesson plans contain before you download them? Are the lesson plans appropriate and useful? Are the lesson plans laid out in an easy and accessible manner? Is there enough content? Too much? How would you improve them?
LESSON PLANS - SUPPLEMENTAL FILES
Includes 'Basics of Peer Review', 'Interviews', and 'A Day in the Life...' Did you have any problems downloading the supplemental files? Are these files easy to find? Is it obvious what the files contain before you download them? Are the supplemental materials appropriate and useful? Are the files laid out in an easy and accessible manner? Is there enough content? Too much? How would you improve them?
USABILITY
Did the site load correctly on your browser? Were there any broken links? Did the site cause any problems on your computer (freezing, crashing?) Was the site slow to load?
APPEARANCE
Did the site load correctly on your browser? Is the site visually pleasing? Are the images complementary? Is the test the right size? Is the layout wrong / misleading in any way?
NAVIGATION
Is the navigation simple and intuitive? Could you find everything you wanted? Before you clicked on a link, was it clear where the link would take you? Are there any broken links? Was it easy to browse the contents of the site? Could you find your way back to something you found earlier?
FINAL POINTS
Would you use this as a research tool? Would you use the lesson plans in this resource? Would you recommend this site to a friend? What improvements would you make?

    Last updated: February 20 2008

Reading Room Right Column

Christmas Reading Room Now Open!

Sense About Science's famous Christmas Reading Room is now open! See what books senior scientists, staff, friends and colleagues are recommending this year. Read more...

Do your shopping with Amazon.co.uk

Each time you make a purchase via the link below Sense About Science receives a small donation

    Last updated: December 05 2008

Were Britons healthier in Mediaeval times?

A Telegraph article on December 19th, 2007 entitled Britons ‘healthier in medieval times’ reported a study that found that people in mediaeval times were healthier than modern Britons. It suggested that “the medieval diet was by far the healthiest for the average man - low in saturated fats and transfats, high in vegetables and a moderate amount of weak alcohol daily.”

Raymond Tallis, Professor of Geriatric Medicine responds here:

“Life expectancy through the mediaeval period was thirty-three (estimates range from thirty to thirty-five). Of course the figures may be skewed a little by a very high infant and child mortality. However, recent studies show that even those who survived to the age of twenty-five had an average further life-expectancy of about twenty years.

Studies of diet are very difficult and the definitive surveys of people like Chris Woolgar show huge variation in diet—with locality, with season, with social class. Given that meat and fish were luxuries largely confined to the rich, it is hardly surprising that the hoi polloi had a low cholesterol diet.

More precisely, they had a low dinner diet.”

    Last updated: December 24 2007

Parabens in makeup

Parabens are preservatives widely used in medicines and in cosmetic products. They are added to prevent deterioration and infection by bacteria and other microbes. In 2004, a report linking parabens in underarm deodorants and antiperspirants to breast cancer received a great deal of media coverage and caused much public concern.

There were several major problems with the study this report was based on. Moreover, the claim of a parabens-underarm deodorant/antiperspirant-breast cancer association was curious, as parabens are not actually used in over 99% of underarm deodorants and antiperspirants, simply because most underarm products do not require preservation. Despite this, nearly four years later, there is still a great deal of public confusion about the safety of and necessity for preservatives in cosmetics. Cosmetics that are preservative-free, or that contain "natural" preservatives are still being touted as a safer option for women.

Because the parabens family of preservatives is very effective at killing microbes, we were interested to see for ourselves what would happen to a simple body cream if it was truly preservative-free...

So, we had four pots of body butter made up. The formulations were identical, except that two of the pots contained parabens (B and D), and the remaining two were preservative-free (A and C). Then we took microscopic spores of two common contaminants that might be found on our food or fingers. We added these to one of the pots of body butter with parabens (D), and also to one without (C).

Two days later, we left all four pots open to the air, and started taking photographs. We will update these on the website every few days, so you can follow their progress!

Meanwhile...before somebody helpfully provided this body butter, we'd put the word out that we'd like to see it for ourselves and a group of scientists working in a cosmetics lab took it on as a little project and made this neat film (link). (We can't tell you which one because they kind of did it on company time...)

	On day zero, pot C (which has no preservatives and has been contaminated) is already showing visible mould growth. This is due to the transit time from the lab to our offices.
	Day three shows little visible development in all pots.
	Day six shows the appearance of fungal fruiting bodies in pot C.
	At this stage the pots were taken to a lab and slides made for microscopic photography. These images will be added soon. As the moisturiser was beginning to dry out, the lids were replaced from day 14.

    Last updated: February 07 2008

Skin creams

A Which? article (20th December, 2007) reported in the Times and the Daily Mail discussed scientific evidence and skin care products. Because it cited Sense Abut Science, we would like to clarify our view.

Looking for the scientific evidence supporting claims cannot be judged on what customer care-line operators say. When our VoYS network conducted investigations of a range of products (published in There Goes the Science Bit) they tried very hard to speak to the scientists, inventors and occasionally sales people, asking for “anyone who could tell me more about the evidence for claims”. They also sought peer-reviewed publications. By contrast, Which? contacted only customer care-line operators.

Sense About Science helps any organisation seeking a scientific view, by putting them in touch with specialists, but we do not usually comment ourselves on such matters. We regret the science response attributed to Sense About Science drew conclusions just from what the telephone operators said. We do not support the Which? approach of testing evidence claims in this way.

    Last updated: December 21 2007

Celebrities and Science 2007 - Review

In January 2007, in a special leaflet called Sense About… Science for Celebrities, scientists told celebrities: “Before making scientific claims check your facts - all it takes is a phone call”. It showed how easily some mistakes could have been avoided and gave a phone number for celebrities to call so that Sense About Science could connect them with scientists, scientific societies and charities. Celebrities made an improvement in what they said in 2007 but Sarah Beeny and Stella McCartney let the side down. People in the public eye are often drawn to promoting theories, therapies and campaigns that make no scientific sense - especially at New Year. In January 2007 scientists working with the charitable trust Sense About Science launched an initiative to help the stars cut out misleading claims. One year on they are reviewing progress: are celebrities checking their science ‘facts’? Review compiled by Alice Tuff of Sense About Science, with help from volunteers Anna Holt, Tom Ritman-Meer and Simon Evans.

DOWNLOAD THE CELEBRITIES AND SCIENCE 2007 - REVIEW

CLICK HERE FOR THE PUBLICATION ANNOUNCEMENT

Coverage

Evil genes and antifreeze: TV gurus’ toxic talk put under the microscope

Hugo Rifkind - Tory green gaffe

Stars who spout ‘pseudo-science should check their facts first’

Scientists warn on celebrities promoting fads

Decline in scientific gaffes by celebrities

Nicole, Gwyneth and Stella attacked for their bad science

Scientists slam celebrities for unscientific promotion of fads

Scientist Rains On Nicole Kidman’s DS-Touting Parade

    Last updated: January 09 2008

Christmas Reading Room 2007

We've collected reading recommendations from all of our friends and colleagues, from senior scientists to junior staff members. Every time you purchase one of the books through the link on our site, Amazon will make a small donation to Sense About Science. So make your gift give twice, and bring some great books to your loved ones in the process!

Frank Swain, Editor of the Reading Room "Dignifying Science by Jim Ottaviani is a collection of comics about women scientists including my all-time favourite, Hedy Lamarr - movie star, showgirl, and inventor of random frequency-hopping radio encryption(!). A great book to encourage young women to consider a future in science. I'd also recommend Why the Lion Grew Its Mane: A Miscellany of Recent Scientific Discoveries from Astronomy to Zoology by Lewis Smith, the Science and Environment reporter at the Times. The most beautiful science book of the year, this is packed with gorgeous photography and features the latest stories that have grabbed the headlines in the Times from space, genetics, the human mind, ancient people and animal behaviour, to prehistoric life, new species and the fate of the planet. Definitely an enthralling book and a must for anyone wishing to inspire wonder both in their children and in themselves. My favourite book this year has been John Grant's Corrupted Science, a rip-roaring journey through the politics, ideology and fraud that has undermined scientific progress in the past and still continues to. Grant isn't afraid to name names and his ruthlessly direct style is perhaps best illustrated by the titles of the final three chapters: Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and Bush's America."

The Code Book: the secret history of codes and code-breaking by Simon Singh Recommended by Maria Cruz, Voice of Young Science "It's not a new book but it was the science book I most enjoyed reading this year. It is simply a great book. Cryptography, the book's subject matter, is brilliantly brought to life by interspersing accurate technical explanations with captivating historical accounts of how codes have been created and cracked throughout the centuries, including the cipher of Mary Queen of Scots and the Enigma machine."

The Uncommon Reader by Alan Bennet Recommended by Professor Dame Bridget Ogilvie, Vice Chair, Sense About Science "Not a science book, but very entertaining nonetheless."

Reindeer People: Living with Animals and Spirits in Siberia by Piers Vitebsky Recommended by Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve, Trustee, Sense About Science "This is a book about the people of the north who herd reindeer and caribou (actually one species, semi-domesticated - but only semi!). It is a very good slice of socio-anthropology.

Rachael Buchanan, Medical Producer for BBC News "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out by Richard Feynman is one of my all time favourite books. This random collection of short works by the indomitable physicist should be read by everyone interested in science. The writings range from tales of safe cracking at Los Alamos and discussions of the relationship between science and religion to his historic minority report on the Challenger explosion. Throughout, Feynman reminds us of the importance of science to society and the sheer pleasure of finding things out. Can someone please buy me a new copy, my too-well thumbed edition is falling apart from over-reading." "I also recommend Quirkology: the curious science of everyday lives by Richard Wiseman. What do elephants and ghosts have in common? How does your surname influence your life? What is the best way to communicate with a gorilla? These are just some of the burning questions that Professor Wiseman and his fellow quirkologists have dedicated their lives to investigating. Now the offerings of this more curious branch of psychology have been brought together in one long-overdue tome. Frequently bizarre but always entertaining - if nothing else this book will give you excellent dinner party conversations for years to come."

My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult Recommended by Alice Tuff, Sense About Science "This is the story of a girl who is a designer baby born to save her sister. It follows the family through her decision to sue them for the rights of her body and explores the issues from the different perspectives of the characters. It is definitely a book to curl up with a cup of tea but don't start it before you go to bed or you may end up staying awake all night reading like Ellen did!"

Alan Malcolm, Chief Executive of the Institute of Biology "Jared Diamond's "Collapse" should certainly be read by ALL young people. Trevor Norton's "Underwater to Get Out of the Rain" would tell any person how witty and compassionate a scientist can be, and what fun can be had as a travelling marine biologist."

The Royal Meteorological Society Weather Watcher's 3-year Log Book Recommended by Paul Hardaker, Chief Executive of the Royal Meteorlogical Society "We'd like to think our new book encourages an interest in the science of meteorology."

You're an Animal, Viskovitz by Alessandro Boffa Recommended by Aarathi Prasad, Sense About Science "One of my all time favourites, described as 'a whirlwind of ironic fables, a tour de force of comic inventiveness and intelligence unlike anything that you have read before.'"

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley Recommended by Helena Seth-Smith, bacterial geneticist "Ever wanted to know why there are 2 sexes? And about how and why we compete? This is a wonderful description of the evolution of sex, and what (other than the apparent!) uses it has!"

A Mathematician's Apology by GH Hardy Recommended by Simon Singh, science writer "I studied physics at university, and I only developed an interest in mathematics for its own sake when I made a documentary about Fermat's Last Theorem for the BBC. I read Hardy's somewhat melancholic memoir as background reading while making the film, and it made me realise why mathematics is such a wonderful subject."

If This Is A Man by Primo Levi Recommended by Frances Downey, Voice of Young Science "A modern day classic if ever there was one, a tale of one man in Auschwitz and his survival. Hope and how he never would have done it if it weren't for his chemistry background."

Ellen Raphael, Sense About Science "An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears is a really brilliant thriller and the perfect antidote to Christmas schmaltz (bah humbug!). I'm also really hoping to get "The Pedant's Revolt: Why Most Things You Think Are Right Are Wrong", a myth busting book that I have bought for friends in the past, but they insist on keeping it, so now I want a copy of my own!"

A Guinea Pig's History of Biology by Jim Endersby Recommended by Robin Wilkinson, Research Defence Society "A fascinatingly different take on the history of evolution, showing how science developed as a complex and fruitful interaction between individuals and the scientific world." - Amazon

The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics by Matt Bai Recommended by Simon Festing, Research Defence Society "With the possible exception of the Republicans, is there a major political party more stupefyingly brain-dead than the Democrats? That's the ultimate takeaway from "The Argument," Matt Bai's sharply written, exhaustively reported and thoroughly depressing account of "billionaires, bloggers, and the battle to remake Democratic politics'" - NYT

The Tiger That Isn't: Seeing Through a world of Numbers by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot Recommended by Lord Taverne, Chair, Sense About Science "Dilnot does for numbers what we do for scientific evidence."

The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead by Marcus Chown Recommended by Eric de Silva, Sense About Science "In Chown's most ambitious book to date he sets out to answer some of the most provocative questions of today: Where did we come from? What the hell are we doing here? Is Elvis alive and kicking in another space domain?"

Tracey Brown, Sense About Science "During the holiday I'm going to be reading and giving as presents Alan Furst's novel, The Foreign Correspondent. I usually read things before giving them to people as presents but Alan Furst has a good track record and top reviews. But my main recommendation for Christmas gifts is the metal detector produced by the National Geographic. I'm buying it for my boys. Okay, I know there's something sad about adults metal-detecting but I think it's wonderful that my kids really believe they're going to find treasure - incredible optimism and I dread the day they lose it. Plus, I find going to the park REALLY boring and thought of digging up clumps of grass to look for ring pulls might make it a bit more entertaining."

Better Looking, Better Living, Better Loving by John Emsley Recommended by Anne Corbett, Voice of Young Science "This book provides the means to understand the products and appliances that we rely on. It equips the reader with sufficient knowledge about the chemicals they use and to which they are exposed, and to understand the potential risks involved."

The Truth About Organic Food by Alex Avery Recommended by Alan Smithee, science journalist "Is an organic turkey really better for you this Christmas? Find out what 'organic' really means while you're still polishing off leftovers this festive season."

The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollans Recommended by David Baulcombe FRS, Professor of Botany at the University of Cambridge "For anyone who thought that deciding what to eat and why is a simple decision. It is a stimulating and engaging read - almost like a thriller - but unfortunately there is no resolution at the end. None of the food production systems we have is entirely satisfactory - but at least having the various problems spelled out is the first step."

Roger Highfield, science journalist, author and broadcaster "I would certainly plug Marcus Chown's Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You, just for being bonkers enough to attempt to popularise the most tricky and arcane area of science. Equally, I would recommend Richard Fortey's forthcoming Dry Store Room No 1: The Secret Life of the Natural History Museum and various classics...anything by Simon Singh, Steve Jones, Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins, plus Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything."

Andy Lewis, Quackometer.net "Understanding quackery gives us fascinating insights into how people think, and more importantly, how thinking can go wrong. The wider implications of making certain logical fallacies are explored in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets. Taleb shows us that post hoc reasoning and the misunderstanding of random behaviour and risks are not just the preserve of alternative medicine but exist in all aspects of our lives. Particularly, he shows how this leads to large scale irrational behaviour in the financial markets with terrible consequences for both individuals and businesses. And, annoyingly, you can get paid huge bonuses for systematically misunderstanding what you are doing."

    Last updated: December 14 2007

Reading Room - Dawkins: how one scientist changed the way we think

Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think edited by Alan Grafen and Mark Ridley Reviewed by Lucy Goodchild Richard Dawkins is a bit like Marmite. You either love Dawkins or you hate him. I think it is safe to say a collection of essays about his work was inevitable, and rightly so. In this book, Dawkins is described as one of the most controversial people in science, the number one public intellectual in England, as “a plumber who can fix leaky intellects” and as “our most articulate public defender of evolution”. This collection of essays, from scientists, writers, philosophers and theologians, is intended as a tribute to Dawkins and attempts to survey the impact his work has had on individuals, groups and science itself. Most of the contributors remember their introduction to Dawkins’ work fondly. Many were knowledge-hungry undergraduates and some wanted to know what all the fuss was about. The Selfish Gene was new, exciting and changed the face of evolutionary biology, so much so that the contributors, and I would suspect the majority of its readers, found their ideas about science irreversibly altered after reading. The subject matter is not confined to The Selfish Gene, however. Different authors prefer different works: The Blind Watchmaker, The Extended Phenotype, Unweaving the Rainbow; all have had an impact on their readers. The contributors describe their Dawkins experiences and make inferences about his effect on different groups of people. For biologists, Dawkins offers a new way of thinking about their subject and helps their “ideas and understanding to travel a long way.” The gene’s eye view was revolutionary and attention grabbing for sociobiologists, a “concept that helped delineate and solidify the new sociobiological paradigm.” Philosophers see Dawkins as one of their own, “philosophy at its best.” Writers also claim ownership, and describe his work as “tasty literature as well as nourishing argument” that reminds science writers they are writers. The book gives the reader an insight into the different aspects of Dawkins’ work. His ideas are explained, explored, praised and sometimes refuted. This can lead to confusion, as sometimes the content does not flow coherently from one essay to the next. However, if read separately, the essays cannot be faulted. Newcomers to Dawkinsian theory are in danger of being overwhelmed but will certainly be inspired to read his work. For those already familiar with his work, the collection will offer a fresh view of Dawkins’ theories and arguments. Even those who know The Selfish Gene inside out will want to pick it up again. I have. Buy this book from Amazon (UK)

    Last updated: November 12 2007

Reading Room - How to Fossilise Your Hamster

How to Fossilise Your Hamster: and other amazing experiments for the armchair scentist edited by Mick O’Hare Reviewed by William Nelson This book is a absolutely great! I’m sure it will do at least as well as its best selling predecessors “Does anything eat wasps?” and “Why don’t penguins’ feet freeze?”. But do not be fooled into thinking that this is just more of the same. Whilst the contents of the previous books have been taken directly from the “Last word” column of New Scientist, “How to Fossilise Your Hamster” is a series of, often ingenious, experiments designed to allow you to discover the answers for yourself. The book does deliver on its grandiose intent of showing us “... how great science has been achieved though experimentation”, although I suspect that theoretical scientists everywhere will nettled by the assertion that they don’t do “real” science. For those of us how have read and enjoyed the previous books, there is a certain satisfying smugness to be had from noticing the problems that are repeated (such as why beer froths in a dry glass, but not a wet one), however this only adds to the fun, since it encourages us to go and test the answers we were given. Since these experiments have been written by one author, the book does lack some of the varied and unexpected wit that is prevalent through out the previous books (and the Last word column itself), however there are enough amusing comments and side stories to keep you smiling all the way to the end. For the most part the experiments are clearly aimed towards children and, as far as I can tell, all relevant safety advice had been included, however this is definitely a handbook for the enthusiastic mum or dad rather than something for younger kids to try on their own (especially with the inclusion of several alcohol based investigations). Occasionally more diagrams would have been of benefit, making some of the more complicated set ups easier to understand, but for the most part all the experiments are well explained and potential pitfalls clearly described. Most importantly the explanations of what is going on in each mini-project are both clear and comprehensive and should provide you with answers that will satisfy even the most inquisitive of children. Do not be tempted to skip over the “P.S.” section as this contains many great nuggets of background info. (occasionally important safety advice that should probably be more prominently displayed) and many of the funniest anecdotes. This book easily lived up to my expectations of an amusing, well written description of many interesting household experiments for the enthusiastic amateur, but it also made me sit up in disbelief when it said that water rising in an upturned jar containing a candle isn’t due to the burning of the oxygen. Refusing to accept what I was reading, I ran to the kitchen and immediately set about trying to prove that the good people at New scientist were simply misled. They were of course correct and after a few minutes I conceded defeat and acknowledged that this really is “where the true pleasure in science lies.” Buy this book from Amazon (UK)

    Last updated: October 25 2007

Chemicals in Children

The second of a two-part Channel 4 documentary called How toxic are you? focuses on the question “How Toxic Are Your Kids?”. This programme claims that “children never used to come into contact with any man-made chemicals, but today children are exposed to tens of thousands, and no one knows for certain what these chemicals are doing to them. Many products we use are full of them, but many have not been tested for their toxicity”.

Professor Alan Boobis OBE, who has been the forefront of research into mechanisms for toxicity at Imperial College London, Dr John Hoskins FRSC, an Environmental Toxicologist, Dr John Emsley, author of The Consumer’s Good Chemical Guide and Dr Derek Lohman, a chemical scientist respond here:

Summary of their main points:

• In general, the scaremongering “science” in this programme does not appear to have been peer-reviewed, that is, checked for accuracy by recognised scientific experts in the field
• The “experiments” used in this programme are misleading. For example, after measuring butane and isobutane in a room, Sarah Beeny commented that “too much of it can cause dizziness, disorientation and headaches”. In fact, in the aerosols we use, neither butane nor isobutene is toxic and the amounts that are sprayed into the air from an air freshener are so tiny that they pose no threat to health. Even a long 10 second spray in a tiny space like a lavatory would be far too low to cause any detectable effects in humans
• The fact that man-made chemicals can be detected in our bodies should not be used as a tool to frighten people. The reality is that everyone carries excess chemical baggage as a consequence of living, breathing and eating
• Just because a chemical is natural it is not necessarily harmless, any more than just because a chemical is man-made it is necessarily dangerous —the use of some man-made chemicals has helped decrease infant mortality, reduce childhood morbidity and generally improve the quality of life
• Having external chemicals in our blood and urine is not a modern phenomenon—humans thousands of years ago would have had much the same (and some worse) from their food—which was of course all organic back then
• When we consider chemicals synthesised more recently, many concerned with health and safety, it is a fact that we all have traces of some of them in our blood, but there is no evidence they do us any harm. On the other hand there is much evidence that they have saved lives, particularly children’s

Full comments:

Professor Alan Boobis:
It is not clear what the objective of this programme is. It mixes complete inaccuracy, equivocal findings and genuine concerns with equal weight. I do not understand the basis for the argument that children never used to come into contact with man-made chemicals. Perhaps more importantly, this ignores the fact that just because a chemical is natural it is not necessarily harmless, any more than just because a chemical is man-made it is necessarily dangerous. The use of some man-made chemicals has helped decrease infant mortality, reduce childhood morbidity and generally improve the quality of life.


Dr John Hoskins:
The fact that man-made chemicals can be detected in our bodies should not be used as a tool to frighten people. It is reality that, as a consequence of living, breathing and eating, everyone carries excess chemical baggage. This is not a new phenomenon, thousands of years ago, humans would have still had chemicals from the environment in them, many of which will be the same as those we all have today (like dioxins in our blood, which are a product of combustion, both from power stations and from bonfires), plus some really nasty and possibly carcinogenic chemicals from their food, which was of course all organic back then.

When we consider chemicals synthesised more recently, many concerned with health and safety, it is a fact that we all have traces of some of them in our blood, but there is no evidence they do us any harm. On the other hand there is evidence that they have saved lives. DDT saved millions from malaria. An estimated 1200 lives have been saved in the UK alone since 1988 when brominated flame retardants (BFRs) became compulsory in UK furniture. There were around 1400 fires in the UK causing 500 injuries and 40 deaths, all but three of these fires involved old furniture without BFRs. In the past ten years, BFRs have resulted in a 20% reduction in fire deaths in the (old) EU.

Who wants to go back to the days when flammable plastics caused major house fires and flammable clothes killed and maimed people, particularly children?


Dr John Emsley
Butane and isobutane are volatile hydrocarbons used as propellant gases for aerosol sprays (they were introduced in place of the CFCs once used and which were phased out because they damaged the ozone layer). Neither butane not isobutene is toxic and the amounts that are sprayed into the air from an air freshener are so tiny that they pose no threat to health. Even a long 10 second spray in a tiny space like a lavatory would only leave a residue of butane or isobutene in the air less than 0.02% and far too low to cause any perceptible effects in humans. Even when the level is as high as 10% it only causes drowsiness.


Dr Derek Lohman:
In general, throughout the programme, there is a lack of positive scientific fact. This programme appears to consist of scaremongering with no real facts, and there is the usual confusion over natural and synthetic chemicals ("some occur naturally in plants, others made in the lab") with the former said to be good and the latter bad. We are not told the composition of the “natural” products mentioned or about the greater likelihood of batch to batch variations within these. We hear the usual repeated phrases—“possible link; suggested link; worrying chemicals; concerns (who by?); don’t have any chemicals in them; pure, recent articles, series of studies...... “—and yet nothing appears to have been peer reviewed, that is, there are no references to published work that has been reviewed by recognised scientific experts in the field.

    Last updated: November 06 2007

test form

    Last updated: October 18 2007

What others are saying…

The press has been very receptive to our project, here are links to the various news stories and discussion that has appeared since publication.

“Dubious health products debunked” - New Scientist

“Food and health firms taken to task over sales pitches by science’s ‘warriors against claptrap’” - The Guardian

“Here comes the nonsense bit” - Times Higher Educational Supplement (paywall)

“Calling all charlatans” - The Scientist

“Scientists challenge companies’ dubious marketing claims” - The British Medical Journal (paywall)

“Young scientists challenge ‘health product’ claims” - Daily Mail

“Food firms ‘serve up a cocktail of nonsense’” - Daily Telegraph

“There Goes the Science Bit” - The Guardian Blog

“Warriors against claptrap” - The Guardian Blog

“There Goes the Science Bit...” - UCL Bookshelf

“Firms fool shoppers with ‘science’” - The Times of India

“The Empiricists Strike Back” - The Guardian Science Podcast

“How shoppers ‘are blinded by shoddy science of firms” - Richard Craig’s Blog

“There Goes the Science Bit” - Poor Pothecary

“Sense About Science” - Bug Girl’s Blog

“There goes the science bit...” - Last Blog on Earth

“There Goes the Science Bit” - The Oyster’s Garter

“Debunking Bad Science” - Ming Ling

“The Mega-Project, Unleashed” - SciencePunk

“Dubious Health Products Debunked” - SmarterFitter

    Last updated: October 24 2007

Harmful chemicals in make-up and household products

In October 2007, the Daily Mail ran a story ("Is Your Make-Up Killing You?") based on a two-part Channel 4 documentary called How toxic are you? which claimed to show that chemicals from make-up are stored in the body and that chemicals in baby products are absorbed into babies.

Dr Gary Moss (School of Pharmacy, University of Hertfordshire) researches specifically how drugs and other chemicals penetrate the skin barrier and the implications for safety in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. He responds here.

Summary of his main points:

• There is currently no scientific debate about the safety of chemicals used in cosmetics and in the home, in the amounts in which they are used. All of these ingredients have been tested and are regulated
• The “beauty-obsessed sisters” who were used as case-studies are hardly typical subjects—they are an extreme case when considering the common use of cosmetic products and are not representative of most people
• The claim that women absorb 5lb of chemicals from cosmetics every year is flawed. In general external chemicals cannot freely pass across the skin because the stratum corneum (the thin, outermost layer of the skin) has evolved to provide protection from chemicals that people are routinely exposed to
• “Skin irritant” is used in an utterly non-scientific, emotive and inappropriate context. Remember, water can be classified as a skin irritant under appropriate circumstances
• Domestic cleaning products contain surfactants (similar to soap), and may cause damage to the stratum corneum barrier of the skin. However, because your skin replaces itself very quickly, eight days without exposure to these chemicals is unlikely to make any difference

Full comments from Dr Gary Moss:

There is currently no scientific debate or controversy about the safety of chemicals used in cosmetics and in the home, in the amounts in which they are used. All of these ingredients have been tested and are regulated.

How Toxic Are You?” and its “findings” are a misrepresentation of what is known about how chemicals interact with the body and is not scientific. Scientific studies need to be robust, and whilst the case studies in this documentary may serve to instill baseless fear, it has added nothing scientifically worthwhile for its viewers. It do not appear to use appropriate controls, and inappropriately use terminologies associated with chemical classifications. The language is emotive and inappropriate (e.g. to paraphrase: filling one’s lungs with plastic from hairsprays: this assumes that the aerosol produced by the spray has the correct physical properties to even get into the lung, a process which has been the subject of much research in, for example, asthma product development for years) and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the processes associated with the absorption of chemicals by the human body. It is also interesting that the solutions seem to be found among the “organic” or “alternative” cosmetic ranges. Have similar tests been conducted on such products to ensure their long-term safety? In addition, the “beauty-obsessed sisters” who were used as case-studies are hardly typical subjects—they are an extreme case when considering the common use of cosmetic products.

As a scientist with experience of how drugs and other chemicals penetrate the skin barrier (percutaneous absorption), the claim that women absorb 5lb of chemicals from cosmetics every year is flawed and cannot be calculated by an extrapolation of the blood and urine analyses. It is commonly perceived that drugs can freely pass across the skin. This is a mistake that is commonly repeated but is seldom the case, because the stratum corneum, the thin, outermost layer of the skin, has evolved to provide protection from external chemicals that people are routinely exposed to. The transdermal route promises much but, in pharmaceutical terms, has actually delivered relatively little. Creams, ointments, and so on are often applied not to healthy skin but to sites where the skin has been damaged. In this case, there may be a greater issue of exposure to the chemicals in the product, in the sense that they have a better chance of passing into the tissues and bloodstream than if these products were applied to intact skin.

But in the case of cosmetics, which are normally supposedly applied to intact, healthy skin, it is unlikely that the components will penetrate it. (This is mainly, but not exclusively, due to three things; their physicochemical properties, how long the skin is exposed to them, and the nature of the formulation). These products are usually washed off in the morning and then replaced. Simply put, these molecules do not cross the skin barrier in significant amounts. Very few chemicals actually do—one of the reasons for the lack of success of transdermal drug delivery. Regular removal by the body keeps these levels well below toxic thresholds. The programme makers should be aware of the ADME process—absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, and look at this issue holistically.

The subject of hormone disruption is also an extremely emotive one. While the makers of this programme can clearly differentiate between leave-on and rinse-off products, once again, they seem unaware of the fundamentals of absorption through the skin. While some chemicals may pass across the skin, the rate at which this happens, the physicochemical nature of the substances applied to the skin and the rate of clearance—both from the site where it is applied and from the blood—all combine to make this a very complicated model. Unfortunately, this grey area—not being able to answer “yes” or “no” to a question such as “do chemical penetrate the skin” is something which is not well expressed in the media. Do chemicals penetrate the skin? If they do, is the amount and rate of penetration, as well as the location, likely to provide a toxic level of the chemical in the body? How does the body respond to the presence of the chemical? How does the body get rid of it? How much will be absorbed and retained by the body? What happens when this happens? All these questions—considered together—will give a true indication, in a properly representative clinical study relative to a suitable control study, of the toxicological profile.

The lack of understanding shown of product classifications is also worrying. Do the programme makers understand why something might be classified as an irritant? Are they aware of the conditions under which such an assessment is made? Remember, water can be classified as a skin irritant under appropriate circumstances. Therefore, the uneducated bandying-around of the term “skin irritant” is utterly non-scientific and used in an emotive and inappropriate context. Further, the often repeated scare story—the association of parabens with breast cancer is emotive and pointless—other than to get “cosmetics” and “breast cancer” in the same programme. This is highly irresponsible.

“How Toxic Are You?” also discusses domestic cleaning products. These contain surfactants (similar to soap, for example), and may cause damage to the stratum corneum barrier of the skin. However, because your skin replaces itself very quickly, eight days without exposure to these chemicals is unlikely to make any difference.

Overall, the results in this documentary are based on an extreme case, do not appear to have suitable controls and do not appear to understand the holistic nature of the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) process. Therefore the way in which the programme-makers have presented them to other, more typical consumers of these products might not be comparable or fair. In short, I would have no confidence that their results, and subsequent claims, have any proper scientific validity—the programme consists of bad science and pointless scaremongering.

    Last updated: October 16 2007

There Goes the Science Bit...

A guide to standing up for science

From food that doesn’t contain chemicals to a spray that shields against EMF, young scientists have been contacting organisations – manufacturers, distributors, retailers – to ask for more evidence for such claims. This is their dossier of extracts from their experiences.

The Voice of Young Science network hope their work will encourage more people from all walks of life to question claims and ask for evidence.

There Goes the Science Bit... is available to download here.  Hard copies can be requested via e-mail.

What others are saying about it...

The Guardian:

A group of young scientists today challenged the marketing claims made by 11 companies of ‘health products’ ranging from sandwiches to health spas.

The Daily Mail:

The scientific claims used to sell a wide range of products to health-conscious customers were exposed as dubious or unfounded yesterday.

New Scientist:

Sense about Science, a charitable trust based in London that works with 3000 young UK-based researchers, published a pamphlet detailing how its irked members had telephoned numerous companies to ask how their products actually worked. Some of the answers are simply amusing, but others - for example, herbal products that claim to clear the body of 100 parasite species - shocked those making the calls.

This project is brought to you by

Ramla Ali, David Armstrong, Harriet Ball, Elizabeth Barry, Kevin Chetty, Matthew Child, Anne Corbett, Maria Cruz, Eric de Silva, Frances Downey, Caroline Grainger, Evelyn Harvey, Catherine Jones, Ian Kellar, Johnny Kelsey Amelia Lake, Jennifer Lardge, Sabina Michnowicz, Luke Norton, Kate Oliver, Nicola Powles-Glover, Aarathi Prasad, Fiona Randall, Mark Reuter, Nathan Robertson, Kehinde Ross, Helena Seth-Smith, Tom Sheldon, Frank Swain, Samantha Tang, Carolyn Tregidgo, Alice Tuff, Debbie Wake, Roni Wright and Neil Young

What we did

We swapped examples of offending claims. Some of us started making a few phone calls to customer helplines and manufacturers to hunt down the evidence. Some people we spoke to disavowed responsibility or insisted they were responding to consumer concern. Others were able to link their claims to science, albeit from a galaxy far far away. They seemed completely unprepared for our questions and no-one was able to provide solid evidence.

So others of us had a go — and got others to have a go — and we started tackling the pile of examples (which was swelling rapidly as word got out about what we were up to).

Yet more of us did the hard graft of transcribing some very long conversations and tracking down the meanings of words like ‘optimise’ and ‘scientifically proven’, editing and proofing.

Ultimately, there was far too much material to publish on the tiny budget that Sense About Science was able to give us. After a few pub gatherings and lots of emails we agreed on the following extracts and examples. We hope they won’t just be interesting but will also be useful experiences for other people who want to hunt down the evidence.

There are no qualifications needed to do this — just an inquisitive mind and the tenacity to keep asking questions. Sometimes people make genuine errors or don’t appreciate the effects of exaggeration, but if no–one is probing these mistakes, they will go uncorrected. The lack of evidence and ridiculous answers we were given made us realise how important it is to ask these questions. We hope the next few pages will inspire you to do the same.

Comments on There Goes the Science Bit...

    Last updated: September 11 2007

Heatwave advice to pregnant women

In June 2007, the Metro, The Times and Daily Mail ran a story based on a press release from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) which reported a “heatwave warning for pregnant women”. The articles were headlined, “Sun can damage unborn babies” (The Times) and “Pregnant women should avoid the sun” (Metro, Daily Mail). These articles stated that the research publicized by the RCOG, which used records of women who gave birth in Aberdeen in the 1950s, found that exposure to high temperatures in the first three months of pregnancy could lead to babies being born with a slightly lower birth weight. Some articles went on to link such babies with being prone to a low IQ and learning disabilities and as being more likely to exhibit behavioural problems at school.

You can read the abstract of the study in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology article here, the Daily Mail article here, and The Times article article here.

Professor of obstetrics Andrew Shennan and clinical research fellow Dr Manju Chandiramani at the Maternal and Fetal Research Unit, King’s College London, and public health statistician Dr Christina Pagel of the Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London respond below.

Summary of their main points

• There is no plausible reason why minor changes in temperature should influence birthweight because the mother’s core and baby’s temperature simply would not change. Even with an increase in temperature of 20 degrees Celcius, the change in birthweight is probably meaningless in terms of health, and is less than the difference between girls and boys at birth

• Environmental and dietary conditions were different in the 1950s—for instance at that time many pregnant women smoked, something which is known to significantly affect birthweight. The authors of the research make it clear that the effects of social class and birth order have a much higher impact on the eventual birthweight of the baby, making the presence or absence of a temperature effect immaterial. They do not claim that their study should be used in the way in which the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have used it

• The advice given in the press release is applicable in nearly all its points to anyone in hot weather. Pregnant women need not worry about the effect of temperature on their unborn babies’ health

Full comments from Dr Manju Chandiramani and Professor Andrew Shennan:

A study reviewing past records of over 12,000 individuals born in Scotland in the 1950s has suggested that pregnant women should protect themselves from relative temperature extremes, especially high temperatures in early pregnancy.  The basis for this is that a 1C increase in a 10-day period in the first trimester was associated with a 5.4 g decrease in birthweight. The same increase in the third trimester was associated with a 1.3 g increase.  Even if there was an increase in temperature of 20 degrees Celcius (a rare event in Scotland), a 108g change in birthweight is probably meaningless in terms of health, for example this is less than the difference between girls and boys at birth.

There is no plausible reason why minor changes in temperature should influence birthweight (the mother’s core and baby’s temperature simply would not change). The human body easily copes with changes in body temperature through behaviour (e.g. sleeping with no covers) and sweating. Although it is correct to warn pregnant women regarding sensible behaviour during a heat wave (i.e. drinking plenty of fluid, sunscreens), minor changes in ambient temperature are highly unlikely to influence the health of their unborn children. For example, long distance runners who may just be pregnant are advised to reduce training times to avoid prolonged high temperatures during fetal development.

As both an increase and decrease in weight were found with higher temperatures in this study, this may be a chance finding that is not real. Research that involves retrospective examination of data occurs all the time. On the rare event that it finds something statistically significant then a paper is written, even when there is no plausible scientific reason for the findings and it may be accepted by a journal. It is rare for this type of evidence to change practice, as doctors are rightly conservative about this evidence. However it does direct future research, which occasionally finds something new and worthwhile. The best studies are predefined, and just look at one important thing (e.g. randomised controlled trials). When these find something significant, not only is this real, but also causative.

Unless future prospective studies prove birthweight is related to ambient temperature, pregnant women need not worry.

Full comments from Dr Christina Pagel:

Firstly, the paper concerns a group of women who were having children in the 1950s in Aberdeen, raising the following issues:

• Environmental conditions, dietary advice and so forth were completely different back then to now. For instance, smoking is not taken into account (because that information is not available), yet at that time many pregnant women smoked, something which is known to significantly affect birthweight. Women nowadays eat very differently and live differently, and are generally healthier. It is also possible that back then people were restricted to more seasonal diets than is normal now. All of these factors could affect birthweight. It is not really valid to compare the women then to women now when such things have not been taken into account.

• The temperatures in this study, even in the height of summer, are about 10-15C. This is much colder than is normal in most of England in the summer and certainly does not qualify in any way as ‘heatwave’ temperatures. The range of temperatures discussed in this paper, therefore, cannot have much to say one way or another on the effect of ambient temperature on birthweight. A more interesting study would look at birthweights in traditionally hot places near the equator that have a similar standard of living to the UK (eg Hawaii/Bermuda) if we really wanted to know about ‘extreme’ heat and its effect on pregnant women. To be fair to the authors, they do not claim that their study should be used in the way in which the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have used it.

• How accurately could the weight of babies in the 1950s be measured? The authors give birthweights to the nearest hundredth of a gram - were these weights really so accurately recorded? The error in the measurements may be what accounts for the effect the authors are reporting.

Secondly, as the authors make clear, the effects of social class and birth order have a much higher impact on the eventual birthweight of the baby - about 10 times larger than say a 10 degree temperature difference! This makes the presence or absence of a temperature effect immaterial. From a statistical point of view, the authors have gone looking for an effect and tested lots of different things. They found something, but if you look hard enough you’ll always find something. They have not corrected for this ‘multiple testing’ effect in presenting the significance of their results. 

The advice given in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists press release is applicable in nearly all its points to anyone (stay covered, drink water, don’t go out between 11am and 3pm etc), and it is known that pregnant women can be prone to high blood pressure and so should be careful of that. So in that sense, the advice is not ‘bad’ but it is somewhat unnecessary. I certainly don’t think that women should be worrying about the effect of such temperatures on their babies’ health!

    Last updated: September 06 2007

Transcripts

Here are each of the individual transcripts for the Sussed project.  Click on a link to see the full text.

    Last updated: August 10 2007

Reading Room Reviews

    Last updated: August 08 2007

Reading Room Reviews

    Last updated: August 01 2007

Bisphenol A in food packaging

In January 2007, the Daily Express ran a story about the use of bisphenol A in food packaging. The article was headlined “Fears over gender bender chemicals in food packaging” and stated that “experts voiced fresh fears” about a chemical intermediate called Bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is used as the basic building block to manufacture high performance plastics notably including polycarbonate and epoxy resins. These plastics have a wide range of uses including food containers, drinking bottles, CDs, linings of food cans. The article refers to Bisphenol A as a “toxic substance”. It said that “studies have also implicated the compound in breast cancer, male reproductive defects, diabetes, insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome and obesity.” The expert opinion refers to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA—the organisation set up by the European Union to provide independent scientific advice relating to the safety of food and feed) panel’s review of Bisphenol A (published 29th January 2007).

Professor Alan Boobis (British Toxicology Society), a toxicologist at Imperial College London and David Thomas, a bisphenol A expert, reply below.

Summary of their main points

• The independent experts that issued the EFSA opinion actually concluded that the risks from BPA are even smaller than it was previously assumed they might be, not the other way around

• Toxicology studies consistently show there is no link between Bisphenol A use and the diseases referred to in the article

• All substances are potentially toxic—what matters is the dose. At high doses, a number of substances may interfere with the body’s hormonal system, but this does not confirm toxicity to humans at the exposure they experience in reality

Full comments from toxicologist Professor Alan Boobis and bisphenol A expert David Thomas

“Experts voiced fresh fears?” On the contrary, the experts that issued the EFSA opinion concluded that the risks from BPA are even smaller than it was previously assumed they might be. They carried out a thorough review of the data on Bisphenol A safety and concluded that according to the scientific evidence, the safe level of lifelong intake should be increased by a factor of five, from 0.01 to 0.05 mg/kg bodyweight/day. The only quote provided in the article to support the claim of “fresh fears” is from Elizabeth Salter Green, director of the WWF’s “toxics” campaign.

Packaging material is only permitted to be in contact with food after a thorough investigation and a positive safety listing by the EU authorities. The EFSA panel consists of independent experts drawn from countries across the EU and is not obliged to follow the line of any official body. The safety of Bisphenol A has also been assessed by a number of independent national and international regulatory agencies (including the European Commission (EU Risk Assessment), the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA), the UK Food Standards Agency and the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare). In each case it has been shown to be safe in the kinds of doses that humans are exposed to.

A “toxic substance… shown to interfere with the body’s hormone system?” At high doses, animal studies suggest a number of substances may interfere with the body’s hormonal system. Such findings do not however confirm toxicity to humans at the exposure they experience in reality.. All substances are potentially toxic—what matters is the dose. Is Bisphenol A really implicated in the wide range of diseases listed in the article? No. The list is a mixture of results from studies that are either small and explorative, some of which are of questionable quality and could not be reproduced, or report effects observed at doses very much greater, by factors of 1,000s in many cases, than the maximum levels to which humans are exposed. The major regulatory-quality toxicology studies consistently show there is no link between Bisphenol A use and these diseases.

********UPDATE********

In September 2008, the media reported on a new study on the effects of Bisphenol A. Dr Iain Lang is a Research Fellow in Epidemiology and Public Health at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter and one of the authors of the study. Here, he describes what the study found:

“The study we carried out used publicly accessible data on health information and blood and urine specimens from a large cross-section of the US population. More than 90% of the tested population had measurable levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) in their urine and results showed that people with higher levels of BPA in their urine were more likely to suffer from diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

These findings are important because this is the first time that large-scale data on BPA in humans have been available. Our findings are in keeping with some of what’s been shown before in animals or tissue samples, but there is still a lot of information we don’t know about BPA and how the human body deals with it so more research is needed.

We can’t say for sure at the moment that BPA causes these diseases, just that higher BPA levels tend to go along with them. It’s possible that some other factor is involved: for example, it could be that people with diabetes act in ways that expose them to more BPA. Because of this uncertainty, it’s probably more important to have a healthy lifestyle and diet, which are known to reduce the risk of these diseases.”

    Last updated: November 13 2008

Interpretation of clinical trial data

In April 2007, the The Daily Telegraph ran a story linking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use with an increased risk of heart attack. The article was headlined “High doses of ibuprofen raises heart attack risk” and stated that that for some individuals the risk of heart attack or stroke is nine times higher when taking ibuprofen. According to this report, these results will bring more anxiety to the millions of arthritis sufferers in Britain (published 6th April 2007).

You can read The Daily Telegraph article here

Here, Dr Shaun Treweek, specialist in the methodology of randomised controlled trials, responds:

The original research should not bring more anxiety to the millions of arthritis sufferers in Britain as the “nine times greater risk” is not based on thousands of patients but nine. Eight of 373 patients (2.14%) taking ibuprofen and aspirin had an adverse outcome compared to one of 394 patients (0.25%) taking an alternative drug and aspirin. The authors of the research themselves say that the risk could be as low as 1.13 or as high as 72.76. This huge range is exactly what you’d expect with so few patients and makes the estimate of risk largely meaningless. The study’s authors do point out that their research has many limitations and say it should be used for future research ideas rather than as a statement on the risks of ibuprofen.

    Last updated: May 24 2007

Sense About…

    Last updated: June 19 2008

Donors and Funding Policy

Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust funded by donations from trusts and foundations (over 50%), science bodies, industry and individuals.

As shown at 13 March 2009. Full P&L accounts are prepared and independently examined in June.

Note: this information is provisional and includes Months 1-11. Full accounts with accruals are prepared and submitted for independent examination in June. They are available from the Charities Commission in February of the following year.

Sense About Science is grateful to the following organisations for their support for both core and project-related costs:

Help with equipment, facilities and services has also been received from: The Guardian, Institute of Biology, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Physics, John Innes Centre, RPSGB, The Lancet, Understanding Animal Research, Royal Society of Edinburgh, University College London.

Our funding policy

• Sense About Science's principal funding is through grants and donations in respect of its core aims.
• Occasional direct sponsorship of activities will be by written agreement.
• Donations do not entitle any individual or organisation to decision-making authority. External funding will not divert Sense About Science from its agreed aims and values.
• Donations will normally be acknowledged in public reports and accounts.

Donations from individuals and small private trusts will be acknowledged at the request of the donor. Direct sponsorship of activities will also be acknowledged on related publicity.

Questions about funding should be addressed in writing, with a return postal address, to: The Board of Trustees, Sense About Science, 25 Shaftesbury Avenue, London W1D 7EG.

    Last updated: June 25 2009

Reading Room Reviews

    Last updated: December 15 2006

Reading Room Reviews

    Last updated: November 28 2006

Help Sense About Science through your Christmas Shopping!

Buy your Christmas gifts from Amazon using the Sense About Science link and part of the proceeds go to Sense About Science

You can buy everything from Amazon from a Novelty Pig Foot Massager to the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire

Have a look at what others are recommending in the Nobel prize winners, SAS trustees, VoYS and SAS staff sections below. Get a head start on your Christmas shopping and help Sense About Science at the same time!

Nobel Prize Winners

Dr Tim Hunt
Atoms by Jean-Baptiste Perrin
“Abraham Pais, in his excellent biography of Einstein, called this book the finest book about Physics of the 20th Century. I would agree. Every scientist should own a copy. I have at least two!”

See what other Nobel Prize winners are reading this Christmas below...

Sense About Science Trustees

Dr Simon Singh
Can Reindeer Fly? by Roger Highfield
“Each year, Roger Highfield (Science Editor of the Daily Telegraph) searches for stories with a Christmas angle; the evolutionary origin of gift giving, the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem, how reindeer fly, cloned Christmas trees, and anything else with a festive flavour. He has now gathered together these stories in a delightful compendium of seasonal science.”

See what other members of the Sense About Science board recommend below...

VoYS Network

Tom Sheldon
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists by Gideon Defoe
“A band of pirates with modern foibles and neuroses pick up Charles Darwin from the Galapagos Islands and take him back to the Royal Society before embarking on an unlikely series of adventures in Victorian London. Short, clever, very funny and completely original.”

See what other members of the VoYS network recommend below...

Sense About Science office team

Tracey Brown
Who rules in science: an opinionated guide to the wars by James Robert Brown.
“The second part of this book brings together insights from the philosophy of science, which is a worthwhile journey even if you know the terrain. But it’s the first part that fires me up, where he puts his finger on the conservative character of the apparently radical arguments of the relativists in the science wars. I’m asking for this for Christmas because I’ve got to return Ellen Raphael’s copy that I’ve been hanging on to!”

Last but by no means least; see what the rest of the team think will make top Christmas presents below


Nobel Prize winners

Dr Tim Hunt
Received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2001
Atoms by Jean-Baptiste Perrin
“Abraham Pais, in his excellent biography of Einstein, called this book the finest book about Physics of the 20th Century. I would agree. Every scientist should own a copy. I have at least two!”

Professor Sir Harry Kroto FRS
Received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1996
The Demon Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
“The book I always take with me is Science as a Candle in the Dark (The Demon Haunted World) by Carl Sagan.”

Sir Paul Nurse
Received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2001
The Creation by E.O.Wilson
“This book is a ringing call for action to protect the biosphere from human activity by one of the world’s greatest biologists.”


Sense About Science Trustees

Dick Taverne
Chair, Sense About Science
Francis Crick:Discoverer of the Genetic Code by Matt Ridley

Professor Janet Bainbridge
The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill Compiled by Dominique Enright
“The greatest orator of his day; probably the most quoted figures of the English language and one of only 6 English writers to have received the Nobel Prize for literature. However, many of his quotations show humanity, wit and boundless humour. Nevertheless, he was often infuriatingly conceited. The book is excellent to dip into; a collection of his quips and a must for anyone who is looking for a ‘quotable quote’. It always provides me with something to smile about. I thoroughly recommend it.”

Professor Chris Leaver
Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble by Lester Brown
“A must read for all of those who care about the challenges facing the Planet and how we might be able to save it for our grandchildren and future generations, by the founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute”

Baroness O’Neil
Reindeer People: Living with Animals and Spirits in Siberia By Piers Vitebsky
“It paints a fascinating picture of a way of life that is pastoral yet still semi-nomadic, and of the pressures placed on it both by Soviet and by market systems. Food for thought about how we use the earth...”

Dr Simon Singh
Can Reindeer Fly? by Roger Highfield
“Each year, Roger Highfield (Science Editor of the Daily Telegraph) searches for stories with a Christmas angle; the evolutionary origin of gift giving, the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem, how reindeer fly, cloned Christmas trees, and anything else with a festive flavour. He has now gathered together these stories in a delightful compendium of seasonal science.”


VoYS Network
Hazel Morris
Medical Research Council Press Officer
Life of Pi by Yann Martel
“Imaginative and thrilling with the best ‘twist’ I’ve encountered!”

Tom Sheldon
PhD in Mathematical Biology, National Institute for Medical Research
The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists by Gideon Defoe
“A band of pirates with modern foibles and neuroses pick up Charles Darwin from the Galapagos Islands and take him back to the Royal Society before embarking on an unlikely series of adventures in Victorian London. Short, clever, very funny and completely original.”

Harriet Teare
Organic Chemistry DPhil, Oxford University
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
“Brilliant introduction to the world of science, especially for those not so familiar with science.  He has a wonderful way of putting things in a context everyone can relate to, and making it all exciting and accessible.”

Julie Huxley-Jones
PhD student in evolutionary biology, Manchester University
Ig Nobel Prizes: The Annals of Improbable Research by Marc Abrahams
“A hilariously irreverent look the Ig Nobels, the anti Nobel awards for the most bizarre parts of scientific research. For example who is going to hell, do pigeons prefer Picasso and what is the optimal way to dunk a biscuit are all covered!”

Ig Nobel Prizes: Why chickens prefer beautiful humans v. 2 by Marc Abrahams
“Superb second book from the Ig Nobel team. From Superior Sperm to the tale of the homosexual necrophiliac duck, it is possibly the funniest look at science?”

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the meanings of life by Daniel C. Dennett
“Fantastic insights into the origins of the natural selection theory. Dennett discusses not only the basis of theory, but who and why they challenged it. Easy and enjoyable to read”

Rivka Isaacson
Post-doc in NMR spectroscopy at Imperial College London
Selected Poems by Sophie Hannah
“Hilarious, witty and full of the sad truth, this book will convert even the most sceptical cynic to poetry - leave it in your loo and let it work its magic!”

Dr Helena Seth-Smith
A post-doc on interesting aspects of the genomes of infectious bacteria, at Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
“A wonderful, entertaining and informative cruise through science!  Bill Bryson includes fascinating historical detail, and brings it to life with personal information on the significant figures involved.  Easy to read and rewarding!”


The Sense About Science office
Tracey Brown
Director
Who rules in science: an opinionated guide to the wars by James Robert Brown
“The second part of this book brings together insights from the philosophy of science, which is a worthwhile journey even if you know the terrain. But it’s the first part that fires me up, where he puts his finger on the conservative character of the apparently radical arguments of the relativists in the science wars. I’m asking for this for Christmas because I’ve got to return Ellen Raphael’s copy that I’ve been hanging on to!”

Ellen Raphael
Programme Manager
Voodoo Science - the road from foolishness to fraud
“An oldie but a goldie! This book is now 6 years old but still highly relevant as Park helps the reader to spot ‘voodoo’ science and explains how science works. Very entertaining read for non-scientists and scientists alike.”

Kitchen Chemistry
Adventures in Science - Kitchen Discoveries
“Get these before they’re banned!”

Dr Chris Tyler
Scientific Support Coordinator
The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins
“A terrific journey into our evolutionary past.”

Frances Downey
Programme Researcher
Gut Symmetries by Jeanette Winterson
“A love story between two physicists built around the structure of quantum mechanics. A very interesting read where anything is possible even if not probable. It makes for some interesting plot twists.”

Passion by Jude Morgan
“The best book I have read this year taking in the lives of Lord Byron, Shelly, and Keats and the women who knew them, Mary Shelley, Fanny Brawne, Augusta Leigh and Caroline Lamb. This is an all engulfing read that will lead you to search out everything about the characters and the works they have written. I highly recommend it!”

Simon Shears
Intern
I’m Not Scared by Nicola Ammaniti (Jonathan Hunt)
“A brilliant simply written novel that stays with you long after you turn the final page.”

DNA: The Secret of Life by James Watson
“The definitive history of DNA and its studies.”

    Last updated: November 27 2006

Growth hormones in livestock

In July 2006, a story ran about the use of hormonal growth promotors in farming. One article in the Daily Mail was headlined “THE HORMONE SCANDAL: will Britons be forced to eat hormone injected beef?” and asked “Could there be clearer proof of the arrogance and indifference of those who are supposed to keep our food safe than the muzzling of John Verral?”

You can get the Daily Mail articles here and here.

Professor Richard Sharpe, a member of the Veterinary Products Committee Working Group in question, here replies. Summary of his main points

• The Working Group was not asked to comment on the rights and wrongs of using hormonal growth promotors in farming
• The scientific evidence does not indicate that the use of hormones in farming presents a risk to public health
• There are good reasons to oppose the use of hormones in farming livestock and to support the ongoing EU ban, but from current scientific evidence they do not pose a risk to human health

Full comments from Professor Richard Sharpe

The Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) set up a sub-committee in 2002 to look at the use of sex steroid-based hormonal growth promoters (in particular, oestradiol) in livestock. It was charged with assessing whether recently undertaken research studies (and earlier research) provided any clear scientific evidence that the very low levels of hormone residues in meat from such animals posed any health risk to consumers. The Working Group was asked to make its assessment of risk to humans based on available scientific evidence; it was not asked to make recommendations on the rights and wrongs of the use of hormonal growth promoters, nor did its remit allow the expression of personal views that were not based on scientific evidence or which lay outside of the focus of the Working Group.

It was considered that postmenopausal women and infants/children would be the most susceptible groups, as their endogenous levels of sex steroids, such as oestradiol, are naturally low. Arguably the most serious consequence of additional oestradiol exposure would be an increase in risk of breast cancer so, as a reference, the Working Group used detailed scientific evidence that has calculated how much breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women increases with increase in exposure to oestrogens from outside of the body (e.g., as the result of taking hormone replacement tablets). Based on these data and the available measurements of the levels of oestradiol in meat from hormone-treated animals, the Working Group concluded that consumption of such meat would have negligible impact on breast cancer risk. It was similarly concluded that such consumption by children was also unlikely to have significant impact, based on the available scientific evidence. However, the Working Group drew attention to the fact that there are large data gaps and a general lack of information on the effects of very low levels of oestrogens in children.

The Danish review quoted by the Soil Association and by John Verrall, a member of the VCP Working Group, did not address the effects of low levels of oestradiol exposure on the human fetus and infant, but showed that the blood levels of oestradiol in infants/prepubertal children have been seriously overestimated in earlier studies, on which safe limits of hormone exposure have been based. They have therefore suggested that children of this age may be much more susceptible than was thought to exposure to low levels of exogenous oestrogens, for example from eating meat from animals treated with oestradiol growth promoters.  However, this is only an interpretation as there is no clear scientific evidence that such exposures actually do cause any health effects. Therefore, any talk about disease risk is pure speculation and has no solid scientific foundation. Studies on animals suggest that only high levels of exposure to oestradiol would be likely to induce adverse effects in infancy and such levels are many thousands of times higher than the minute hormone residues that have been shown to be present in beef from animals treated with oestradiol as a growth promoter.

Based on the precautionary principle, it can still be argued that because consumption of hormone residues in hormone-treated meat is an unnecessary additional exposure, it is unacceptable. This is not unreasonable (and would be my own personal standpoint), but it is not a position that is based on scientific evidence, rather it is based on the lack of relevant evidence. It also needs to be recognised that if this position is adopted, it has other implications. For example, in the UK/Europe, pregnant cattle are routinely slaughtered for meat. As levels of oestradiol are enormously high during pregnancy, the levels of oestradiol in meat from such animals is higher than that found as residues in meat from hormone-treated livestock, so should these animals be considered as being hormone-treated?

Let us be clear, the use of hormones for growth promotion purposes are of no benefit to the consumer (except by making the meat marginally cheaper), are of no benefit to the animals that are treated in this way and pose a potential risk to wildlife if excretion of the hormones contaminates pasture or waterways. These are good reasons to oppose the use of hormones in farming livestock: there is no need for opponents of artificial growth promoters to misrepresent the scientific evidence by suggesting that they pose a risk to human health.

    Last updated: May 24 2007

For the Record

Most misleading science stories capture attention but are too fleeting for responses to be newsworthy. Sometimes, this sets up misleading claims that are then repeated in subsequent media discussions and other sources of public information. ‘For the record’ is where scientists are invited to set the record straight.

Topics

Diet and autism, Daily Mail, 23rd June 2009

In an article entitled “I helped my son beat autism by making him give up Weetabix” Polly Tommey explained that she changed her child’s diet and treated him with secretin, which she believes helped regulate his gut and improved his behaviour. She wrote: “there are amazing things being done to help autistic kids, particularly with biomedical intervention - detoxifying children through supplements and probiotics, diet, speech therapy and behaviour analysis.”Read on...

Homeopathy for ovarian cysts, Daily Telegraph, 22nd June 2009

In an interview in the Daily Telegraph , Annabel Croft described how “her life has been transformed by homeopathy”. She had a cyst in her left ovary that caused pain and became convinced that the “homeopathic remedies she took enhanced and perhaps speeded up the healing process”, as the cyst gradually became less painful.Read on...

120 million deaths from swine flu, Daily Express, Metro, Daily Mirror, other media, April 2009

On Monday 27th April 2009, there was widespread speculation about the possibility of a swine ‘flu pandemic resulting from spread of the H1N1 virus from an outbreak in Mexico. Metro led with “Pandemic could kill up to 120m, warn experts” Read on...

Is there a link between patients receiving treatment and the cannabis downgrade?, April 2009

On the 14th April 2009, The Daily Mail featured an article entitled “Cannabis downgrade sees health toll double”. The article reports a rise in “patients receiving Health Service treatment for cannabis misuse” during the three years following reclassification in 2004, stating that “among children the number of cases leapt by a third”. Read on...


Steroid use amongst 11 year olds, March 2009

On the 7th April 2009 Metro published a front page article entitled “Steroid junkies at the age of 11”. The article stated that steroid use by 11 to 15-year-olds “almost doubled between 2001 and 2007, from 6,800 to 13,300”. The article also referred to figures of hospital admittance for improper use of steroids, but these are not specific to 11 year olds and only provide data in either under or over 18 categories. Read on...

Mouthwash and oral cancer risk, January 2009

Metro reported on 12th January 2009 that “using mouthwash can increase the risk of oral cancer by up to nine times” and that alcohol-containing mouthwashes should be taken off the shelves following a review published in the Australian Dental Journal.  Professor Ian Needleman, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, Director of the International Centre for Evidence-Based Oral Health (ICEBOH) explains below why the review does not provide sufficient evidence to make such strong claims. Read on...

Can perfume make your unborn baby infertile?, September 2008

On the 1^st September, following a Scotland on Sunday article entitled ‘Women warned not to wear perfume during pregnancy’, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and newswires ran stories about the need for pregnant women to avoid cosmetics, perfumes and scented body creams as they may increase the risk of unborn boys developing infertility in later life. These stories were based on a conference paper that Professor Richard Sharpe, who is based at the MRC’s Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, is presenting at the Simpson symposium in Edinburgh. Professor Sharpe’s work is looking at male fertility problems and investigating how these may be caused. His work does not look specifically at the effects of wearing cosmetics, perfumes or scented body creams and he has not issued a warning for pregnant women to avoid these products. Read on...

Are mercury fillings dangerous?, July 2008

On the 30th June 2008 the Daily Mail published a story titled “ ‘Hidden danger’ of mercury leaking from dental fillings”. It said: “mercury fillings given to millions of Britons every year can be dangerous” ¹. The story followed the publication of a statement on the US Food and Drug Administration website which said it was “reviewing evidence about safe use [of mercury fillings], particularly in sensitive subpopulations” and requested comments, supported by empirical data and scientific evidence, concerning the classification of dental amalgam. Read on...

Chlorinated water and birth defects, July 2008

On June 1st 2008, the Mail on Sunday published an article entitled Chlorine in tap water ‘nearly doubles the risk of birth defects’ which claimed that research suggested “drinking tap water while pregnant may double the risk of serious heart or brain defects in the unborn child” and that this “danger comes from chemical by-products in chlorinated water known as trihalomethanes, or THMs, which can be absorbed through the skin”. The Daily Mail subsequently covered the story on June 3rd with an article entitled Drinking or even showering in tap water can double the risk of having deformed children, says study. Read on...

Diet and determining your baby’s sex, April 2008

A recent study suggested that a mother’s energy intake around conception can exert an influence on the sex of the baby. How such an effect is exerted is unknown, but the chances are that diet influences which sperm fertilises the egg rather than affecting survival/implantation of the fertilised egg. Read on...

Chemicals in children, October 2007

Channel 4’s documentary How Toxic Are Your Kids?, aired on October 18th, 2007 claimed “children never used to come into contact with any man-made chemicals, but today children are exposed to tens of thousands, and no one knows for certain what these chemicals are doing to them. Many products we use are full of them, but many have not been tested for their toxicity”. Read on...

Harmful chemicals in make-up and household products, October 2007

In October 2007, the Daily Mail ran a story ("Is Your Make-Up Killing You?") based on a two-part Channel 4 documentary called How toxic are you? which claimed to show that chemicals from make-up are stored in the body and that chemicals in baby products are absorbed into babies. Read on...

Underarm deodorants and breast cancer, September 2007

The Daily Mail, Mirror and Telegraph published claims that women who use deodorants are putting themselves at risk of getting breast cancer. Their articles were based on research which found aluminium in cancerous breast tissue. The scientists involved in this study highlighted aluminium as a possible environmental factor in the development of breast cancer and suggest that underarm deodorants were a likely source of the aluminium. Read on...

Wi-Fi networks, The Independent, June 2007

There have been a number of recent newspaper articles and a BBC Panorama documentary about the alleged harm of radiation from Wi-Fi, or wireless communication networks, on health. The Daily Telegraph reported in April the potential dangers to children from placing computers on their laps, while an article in The Independent in June described how a naturopath diagnosed her patient as suffering from “overexposure to Wi-Fi and mobile phone frequencies”. Read on...

Heatwave advice to pregnant women, The Metro, The Times and Daily Mail, June 2007

In June 2007, The Metro, The Times and Daily Mail ran a story based on a press release from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) which reported a “heatwave warning for pregnant women”. The articles were headlined, “Sun can damage unborn babies” (The Times) and “Pregnant women should avoid the sun” (Metro, Daily Mail). These articles stated that the research publicized by the RCOG, which used records of women who gave birth in Aberdeen in the 1950’s, found that exposure to high temperatures in the first three months could lead to babies being born with a slightly lower birth weight. Some articles went on to link such babies with being prone to a low IQ and learning disabilities and as being more likely to exhibit behavioural problems at school. Read on...

Sodium benzoate in soft drinks, The Independent, May 2007

In May 2007 The Independent ran a story that sodium benzoate, a common preservative in soft drinks, damages the mitochondria in cells. Sodium benzoate (E211) is used in carbonated drinks to prevent mould growth. The article was headlined “Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health”. Read on...

Interpretation of clinical trial data, The Daily Telegraph, April 2007

The Daily Telegraph ran a story linking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use with an increased risk of heart attack. The article was headlined High doses of ibuprofen raises heart attack risk and stated that that for some individuals the risk of heart attack or stroke is nine times higher when taking ibuprofen. According to this report, these results will bring more anxiety to the millions of arthritis sufferers in Britain. Read on...

Bisphenol A in food packaging, Daily Express, January 2007

The Daily Express published a story about the use of bisphenol A in food packaging. The article was headlined “Fears over gender bender chemicals in food packaging” and stated that “experts voiced fresh fears” about a chemical intermediate called Bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is used as the basic building block to manufacture high performance plastics notably including polycarbonate and epoxy resins. Read on...

Growth hormones in livestock, Daily Mail, July 2006

The Daily Mail published claims that a Veterinary Products Committee (VCP) Working Group stifled arguments that hormone residues in beef are a threat to public health. Professor Richard Sharpe, who sat on the committee as an expert in reproductive development and fertility, addresses the claims. Read on...

If you would like any further information on a response or would like to draw attention to a similar error or on 020 7478 4380.

    Last updated: June 26 2009

Reading Room Reviews

    Last updated: November 28 2006

Reading Room Reviews

The Elements of Murder, by John Emsley Reviewed by Richard Van Noorden Did you know that Saddam Hussein had a secret weapon, thallium sulphate, and bumped off his opponents by adding it to their yoghurt, orange juice, vodka or Coca-Cola? Or that UNICEF's attempt in the 1970s to provide safe drinking water resulted in mass arsenic poisoning? John Emsley's latest book is a tour through an area of chemistry which fascinates and frightens in equal measure: the chemistry of poison.Emsley leads us through a series of deliberate murders: compelling human drama which includes both domestic serial killers and such famous figures as Napoleon, Mozart, and King Charles II. He tells us too of accidental deaths and environmental poisoning disasters. These lurid tales are woven in with information on the chemistry of the potentially toxic elements mercury, arsenic, antimony, lead, thallium, and some others. We learn how they were discovered, their benefits and dangers, and the results of their presence in some rather surprising places: wallpaper, paint, and pottery glaze to name but a few. Emsley spent 20 years as a researcher and lecturer in chemistry before becoming a science writer and as in his previous books he has included a formidable amount of research here. The chemistry is all there if you want it, with a useful glossary as well. But what really stands out are the lovingly detailed descriptions of individual poison cases: the diary entries, the emotional blackmail, the evidence and, more often than not, the hanging. So The Elements of Murder can be approached on two levels: as a memorable general interest read and as a reference on selected chemical elements, to be dipped into now and then. Only the most committed reader would trawl through all of the chemistry on first viewing, but its presence is crucial: it shows us that poisoning is a complicated business. A toxic element on its own is not guaranteed to kill: a successful poisoning depends on such factors as the dosage, the method of administering the poison, the particular compound in which the toxic element is contained, and the entirely unpredictable reactions of an individual. This point is clearly illustrated by the amazing number and variety of poisoning stories we are told. While the book’s content is fascinating, the same cannot be said for its style. Facts about chemicals are repeated, mistakes in spelling and grammar are liberally scattered around, and the last chapter, ‘Other poisonous elements’, feels like an inconclusive add-on. Perhaps the copy-editor has not done their job properly. Unfortunately this makes for a tough read at times, though Emsley’s ability to find interesting facts compensates for that. For despite its flaws, this book is gripping. It’s the eternal lure of the poison story: why did someone want to murder another human being, how did they do it, and how, despite the subtlety of their method, were they detected? And how could I tell if I were being poisoned? In some cases, such tales are based on ill-founded rumour. In this book, the facts are impeccably researched and laid out before us. Recommended to anyone interested in the darker side of human nature. Buy this book from Amazon (UK)