#HackAHairDryer wasn't the best way to break stereotypes about women in STEM

Oh, IBM. What were you thinking? In a fiasco similar to the European Union's ill-conceived "Science: It's a Girl Thing" video, IMB has been called out by actual women scientists and engineers for this video:

The Twitter response is at once angry, hilarious, and sad:

I code. But it's to mess around with salamander DNA sequences, not hair dryers. Minor details. #HackAHairDryer

— Cathy Newman (@cenewman0) December 7, 2015

I like makeup and hair care. I also like building robots. Guess which one I'd like to see @ibm promoting to women? #HackAHairDryer

— Randi Lee Harper (@randileeharper) December 7, 2015

Tell this woman to #HackAHairDryer - I dare you. pic.twitter.com/vkr4PHARzj

— Miles Kurland (@Malacandra) December 7, 2015

@IBM shame I don't use a hairdryer. I guess that's the end of my career in STEM. Brb quitting my astrophysics PhD. #HackAHairDryer

— Jessica V (@ThatAstroKitten) December 7, 2015

Here's to every woman at @IBM who tried to stop #HackAHairDryer but wasn't listened to

— Shannon Turner (@svt827) December 7, 2015

Are we #womeninstem going to get a 'mea culpa' apology for the patronising #HackAHairDryer nonsense, @IBM?

— Dr Mel Thomson (@DrMel_T) December 7, 2015

According to Business Insider, IBM has declined to respond.

UPDATE: It's been pulled.

Google's celebration of Jonas Salk makes a timely point

Google Doodles are well-known for hot political and social issues. A couple of years ago, their July 4th homepage was all about internet freedom. During the Sochi Winter Games, they doodled their defiance of Russia's anti-gay laws.

Today, they ran a comic that celebrates the 100th birthday of Jonas Salk, father of the polio vaccine.

So, what's controversial about that?

When my mom was a kid, polio was one of the biggest fears of every parent and child. One of her best friends, and next door neighbour, caught the disease. The disease could cause paralysis, sometimes permanently, and could result in being confined to an iron lung. In the worst cases, people died. Neil Young is among many celebrity survivors.

Although the disease is making a comeback in some parts of the world, polio is one of those diseases, like smallpox, measles, diphtheria and pertussis, that were no longer considered common threats to childhood health by the time I was growing up. And that was thanks to vaccines and public immunization programmes.

But the "anti-vax" movement, a loose conglomeration of people who have religious, pseudoscientific, or other non-medical objections to vaccines, has been gaining steam. No thanks to celebrity non-scientists like Jenny McCarthy, preventable outbreaks of things like measles are on the rise.

Dr. Salk, by the way, is also celebrated for his selflessness. He forfeited billions of dollars by refusing to patent the polio vaccine.

Now that another flu season is on its way, the push is on to vaccinate as many people as possible against it. Each year, approximately 3,500 Canadians die from the flu. But the flu shot can prevent up to 80% of flu infections in healthy individuals.

While we're waiting for that ebola vaccine, maybe it would be a good idea to get vaccinated against a disease that is statistically more likely to hospitalize or kill you. And say a silent thanks to Dr. Salk and all the other scientists who have made modern life much less scary.

Thanks to David for pointing me to this nice bit of public health advocacy.

Axe says men are their hair, women are their cleavage

This Axe ad is extra weird: a disembodied male haircut falls in lust with some disembodied breasts:



But is its message true?

A 2012 study by Think Eye Tracking showed men and women these two photos:

Here's a "heat map"which shows how women stared at the image:

Here's the same, for men:

Red is "hot," meaning that those parts were stared at most intensely. Green is just a glance. (And I have no idea why they couldn't use a shot of a man looking at the camera.)

Here is the conclusion:

Women pay more attention to his left hand; he is wearing a wedding ring. Men are less interested in the marital status of the young lady and pay more attention to her face, breasts and stomach. 

Whereas the women looked at her bikini the men are frankly just not interested in what she is wearing! This level of detail would be impossible to gain from traditional market research techniques of asking people what they remember looking. 

As I said, people don’t always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Few men would have volunteered that they looked at the man’s assets partly because it’s a social taboo but also because glances can happen so quickly that they simply did not register in the conscious mind. 

In the same way that participants who take part in research often don’t have clear insight into why they make decisions.

Interestingly, another study using sexually explicit images, found:

...men are more likely than women to first look at a woman's face before other parts of the body, and women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males. 

Gender stereotyping: it's complicated.

Tip via AdFreak

Canadian Parliament to face the "personhood" debate

Sharable ad from the "Not Yet Born" blog,
linked from Stephen Woodworth's official site.

If there's one issue Canada's majority Conservative government would rather not talk about, it's abortion. Not covered by any specific legislation since 1988, the deeply divisive medical procedure is something many Canadians, regardless of their personal beliefs, just don't feel comfortable talking about in public.

That may soon change, however, as Kitchener's Conservative MP, backbencher Stephen Woodworth, has convinced his party to let him have an hour of Parliament's time to discuss Motion 312, his request that "a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth."

The Honourable Member has positioned himself as the Canadian champion of this cause, similar to the American anti-abortion Personhood movement.

In his own words:

“Canada’s 400 year old definition of human being says children are not human beings until the moment of complete birth”, he said.  “I’ve concluded that modern medical science will inform us that children are in reality human beings at some point before the moment of complete birth.  Canadians need to know there’s no human rights for children before complete birth.
...
A respectful dialogue to update a 400 year old definition of human being with the aid of twenty-first century information will benefit everyone. Whatever view one has about other issues, does it make medical sense in the twenty-first century to say that a child is not a human being until the moment of complete birth?  Members of Parliament have a duty not to accept any law that says some human beings are not human.”

The complication, of course, comes when we try to determine what makes a developing human a "person".

In the United States, the debate is a religious one:

"Personhood is a movement working to respect the God-given right to life by recognizing all human beings as persons who are 'created in the image of God' from the beginning of their biological development, without exceptions."

 This has resulted in attempts to overthrow the legality of abortion in some states, such as Mississippi (where the failed "personhood amendment"would have given full legal rights to a fertilized egg) and Ohio (where the "heartbeat bill" pending debate would ban abortions at the first recordable sign of cardiovascular activity around 9+ weeks).

Mr. Woodworth is proposing a "scientific" approach to determining what makes  human a "person" under the law. But such definitions will by their very nature be philosophical, since the definition must be clarified to be tested: does a heartbeat make us fully human? Reaction to outside stimulus? Observable brain activity? The ability to survive outside the womb? Or simply having been fertilized, and therefore having become genetically distinct from the mother?

This is a classic "slippery slope", an it slides in two opposite directions. On one end is the total ban on abortion from the moment of conception. On the other is the ability to terminally abort a healthy full-term baby. (Nobody really wants the latter, but it's what Mr. Woodworth is implying as the problem.)

In the end, it will come to the same argument about whose rights triumph: a self-aware pregnant woman's control over her own body versus the state's power to compel her to carry the developing human inside her to term. And it will be ugly.

The wonderful world of David Attenborough

BBC Nature Presenter and documentary legend David Attenborough is one of my personal heroes. My nature-loving son's too. So it was sad to hear that the aged voice of nature will probably not make another show.

The BBC paid tribute to one of its legends with this compilation of breathtaking footage from some of his shows to that voice giving us a spoken-word rendition of jazz standard "What a Wonderful World":



Mr. Attenborough just recently wound up his last series, Frozen Planet. You may know it from this amazing video that is making the viral rounds:



What a wonderful world. And it's all the more wonderful when described by someone who loves it so much.

"Sweater Kittens"?

Image and tip via Copyranter

Not only is it a stupid ad for silly glasses, it's also unscientific.

If they had read Ivan Raszl's latest post on Creative Bits, they'd know that sweater kittens are the second place men look:

Women, on the other hand...

The French screw up evolution. Again.

Yes, this ad is grotesque. Posted on the  I Believe in Advertising blog, it  is by DraftFCB Paris, for the CHRONIC'ART web magazine:

“What impact will new technologies have on human evolution?”
Click to enlarge. If you dare.

It also shows the difference between art and science. Or, at least, between art and bad science.

Evolution is one of the most misunderstood sciences of all, and you can blame it all on France as well. Specifically one Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a biologist who predated Charles Darwin, and who believed in something called "soft inheritance" — that organisms could pass on acquired traits to their offspring. The classic example of this is the (seemingly-logical) theory that giraffes grew such long necks because they kept reaching up for higher leaves.

Evolution, however, does not work that way. It happens through millions of random genetic mutations, most of which get weeded out by natural and sexual selection. Those that make it through typically (but not always) seem, in hindsight, to be designed for their environmental niche. In reality, their mutant ancestors just happened to do a little better there.

The Lamarkian fallacy seems to come naturally to human beings. Evolved, ourselves, to guess the motives of other self-aware humans, we mistakenly infer intelligence and will in things and processes that have none.

Nobody is immune. How often do you hear phrases like "my computer hates me" or "my car just won't cooperate"? We may be half-joking when we say these things, but superstition is current and real, even among otherwise skeptical people.

That's why most people misunderstand evolution. A friend of mine recently posted, jokingly, on Facebook a comment about whether current grooming preferences against pubic hair would eventually lead to hairless humans. This ad says essentially the same thing — that whatever changes technology is introducing into our lifestyle now will change our physical being.

Don't worry. It won't. Although a few technologies have changed us. The invention of shoes, between 26,000 and 40,000 years ago, changed the shape of our feet. Domesticating and milking cows lead to lactose tolerance, independently, in two different Eurasian and African populations.

But these were artificial changes to the human environment that were long-term and consistent, allowing blind old evolution to eventually stumble its way into the niches they created. At today's pace of technological change, how could we possibly adapt — over scores of generations — to something as fleeting as an iPad or a 3D TV?

Stick with the art, CHRONIC'ART. There are enough people talking shit about science already. You are not helping.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist, but I play one on social media.

Science Rules!

Google's doodle today celebrates Thomas Edison's 164th birthday birthday.

(Go to the homepage. It moves.)

But this is not a great time for science in the United States. Tomorrow is Charles Darwin's birthday. The "father of evolution" is a key figure in our understanding of ourselves as a species and as ourselves. And yet he is still a controversial figure down south.

In an interview with beloved TV science educator Bill Nye "The Science Guy", Popular Mechanics confronted him with the following:

In a recent survey of 926 public high school biology teachers across the nation, only 28 percent of teachers taught evolution as a well-supported fundamental idea of science. Meanwhile, 13 percent openly supported "intelligent design" in the classroom, and 60 percent fell somewhere in-between. This majority presented evolution cautiously—by including non-scientific viewpoints, by limiting discussion to genetics, or by saying that students only needed to learn the material to pass exams.

Bill's response was "it's horrible."

"Science is the key to our future, and if you don't believe in science, then you're holding everybody back. And it's fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don't believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don't believe in science, that's a recipe for disaster. We talk about the Internet. That comes from science. Weather forecasting. That comes from science. The main idea in all of biology is evolution. To not teach it to our young people is wrong."

So what went wrong? There are many who will blame fundamentalist religion for the anti-science movement, but as a humanist I can't give religion any more credit than any other man-made form of persuasion — including politics, fashion and advertising.

People aren't stupid. They are allowing themselves to believe that the universe was designed, and is being ruled, by an anthropomorphic, omnipotent king. But there are many others who believe in other unknowable things, too. faith and superstition seem to come along with the human mental package.

No, I think that the reason people turn away from scientific explanations is because they are overwhelmed by the cold complexity of it all.

Which do you prefer?

You are a beloved child of God, put on this planet to serve Him. Submit to His will, and whatever happens to you here, you will have eternal bliss in heaven with everyone good who has ever died.

Versus

You are a product of random genetic mutation, shaped by environmental conditions, that just happens to be self-aware. However, many of your thoughts and actions are probably due to heredity. You live on a tiny, fragile planet in a vast nothingness, and the entire existence of your species is an insignificant blip in time. When you cease to function, your thoughts and experiences will terminate and the only purpose of your life will be the genes and memes that you have propagated.

But there is another way. Faith does not preclude science.

Pretty much every religious person is of the "salad bar" variety, picking and choosing what tenets to follow. (If you don't believe me, read this.)

And the entirely rational human being does not exist either. We are all affected by superstition and magical thinking. (If you don't believe me, read this.)

It is not a one-thing-or-another game. Scientific education just makes people more appreciative of the world they live in. In me, and also in my young son, science opens a world of wonder and discovery. Every day, some new secret is unlocked that helps us understand who we are, why we are, and what we can do to make a difference.

The problem for me is education. And it's not the teachers' fault either.

Bill Nye said, "They're doing their job but they're under tremendous pressure. The 60 percent who are cautious—those are the people who are really up against it. They want to keep their job, and they love teaching science, and their children are really excited about it, and yet they've got some people insisting they can't teach the most fundamental idea in all of biology."

But there's more to it than that. And Canadians are not immune. Education has become commoditized. Instead of celebrating teachers who invent creative ways to inspire students about science, we are concerned about standardization and "accountability". These are political solutions, not educational ones.

If we can't fix the curriculum, I think its up to science champions to bring science education to the mainstream media. Behemoths like BBC, National Geographic and Discovery help, but those serve a niche market. Teaching kids about science should be embedded into everyday media experiences. It should be interesting and accessible. It needs to be a Schoolhouse Rock or Hinterland Who's Who for this generation.

Who's with me? I know of a few local museums that could certainly champion this cause. Call me.

The genius box

In a news release that shocked nobody, The Nielsen Co. reported that young children are watching more TV now than in any year since 1995. This includes DVDs and PVRed shows. Thirty-two hours a week, on average.

Now, I don't pretend to be the world's greatest parent. Like everyone else, I'm making it up as I go along. We have certain things we are careful about: nutrition (mostly homemade food, organic when it counts), physical safety, streetsmarts, exercise, athletic skills, socialization. But on other things, we are more like our parents. And TV is one of them.

At Four years, 11 months, and change, Ladman loves to watch television. I don't think he's up to 32 hours a week, but he does love to tune in when he gets up in the morning, and right after school. I did the same, when I was a kid, so it doesn't seem that harmful to me. Hell, I work in advertising. I'm cynical that way.

What's different with my son is his viewing habits. When I was a kid, I loved nature and science documentaries. So did my wife. And so, naturally, does he. But while we had to wait for our weekly dose of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, he gets his shows on demand, recorded on PVR, or purchased on DVD. Over and over again.

Some favourites have been the whole BBC Walking With Dinosaurs franchise, as well as the many nature shows produced and/or narrated by David Attenborough (Blue Planet, Life in Cold Blood, Planet Earth). Recently, he has started to gravitate towards nature adventurers like the Crocodile Hunter (we don't tell him how that one ended), Snakemaster, Nigel Marven,Jules Sylvester, and Rob Bredl.



One that I'm not entirely sure of is "Bite Me" with Dr. Mike Leahy. This guy's a masochistic virologist who allows himself to get bitten, stung, envenomated and parasitized by some of the world's creepiest crawlies. Considering Ladman managed to get stung by a jellyfish and bitten by a garter snake this summer, I'm not sure this is a great influence.

But what I'm getting at here is that TV is like anything. It's the content that matters. My son exercises, socializes, gets read to, plays imaginative games (with rubber snakes or live bugs, of course!)... but he also enjoys his shows. And, as a result of watching guys with PhDs and nature nuts run around in khakis, he has a picked up a surprisingly rich scientific vocabulary for a kid his age.

The downside is that the TV shows on National Geographic and other channels are full of commercials, so we get constant advice from the boy as to which brand of yogurt or paper towels we should be buying. He's a sucker for ads. Karma's a bitch.

The thing that really amazed me happened just last night. He insisted on taking a small plastic baggie with him into the bath. (He loves playing with water.) He kept filling it up, and squeezing the water out, over and over again, until he turned to me and said "Dad! Look! This is how my heart works!"

You win this one, television.