- Email: [email protected]
Could still be a contender
EDITORIAL
LOCATIONS UK Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552 USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217 201 Mission Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel +1 415 908 3348 Fax +1 415 704 3125 Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe Customer and subscription services are also available by: Telephone +44 (0) 844 543 80 70 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Post New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] Editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1291 [email protected] Recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 4444 [email protected] UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333 Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, The Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark St, London SE1 OSU Syndication Tribune Media Services International Tel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588
© 2013 Reed Business Information Ltd, England New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079. Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Polestar (Colchester)
The wolf at the door More frequent flu warnings should breed vigilance, not complacency HERE we go again. Four years ago That might change at any time – this week, the world watched agog and if it does, there’s every reason as a newly discovered strain of flu to fear the worst. That’s not just spread, with shocking rapidity, because the new flu seems to be at from its starting point in Mexico the lethal end of the scale. It’s also to countries across the globe. The because we are barely any better H1N1 swine flu did what SARS and equipped to deal with a pandemic H5N1 bird flu failed to do: it than we were in 2009 – despite turned into the pandemic that considerable scope to improve health experts had been dreading. our readiness (see page 28). Luckily, the 2009 flu turned “We can expect alarm bells out to be quite mild. But its relatively low death toll was taken to ring more frequently as we get better at spotting by some as evidence that the dangerous diseases” public health response had been an expensive overreaction. The scientists had cried wolf, they We have made some progress. claimed – perhaps at the behest Better monitoring has allowed of vaccine manufacturers (New us to track this outbreak more Scientist, 22 May 2010, page 26). closely, although we still don’t Now we are faced with a know exactly where it came from worrying new outbreak of flu, (page 14). Last year’s controversial this time from China. So far H7N9 research on what makes a flu avian flu has not been able to pass strain dangerous has proved its readily from person to person. worth by uncovering the H7N9
threat long before we might otherwise have spotted it. As we continue to get better at spotting potentially dangerous infectious diseases, we can expect alarm bells to start ringing more frequently. The danger is that this will breed complacency, rather than vigilance – and that this will be encouraged by those myopic types who will only accept that the warnings are meaningful if the worst actually comes to pass. We cannot afford complacency. We are still a long way from being able to contain flu, and so the risk of a pandemic remains very real. Of course, there is always a place for healthy scepticism. Science, more than any other field of human endeavour, prizes it. But we should not spend so much time debating whether scientists are crying wolf that we forget that wolves really do exist. n
Not just gesture politics? SOME of the sheen has come off the belief that online activism can change the world. The socialmedia revolutions of the Arab Spring and the antics of hacktivist group Anonymous in opposing online censorship have diffused into “slacktivism” – changing a profile picture, or reposting a status update, to show support for a favoured cause.
The suspicion is that such feelgood actions boost self-esteem but achieve precious little else. Some critics say such easy acts might even be damaging if they replace more meaningful action, such as donating to a charity or volunteering time and labour. Are people right to be worried? Perhaps, but the picture is complex. It seems that those
signing up to online petitions are more willing to donate to a cause related to the petition, but give smaller amounts than nonsignatories would (page 24). Savvy fundraisers might be able to take advantage of this and other patterns of behaviour to make people donate more. This is nothing new: campaigners have always had to cajole and flatter donors. Perhaps this means online activism is not so much past it as finally coming of age. n
Could still be a contender
other skills: sparks of potential that we never nurtured or perhaps never even noticed. Taking a systematic approach can help you determine whether your daydream of sporting, social or intellectual achievement stands any chance of becoming reality (see page 40). And if you’re stymied while trying to pursue a
newly discovered talent, you can now call on a crowd of online helpers to help you to overcome creative block (page 21). So there is no need to resign yourself to thoughts of glories that might have been. And if you still can’t unearth a hidden talent – well, at least you can have fun trying. n
MOST of us possess one or two real talents, hopefully discovered while we were still young enough to develop them. But for many people, there remains the nagging possibility that we might possess
4 May 2013 | NewScientist | 5
LOCATIONS UK Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1200 Fax +44 (0) 20 7611 1250 Australia Tower 2, 475 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood, NSW 2067 Tel +61 2 9422 8559 Fax +61 2 9422 8552 USA 225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451 Tel +1 781 734 8770 Fax +1 720 356 9217 201 Mission Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel +1 415 908 3348 Fax +1 415 704 3125 Subscription Service For our latest subscription offers, visit newscientist.com/subscribe Customer and subscription services are also available by: Telephone +44 (0) 844 543 80 70 Email [email protected] Web newscientist.com/subscribe Post New Scientist, Rockwood House, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 3DH One year subscription (51 issues) UK £150 cONTACTS Contact us newscientist.com/contact Who’s who newscientist.com/people General & media enquiries Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] Editorial Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Picture desk Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1268 Display Advertising Tel +44 (0) 20 7611 1291 [email protected] Recruitment Advertising UK Tel +44 (0) 20 8652 4444 [email protected] UK Newsstand Tel +44 (0) 20 3148 3333 Newstrade distributed by Marketforce UK Ltd, The Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark St, London SE1 OSU Syndication Tribune Media Services International Tel +44 (0) 20 7588 7588
© 2013 Reed Business Information Ltd, England New Scientist is published weekly by Reed Business Information Ltd. ISSN 0262 4079. Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper and printed in England by Polestar (Colchester)
The wolf at the door More frequent flu warnings should breed vigilance, not complacency HERE we go again. Four years ago That might change at any time – this week, the world watched agog and if it does, there’s every reason as a newly discovered strain of flu to fear the worst. That’s not just spread, with shocking rapidity, because the new flu seems to be at from its starting point in Mexico the lethal end of the scale. It’s also to countries across the globe. The because we are barely any better H1N1 swine flu did what SARS and equipped to deal with a pandemic H5N1 bird flu failed to do: it than we were in 2009 – despite turned into the pandemic that considerable scope to improve health experts had been dreading. our readiness (see page 28). Luckily, the 2009 flu turned “We can expect alarm bells out to be quite mild. But its relatively low death toll was taken to ring more frequently as we get better at spotting by some as evidence that the dangerous diseases” public health response had been an expensive overreaction. The scientists had cried wolf, they We have made some progress. claimed – perhaps at the behest Better monitoring has allowed of vaccine manufacturers (New us to track this outbreak more Scientist, 22 May 2010, page 26). closely, although we still don’t Now we are faced with a know exactly where it came from worrying new outbreak of flu, (page 14). Last year’s controversial this time from China. So far H7N9 research on what makes a flu avian flu has not been able to pass strain dangerous has proved its readily from person to person. worth by uncovering the H7N9
threat long before we might otherwise have spotted it. As we continue to get better at spotting potentially dangerous infectious diseases, we can expect alarm bells to start ringing more frequently. The danger is that this will breed complacency, rather than vigilance – and that this will be encouraged by those myopic types who will only accept that the warnings are meaningful if the worst actually comes to pass. We cannot afford complacency. We are still a long way from being able to contain flu, and so the risk of a pandemic remains very real. Of course, there is always a place for healthy scepticism. Science, more than any other field of human endeavour, prizes it. But we should not spend so much time debating whether scientists are crying wolf that we forget that wolves really do exist. n
Not just gesture politics? SOME of the sheen has come off the belief that online activism can change the world. The socialmedia revolutions of the Arab Spring and the antics of hacktivist group Anonymous in opposing online censorship have diffused into “slacktivism” – changing a profile picture, or reposting a status update, to show support for a favoured cause.
The suspicion is that such feelgood actions boost self-esteem but achieve precious little else. Some critics say such easy acts might even be damaging if they replace more meaningful action, such as donating to a charity or volunteering time and labour. Are people right to be worried? Perhaps, but the picture is complex. It seems that those
signing up to online petitions are more willing to donate to a cause related to the petition, but give smaller amounts than nonsignatories would (page 24). Savvy fundraisers might be able to take advantage of this and other patterns of behaviour to make people donate more. This is nothing new: campaigners have always had to cajole and flatter donors. Perhaps this means online activism is not so much past it as finally coming of age. n
Could still be a contender
other skills: sparks of potential that we never nurtured or perhaps never even noticed. Taking a systematic approach can help you determine whether your daydream of sporting, social or intellectual achievement stands any chance of becoming reality (see page 40). And if you’re stymied while trying to pursue a
newly discovered talent, you can now call on a crowd of online helpers to help you to overcome creative block (page 21). So there is no need to resign yourself to thoughts of glories that might have been. And if you still can’t unearth a hidden talent – well, at least you can have fun trying. n
MOST of us possess one or two real talents, hopefully discovered while we were still young enough to develop them. But for many people, there remains the nagging possibility that we might possess
4 May 2013 | NewScientist | 5