- Email: [email protected]
Life in the firing line
COMMENT
Life in the firing line Insults, name calling and character assassination are no match for conservation causes backed by evidence, says Chris Packham I WAS taught to read by my father. We had an ancient set of stained and battered encyclopaedias and we started at A and headed to Z. He likes facts. For him they are the fabric of knowledge and knowledge is paramount. Unsurprisingly, I either inherited or imbibed that desire to know things and I long ago realised that the things most worth knowing are those which are true. That’s why I almost became a scientist and I enjoy meeting them, because they are people looking for truth. For me science is the art of understanding truth and beauty; there is no more noble pursuit. It is also why I happily stand up for conservation where there is irrefutable evidence of harm – the decline in birds of prey linked to grouse shooting or the unjustified culling of badgers or misguided demands to hunt foxes.
I do so even when the issues are allegedly controversial and I am accused of extremism simply for stating the facts, or doubt is cast on my right to speak out because I happen to present wildlife programmes for the BBC. Such attacks show that those I oppose have lost the rational case. Of course we all like to play with opinion and subjectivity, and I have my own particular emotional arena in which to do so. I might suggest that Justin Bieber’s entire body of work is not worth one track by the Ramones, but if you disagree with me I wouldn’t fight you over it. As an autist I’d be surprised, but I’d let it go, for the simple reason that if you want to win an argument you must be pragmatic, dispassionate and rigorous – you must argue from a foundation of solid, measured, qualified fact. Then you should win.
Great support act Putting healthcare first can spare festival drug users long-term harm, says Kevin Franciotti DRUGS at music festivals have made headlines again of late. There have been deaths, and some people have ended up with mental health problems. This is why I signed up to work with Kosmicare, a “psychedelic harm reduction” service backed by the organisers of last month’s Boom Festival in Portugal. It aims 18 | NewScientist | 3 September 2016
police or emergency medics get involved. Such interventions can intensify the unwanted effects of drugs and end in a criminal record or the inappropriate diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. The creation of a safe place for them at Boom is a good example of what happens when drug use is made a public health issue, not a judicial one. In 2001, Portugal decriminalised drug use, allowing the main response to be one of healthcare. This helps services like
to minimise risks faced by people who are in a distressed state, often through the use of substances such as LSD and MDMA. Usually, people enduring what is commonly known as a “bad “The work at Boom is a good trip” are at best left to their own example of making drug devices to ride it out. At worst – if use a public health issue, their behaviour becomes erratic, uncontrollable or dangerous – the not a judicial one”
Kosmicare operate in full cooperation with event organisers. Its team at Boom numbers around 80, with at least a dozen people on duty at any time. Some bring medical, psychiatric or psychological training to the task, although most are volunteers. In other countries, people may still view harm reduction approaches as encouraging illegal behaviour, with violators unworthy of support. There are signs that these attitudes, which reflect local drug laws, are changing. For the first time this year, a UK event, Secret Garden Party, tested festival-goers’ drugs
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Chris Packham is a naturalist, TV presenter and author
to ensure safety. And Kosmicare has inspired a group in the UK to offer services at festivals there. But does the approach work? A 2014 paper assessed the impact at Boom: volunteers reported positive outcomes in 90 per cent of interventions, involving nearly 200 people. It was not a controlled study, but the hope is that more extensive assessment will bolster the case for harm reduction. Maybe one summer soon, festival headlines will only be about the music. n Kevin Franciotti (@kevinfranciotti ) is a graduate student at the New School for Social Research in New York City
INSIGHT Human behaviour
Claudio Cricca/Redux/eyevine
I’ve learned that if you peacefully, democratically and calmly present irrefutable evidence or facts in a reasonable and polite way and consequently win an argument, then your adversaries can be left wondering how to react. Reason says they should accept defeat and modify their stance accordingly, but we are talking about humans here, and so often this is a big ask. Ego, pride, selfishness, vested interests and, even worse, money may motivate them to reject that reason and lash out blindly and violently, ignoring the facts. In my idealistic youth this would have angered and disappointed me but as my time to make a difference dwindles, I know I must ignore their mischief, repel their misguided energies and deliberately and calculatedly exploit their weaknesses. For me, winning is not about a victory, it’s about not giving up. And when you’ve got science as your sword and truth as your shield you really have little to fear, so you can just keep going. For as long as it takes. Or for as long as you’ve got. n
–Is this the queue to get a fake baby?–
Why fake babies don’t cut teen pregnancies Sally Adee
a cute, fun doll to take home for a weekend is not an accurate reflection of parenthood. Then there was the positive attention that the dolls create. The study isn’t without its flaws, but no one disputes its main finding – that the dolls didn’t work. This cautionary tale is not an unusual one. Many common-sense interventions crumble under the slightest probing, especially in medicine. The baby simulator is just the most recent example of how social policy can go unexpectedly wrong. Here’s another. In the UK, several areas used financial incentives to
“THERE is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” The Australian government might well have thought of this H. L. Mencken quote last week when the first randomised controlled trial of baby simulators was published. These dolls are meant to reduce teen pregnancy by providing a cautionary experience: they cry, urinate and need to be “fed” around the clock. Over the past decades, they have been rolled out in schools in 89 countries. They were all set for use in Western “There are many commonAustralia when someone asked if sense interventions there was any evidence that they that crumble under the work. The answer, incredibly, was no. slightest probing” About 20 studies had been done but they were all non-randomised and didn’t follow through to see whether promote attendance at adult literacy the dolls reduced pregnancy rates. classes. When this was tested later, it Now a study of more than 2800 was found that attendance was worse girls at 57 schools has found that those for adults given the motivational £5 who cared for a doll may have higher than it was for control groups – paying rates of pregnancy and abortion than small amounts for something can those who didn’t. Behind the alluring actually decrease its perceived value. narrative of the off-putting doll was a Sometimes, the common sense is more complex reality. Giving these girls so alluring that even when disputed by
many trials, it resists correction. For a long time, the policy in many hospitals after an emergency worker had been through a potentially traumatising event was a psychological “debrief” to head off any chance of post-traumatic stress disorder. It is now known that going over the details can actually bring on the condition. Despite the evidence, debriefing still persists. The same is likely to be the case with the baby simulator, says Julie Quinlivan at the University of Notre Dame Australia in Fremantle. A lot of money has already been spent. In Australia, the dolls and their attendant curriculum can cost schools about A$2500 (£1500). And politicians aren’t going to be happy to give up the prospect of a voter-friendly fix. To politicians, whether it works is less important than saying “I’m doing something”, Quinlivan says. It’s easy to see why it’s tempting to just go with your gut – trials can be big undertakings. But when there is room for hidden variables, they are crucial. Trials can even rescue good ideas that fail the common-sense test. When the UK Behavioural Insights Team looked at whether text messages could coax people to pay their court fines, it was met with scepticism. But a trial showed that it increased repayment rates and the amount recovered. Rather than a policy culture based on “Don’t just stand there – do something!” perhaps the approach should be “Don’t just do something”. n 3 September 2016 | NewScientist | 19
Life in the firing line Insults, name calling and character assassination are no match for conservation causes backed by evidence, says Chris Packham I WAS taught to read by my father. We had an ancient set of stained and battered encyclopaedias and we started at A and headed to Z. He likes facts. For him they are the fabric of knowledge and knowledge is paramount. Unsurprisingly, I either inherited or imbibed that desire to know things and I long ago realised that the things most worth knowing are those which are true. That’s why I almost became a scientist and I enjoy meeting them, because they are people looking for truth. For me science is the art of understanding truth and beauty; there is no more noble pursuit. It is also why I happily stand up for conservation where there is irrefutable evidence of harm – the decline in birds of prey linked to grouse shooting or the unjustified culling of badgers or misguided demands to hunt foxes.
I do so even when the issues are allegedly controversial and I am accused of extremism simply for stating the facts, or doubt is cast on my right to speak out because I happen to present wildlife programmes for the BBC. Such attacks show that those I oppose have lost the rational case. Of course we all like to play with opinion and subjectivity, and I have my own particular emotional arena in which to do so. I might suggest that Justin Bieber’s entire body of work is not worth one track by the Ramones, but if you disagree with me I wouldn’t fight you over it. As an autist I’d be surprised, but I’d let it go, for the simple reason that if you want to win an argument you must be pragmatic, dispassionate and rigorous – you must argue from a foundation of solid, measured, qualified fact. Then you should win.
Great support act Putting healthcare first can spare festival drug users long-term harm, says Kevin Franciotti DRUGS at music festivals have made headlines again of late. There have been deaths, and some people have ended up with mental health problems. This is why I signed up to work with Kosmicare, a “psychedelic harm reduction” service backed by the organisers of last month’s Boom Festival in Portugal. It aims 18 | NewScientist | 3 September 2016
police or emergency medics get involved. Such interventions can intensify the unwanted effects of drugs and end in a criminal record or the inappropriate diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. The creation of a safe place for them at Boom is a good example of what happens when drug use is made a public health issue, not a judicial one. In 2001, Portugal decriminalised drug use, allowing the main response to be one of healthcare. This helps services like
to minimise risks faced by people who are in a distressed state, often through the use of substances such as LSD and MDMA. Usually, people enduring what is commonly known as a “bad “The work at Boom is a good trip” are at best left to their own example of making drug devices to ride it out. At worst – if use a public health issue, their behaviour becomes erratic, uncontrollable or dangerous – the not a judicial one”
Kosmicare operate in full cooperation with event organisers. Its team at Boom numbers around 80, with at least a dozen people on duty at any time. Some bring medical, psychiatric or psychological training to the task, although most are volunteers. In other countries, people may still view harm reduction approaches as encouraging illegal behaviour, with violators unworthy of support. There are signs that these attitudes, which reflect local drug laws, are changing. For the first time this year, a UK event, Secret Garden Party, tested festival-goers’ drugs
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Chris Packham is a naturalist, TV presenter and author
to ensure safety. And Kosmicare has inspired a group in the UK to offer services at festivals there. But does the approach work? A 2014 paper assessed the impact at Boom: volunteers reported positive outcomes in 90 per cent of interventions, involving nearly 200 people. It was not a controlled study, but the hope is that more extensive assessment will bolster the case for harm reduction. Maybe one summer soon, festival headlines will only be about the music. n Kevin Franciotti (@kevinfranciotti ) is a graduate student at the New School for Social Research in New York City
INSIGHT Human behaviour
Claudio Cricca/Redux/eyevine
I’ve learned that if you peacefully, democratically and calmly present irrefutable evidence or facts in a reasonable and polite way and consequently win an argument, then your adversaries can be left wondering how to react. Reason says they should accept defeat and modify their stance accordingly, but we are talking about humans here, and so often this is a big ask. Ego, pride, selfishness, vested interests and, even worse, money may motivate them to reject that reason and lash out blindly and violently, ignoring the facts. In my idealistic youth this would have angered and disappointed me but as my time to make a difference dwindles, I know I must ignore their mischief, repel their misguided energies and deliberately and calculatedly exploit their weaknesses. For me, winning is not about a victory, it’s about not giving up. And when you’ve got science as your sword and truth as your shield you really have little to fear, so you can just keep going. For as long as it takes. Or for as long as you’ve got. n
–Is this the queue to get a fake baby?–
Why fake babies don’t cut teen pregnancies Sally Adee
a cute, fun doll to take home for a weekend is not an accurate reflection of parenthood. Then there was the positive attention that the dolls create. The study isn’t without its flaws, but no one disputes its main finding – that the dolls didn’t work. This cautionary tale is not an unusual one. Many common-sense interventions crumble under the slightest probing, especially in medicine. The baby simulator is just the most recent example of how social policy can go unexpectedly wrong. Here’s another. In the UK, several areas used financial incentives to
“THERE is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” The Australian government might well have thought of this H. L. Mencken quote last week when the first randomised controlled trial of baby simulators was published. These dolls are meant to reduce teen pregnancy by providing a cautionary experience: they cry, urinate and need to be “fed” around the clock. Over the past decades, they have been rolled out in schools in 89 countries. They were all set for use in Western “There are many commonAustralia when someone asked if sense interventions there was any evidence that they that crumble under the work. The answer, incredibly, was no. slightest probing” About 20 studies had been done but they were all non-randomised and didn’t follow through to see whether promote attendance at adult literacy the dolls reduced pregnancy rates. classes. When this was tested later, it Now a study of more than 2800 was found that attendance was worse girls at 57 schools has found that those for adults given the motivational £5 who cared for a doll may have higher than it was for control groups – paying rates of pregnancy and abortion than small amounts for something can those who didn’t. Behind the alluring actually decrease its perceived value. narrative of the off-putting doll was a Sometimes, the common sense is more complex reality. Giving these girls so alluring that even when disputed by
many trials, it resists correction. For a long time, the policy in many hospitals after an emergency worker had been through a potentially traumatising event was a psychological “debrief” to head off any chance of post-traumatic stress disorder. It is now known that going over the details can actually bring on the condition. Despite the evidence, debriefing still persists. The same is likely to be the case with the baby simulator, says Julie Quinlivan at the University of Notre Dame Australia in Fremantle. A lot of money has already been spent. In Australia, the dolls and their attendant curriculum can cost schools about A$2500 (£1500). And politicians aren’t going to be happy to give up the prospect of a voter-friendly fix. To politicians, whether it works is less important than saying “I’m doing something”, Quinlivan says. It’s easy to see why it’s tempting to just go with your gut – trials can be big undertakings. But when there is room for hidden variables, they are crucial. Trials can even rescue good ideas that fail the common-sense test. When the UK Behavioural Insights Team looked at whether text messages could coax people to pay their court fines, it was met with scepticism. But a trial showed that it increased repayment rates and the amount recovered. Rather than a policy culture based on “Don’t just stand there – do something!” perhaps the approach should be “Don’t just do something”. n 3 September 2016 | NewScientist | 19