- Email: [email protected]
Faith, hope and charity
COMMENT
Faith, hope and charity UK regulations are cracking down on charities that promote bogus treatments. The rules should be applied strictly, says Tom Chivers
JOSIE FORD
CHARITIES offering unproven or pseudoscientific treatments will face new regulations from the UK Charities Commission. Will this be enough to protect vulnerable people? There is a special role in British society for charities, especially during the season of giving. You can donate to everything from school sports days to Siberian tigers, but to qualify for tax breaks, the recipients must show, with evidence, that there is a public benefit to what they do. But, last year, I found that some charities offering complementary and alternative medicine seemed to be playing fast and loose with the words “evidence” and “benefit”. One large charity was offering to pay for autistic children to have pseudoscientific treatments to “cure” autism. Another was promoting similar treatments, including a bleach-like substance
Wing and a prayer How do we decide who to trust when human and AI disagree, asks Peter Lemme ON 29 October, Lion Air flight JT 610 crashed into the sea off Jakarta with the loss of 189 lives. The investigation continues, but flight information recovered from the wreckage indicates that the pilots were battling with the autopilot. In a situation like that, who should we rely on: human or machine? 24 | NewScientist | 22/29 December 2018
The automated system was supposed to correct the aircraft’s pitch. Instead, it repeatedly pushed the nose down towards the ground. Thirteen minutes after take off, the plane was lost. Every time something is added to make a plane safer, new ways are created to make it less safe. In 1988, the first commercial jets
arrived that made machines the leaders. The pilots can only operate within boundaries set by the machine. For the first time, pilots trusted the onboard artificial intelligence to stop them from doing something stupid. Pilots can’t know everything that is happening. To prevent them being overwhelmed with information, the data made available is only that which is deemed necessary to take the required action. Problems noted
“The data made available to the pilots is only that deemed necessary to take the required action”
called MMS. A third claimed that Wi-Fi made you ill. There is no good scientific evidence for any of these claims. Last week, the UK Charities Commission announced that it will be stricter in its demands for evidence. Specifically, if a group claims that alternative treatments can reduce the symptoms of, or cure, a condition, it will have to support that claim with scientific, peer-reviewed evidence. It doesn’t mean that every charity will have to dig out a meta-analysis to prove that aromatherapy joss sticks smell nice, say. If a charity claims only to offer “relief and comfort”, less stringent forms of evidence like personal testimony will do. But those claiming they can treat cancer will need to show that what they are doing actually works. It all seems sensible, but how will the guidelines survive contact
by the aircraft that don’t require pilot action are logged for the maintenance crew to read later. Thus a pilot’s awareness must stretch across multiple realities, in which the aeroplane behaves differently depending on its status. These realities are distinguished by all the combinations of failures that might be encountered. Many of these combinations can never be fully anticipated, even by a machine intelligence. Humans are able to adapt to new realities better than any AI, especially because they hold human traits like sacrifice, trust, judgement and a disparate
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Tom Chivers is a science writer based in London, UK
knowledge base to draw from. There is no simple answer to whether humans or AIs should take the lead in cockpits. As a leader, the pilot questions the machine when it misbehaves. As a follower, the pilot questions themselves when the machine intervenes. A machine is trustworthy only while everything in the plane is working optimally, and JT 610 had a record of maintenance issues. Pilots must be ready and able to transition from follower to leader when the situation calls for it. ■ Peter Lemme is an aviation expert writing at satcom.guru
ANALYSIS Climate politics
SARAH SILBIGER / EYEVINE
with reality? There are actually studies showing that homeopathic treatments work. It is just there are more and better studies showing they don’t. How strict will the commission be? The guideline tightening follows a review by the Good Thinking Society, a non-profit group that promotes rational thinking. It pointed out that the old guidelines were fairly solid, but often weren’t being followed. The new guidelines look even better, says Michael Marshall at the society, but the proof of the pudding will be in how they are applied. The regulation change is a small but significant victory in a war against quackery. Those who approach charities for medical help are often at their most vulnerable. Making it harder for unscrupulous or misguided groups to offer them snake oil can only be a good thing. But if charities can get away with waving an underpowered study with no controls as scientific evidence, the new guidelines will have been a waste of time. It would be better for the commission to demand bodies show the preponderance of evidence supports their case. ■
A green deal that could save the planet Chelsea Whyte
years, but that is because we are used to economic growth being inextricably linked to fossil fuels. In the early parts of this decade, there were signs this link had broken, but fresh emissions figures suggest we aren’t there yet. Decoupling economic growth from fossil fuels will require a massive expansion of renewable energy sources. Thankfully, these are getting cheaper every year. A 2017 report by the International Renewable Energy Agency says that by 2020, renewable power will, on average, be cheaper
A PROPOSAL to eliminate US greenhouse gas emissions and create millions of jobs is garnering growing support, in part thanks to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured above), a 29-year-old, progressive Congresswoman just voted into office. Called the Green New Deal, its goals are wide-ranging. They include moving the US to 100 per cent clean and renewable electricity by 2035 and zero net emissions by 2050, while creating 10 million energy infrastructure jobs. “The goals of the Green New Tying climate change solutions to Deal include moving the US jobs is clever. It could follow the path to success of the Affordable Care Act to 100 per cent renewable (ACA), an Obama-era law that increased electricity by 2035” access to healthcare. Many people initially railed against the potential than fossil fuels. In some cases, solar cost of that act, but the benefits and wind will provide the lowest-cost were enjoyed widely and the backlash electricity from any source. was swift when US Congress later With this in mind, Robert Pollin, attempted to reverse the law. The an economist at the University of same may happen if climate change Massachusetts Amherst, estimates policy can provide secure, well-paid the Green New Deal would require a jobs. (As New Scientist went to press, budget of about $600 million per year. the ACA faced fresh legal challenges.) That would fund retraining and It might seem unfeasible to tackle paying workers, pensions for those such a large transformation in just 17 in energy industries that must
shut down, and equipment to help communities that are dependent on fossil fuels to transition to renewable energy. The US government would need to institute clean-energy tax breaks, vehicle emissions standards and potentially a carbon tax. A similar idea is being floated across the pond. Last week, a group led by French economist Thomas Piketty called for a new European body to fund research and development, and to aim to make industry greener. Economically, these ideas could work. Politically, they are a harder sell. Proponents argue that the past few years have seen halting progress on climate change, so now is the time to stop taking the problem step by step and launch a climate-change moonshot to transform economies. The trouble is, according to an analysis by the Carbon Brief news site, the clean electricity goal in the Green New Deal would only get the US halfway to the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100. Achieving this goal could reduce devastating impacts on ecosystems and human health, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So it isn’t the whole answer, but it is at least the start of political leaders taking climate change seriously. Coupled with lowered consumption and changes in land use, plans like the Green New Deal could be the way we achieve a climate our grandchildren’s grandchildren can live with. ■ 22/29 December 2018 | NewScientist | 25
Faith, hope and charity UK regulations are cracking down on charities that promote bogus treatments. The rules should be applied strictly, says Tom Chivers
JOSIE FORD
CHARITIES offering unproven or pseudoscientific treatments will face new regulations from the UK Charities Commission. Will this be enough to protect vulnerable people? There is a special role in British society for charities, especially during the season of giving. You can donate to everything from school sports days to Siberian tigers, but to qualify for tax breaks, the recipients must show, with evidence, that there is a public benefit to what they do. But, last year, I found that some charities offering complementary and alternative medicine seemed to be playing fast and loose with the words “evidence” and “benefit”. One large charity was offering to pay for autistic children to have pseudoscientific treatments to “cure” autism. Another was promoting similar treatments, including a bleach-like substance
Wing and a prayer How do we decide who to trust when human and AI disagree, asks Peter Lemme ON 29 October, Lion Air flight JT 610 crashed into the sea off Jakarta with the loss of 189 lives. The investigation continues, but flight information recovered from the wreckage indicates that the pilots were battling with the autopilot. In a situation like that, who should we rely on: human or machine? 24 | NewScientist | 22/29 December 2018
The automated system was supposed to correct the aircraft’s pitch. Instead, it repeatedly pushed the nose down towards the ground. Thirteen minutes after take off, the plane was lost. Every time something is added to make a plane safer, new ways are created to make it less safe. In 1988, the first commercial jets
arrived that made machines the leaders. The pilots can only operate within boundaries set by the machine. For the first time, pilots trusted the onboard artificial intelligence to stop them from doing something stupid. Pilots can’t know everything that is happening. To prevent them being overwhelmed with information, the data made available is only that which is deemed necessary to take the required action. Problems noted
“The data made available to the pilots is only that deemed necessary to take the required action”
called MMS. A third claimed that Wi-Fi made you ill. There is no good scientific evidence for any of these claims. Last week, the UK Charities Commission announced that it will be stricter in its demands for evidence. Specifically, if a group claims that alternative treatments can reduce the symptoms of, or cure, a condition, it will have to support that claim with scientific, peer-reviewed evidence. It doesn’t mean that every charity will have to dig out a meta-analysis to prove that aromatherapy joss sticks smell nice, say. If a charity claims only to offer “relief and comfort”, less stringent forms of evidence like personal testimony will do. But those claiming they can treat cancer will need to show that what they are doing actually works. It all seems sensible, but how will the guidelines survive contact
by the aircraft that don’t require pilot action are logged for the maintenance crew to read later. Thus a pilot’s awareness must stretch across multiple realities, in which the aeroplane behaves differently depending on its status. These realities are distinguished by all the combinations of failures that might be encountered. Many of these combinations can never be fully anticipated, even by a machine intelligence. Humans are able to adapt to new realities better than any AI, especially because they hold human traits like sacrifice, trust, judgement and a disparate
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Tom Chivers is a science writer based in London, UK
knowledge base to draw from. There is no simple answer to whether humans or AIs should take the lead in cockpits. As a leader, the pilot questions the machine when it misbehaves. As a follower, the pilot questions themselves when the machine intervenes. A machine is trustworthy only while everything in the plane is working optimally, and JT 610 had a record of maintenance issues. Pilots must be ready and able to transition from follower to leader when the situation calls for it. ■ Peter Lemme is an aviation expert writing at satcom.guru
ANALYSIS Climate politics
SARAH SILBIGER / EYEVINE
with reality? There are actually studies showing that homeopathic treatments work. It is just there are more and better studies showing they don’t. How strict will the commission be? The guideline tightening follows a review by the Good Thinking Society, a non-profit group that promotes rational thinking. It pointed out that the old guidelines were fairly solid, but often weren’t being followed. The new guidelines look even better, says Michael Marshall at the society, but the proof of the pudding will be in how they are applied. The regulation change is a small but significant victory in a war against quackery. Those who approach charities for medical help are often at their most vulnerable. Making it harder for unscrupulous or misguided groups to offer them snake oil can only be a good thing. But if charities can get away with waving an underpowered study with no controls as scientific evidence, the new guidelines will have been a waste of time. It would be better for the commission to demand bodies show the preponderance of evidence supports their case. ■
A green deal that could save the planet Chelsea Whyte
years, but that is because we are used to economic growth being inextricably linked to fossil fuels. In the early parts of this decade, there were signs this link had broken, but fresh emissions figures suggest we aren’t there yet. Decoupling economic growth from fossil fuels will require a massive expansion of renewable energy sources. Thankfully, these are getting cheaper every year. A 2017 report by the International Renewable Energy Agency says that by 2020, renewable power will, on average, be cheaper
A PROPOSAL to eliminate US greenhouse gas emissions and create millions of jobs is garnering growing support, in part thanks to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured above), a 29-year-old, progressive Congresswoman just voted into office. Called the Green New Deal, its goals are wide-ranging. They include moving the US to 100 per cent clean and renewable electricity by 2035 and zero net emissions by 2050, while creating 10 million energy infrastructure jobs. “The goals of the Green New Tying climate change solutions to Deal include moving the US jobs is clever. It could follow the path to success of the Affordable Care Act to 100 per cent renewable (ACA), an Obama-era law that increased electricity by 2035” access to healthcare. Many people initially railed against the potential than fossil fuels. In some cases, solar cost of that act, but the benefits and wind will provide the lowest-cost were enjoyed widely and the backlash electricity from any source. was swift when US Congress later With this in mind, Robert Pollin, attempted to reverse the law. The an economist at the University of same may happen if climate change Massachusetts Amherst, estimates policy can provide secure, well-paid the Green New Deal would require a jobs. (As New Scientist went to press, budget of about $600 million per year. the ACA faced fresh legal challenges.) That would fund retraining and It might seem unfeasible to tackle paying workers, pensions for those such a large transformation in just 17 in energy industries that must
shut down, and equipment to help communities that are dependent on fossil fuels to transition to renewable energy. The US government would need to institute clean-energy tax breaks, vehicle emissions standards and potentially a carbon tax. A similar idea is being floated across the pond. Last week, a group led by French economist Thomas Piketty called for a new European body to fund research and development, and to aim to make industry greener. Economically, these ideas could work. Politically, they are a harder sell. Proponents argue that the past few years have seen halting progress on climate change, so now is the time to stop taking the problem step by step and launch a climate-change moonshot to transform economies. The trouble is, according to an analysis by the Carbon Brief news site, the clean electricity goal in the Green New Deal would only get the US halfway to the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100. Achieving this goal could reduce devastating impacts on ecosystems and human health, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So it isn’t the whole answer, but it is at least the start of political leaders taking climate change seriously. Coupled with lowered consumption and changes in land use, plans like the Green New Deal could be the way we achieve a climate our grandchildren’s grandchildren can live with. ■ 22/29 December 2018 | NewScientist | 25