- Email: [email protected]
Seasonal electricity
SEE OUR WEBSITE FOR LETTERS ON: ● Biofuel opportunities ● Seasonal electricity
Can animals think back?
control their behaviour. So while they are mainly locked in the present, they can still have very effective memory skills.
created today’s economy. Everybody who contributes deserves a fair go, and so do those genuinely unable to contribute. Mount Hunter, New South Wales, Australia
Like it or not
From James Fenton The sidebar “Inside the mind of a cow” in the article on animal welfare states that “most species only seem capable of thinking in the present” (23 September, p 7). But what about memory, which is certainly a characteristic of many animals? For example, my dog once buried a bone and found it again when we next passed the site three months later. Even if he had forgotten about it, and I had said the word “bone” to him, this would probably have jogged his memory enough to go and look for it. This is surely “thinking in the past”. And what about squirrels and jays which have to remember numerous burial sites? Farr, Inverness, UK From Rosemary Sharples The mere fact that a pet can be trained, and recognise its owner, proves that it can think about the past. Penshurst, New South Wales, Australia Keith Kendrick of the Babraham Institute, Cambridge, responds: ● All animals have good or even amazing memories for places, individuals and things that are of value to them and their survival. This doesn’t mean they have the same developed concept of time as we do. Animals have only limited volitional control over calling up memories or planning a long way ahead. They are mainly restricted to events in the present triggering memories which then www.newscientist.com
061028_Letters.indd 27
From Brian Clegg Clear thinking seems to be in danger of being overwhelmed by science’s own version of political correctness: anti-anthropism. “Why is the universe the way it is? Most physicists would prefer a deep reason that has nothing to do with our existence,” says your piece on multiple universes (7 October, p 38). Should scientific judgement really be based on what people prefer? Try saying “most scientists would prefer a deep reason for climate change that has nothing to do with our existence” to see the problem with this approach. Upper Wanborough, Wiltshire, UK
Give oldies their due From George Taylor “Is it fair to expect 25-year-olds to pay very high taxes to support perfectly healthy 70-year-olds in retirement?” ask Paul and Anne Ehrlich in their article on population (30 September, p 46). This question deserves thought, given that the 70-year-olds may have already contributed to society by working for up to 55 years, while young people in today’s more affluent societies are in some instances becoming wealthy enough to retire in comfort in their mid-30s. Some might say this is because they have put in the hard yards and have got their just desserts. I would say the 70-year-olds have also put in the hard yards, under different economic circumstances. We have to look at a balance of effort and reward for effort. If the now 70-year-olds hadn’t put in the effort, the 25-year-olds would be hard pushed to find well-paid work and opportunities, because it was the past generation that
Who to believe? From Nia Vaughan Why do members of the public persist in continuing to live an unhealthy lifestyle, despite very public warnings and recommendations from various sources? Perhaps it is because they are highly confused about diet and lifestyle advice. Your article on diabetes being caused by eating fish (30 September, p 18) clearly contradicts UK government advice on the consumption of fish. This tells us that to maintain a healthy diet we should consume at least two or three portions of oily fish per week, for their beneficial oils. Yet in your article Shing-Hwa Liu recommends we limit our fish intake to a maximum of two portions per week to avoid the dangers of mercury-induced diabetes. This is not an isolated case. In the debate over whether children should be given the MMR vaccine, we had so-called “experts” supporting both sides of the argument, both lobbying parents to come round to their way of thinking. No wonder parents were, and still are, confused as to whether to have their child immunised. We are constantly warned of the dangers of ingesting high
levels of pesticides and herbicides from fruit and vegetables, yet we are told we should consume four or five portions per day. Some diet experts recommend a highcarbohydrate diet, while others say this is a recipe for obesity. No wonder the public are perplexed by diet and lifestyle advice, and simply plough ahead with their old ways irrespective of government or “expert” advice. What and who are we actually supposed to believe? Salford, Greater Manchester, UK
Hit the low notes From Andrew Stiller, Kallisti Music Press Subharmonics are nothing new (30 September, p 60). George Crumb scored them in his 1970 string quartet Black Angels, and I described them (as “undertones”) in my 1985 Handbook of Instrumentation. They can indeed be elicited from any bowed stringed instrument, as well as from certain woodwind and brass instruments, and even drums. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
For the record ● In our story about North Korea’s nuclear test (14 October, p 9) the size of the explosion, estimated at 0.5 kilotons, or the equivalent of 500 tons of TNT, is incorrectly compared to the Oklahoma City bomb of 1995. In fact, the Oklahoma City bomb was smaller by a factor of around 100. ● In the feature “Legally high” (30 September, p 41) we erroneously referred to John Halpern of Harvard Medical School as a psychologist. He is a psychiatrist.
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
28 October 2006 | NewScientist | 27
20/10/06 3:49:40 pm
Can animals think back?
control their behaviour. So while they are mainly locked in the present, they can still have very effective memory skills.
created today’s economy. Everybody who contributes deserves a fair go, and so do those genuinely unable to contribute. Mount Hunter, New South Wales, Australia
Like it or not
From James Fenton The sidebar “Inside the mind of a cow” in the article on animal welfare states that “most species only seem capable of thinking in the present” (23 September, p 7). But what about memory, which is certainly a characteristic of many animals? For example, my dog once buried a bone and found it again when we next passed the site three months later. Even if he had forgotten about it, and I had said the word “bone” to him, this would probably have jogged his memory enough to go and look for it. This is surely “thinking in the past”. And what about squirrels and jays which have to remember numerous burial sites? Farr, Inverness, UK From Rosemary Sharples The mere fact that a pet can be trained, and recognise its owner, proves that it can think about the past. Penshurst, New South Wales, Australia Keith Kendrick of the Babraham Institute, Cambridge, responds: ● All animals have good or even amazing memories for places, individuals and things that are of value to them and their survival. This doesn’t mean they have the same developed concept of time as we do. Animals have only limited volitional control over calling up memories or planning a long way ahead. They are mainly restricted to events in the present triggering memories which then www.newscientist.com
061028_Letters.indd 27
From Brian Clegg Clear thinking seems to be in danger of being overwhelmed by science’s own version of political correctness: anti-anthropism. “Why is the universe the way it is? Most physicists would prefer a deep reason that has nothing to do with our existence,” says your piece on multiple universes (7 October, p 38). Should scientific judgement really be based on what people prefer? Try saying “most scientists would prefer a deep reason for climate change that has nothing to do with our existence” to see the problem with this approach. Upper Wanborough, Wiltshire, UK
Give oldies their due From George Taylor “Is it fair to expect 25-year-olds to pay very high taxes to support perfectly healthy 70-year-olds in retirement?” ask Paul and Anne Ehrlich in their article on population (30 September, p 46). This question deserves thought, given that the 70-year-olds may have already contributed to society by working for up to 55 years, while young people in today’s more affluent societies are in some instances becoming wealthy enough to retire in comfort in their mid-30s. Some might say this is because they have put in the hard yards and have got their just desserts. I would say the 70-year-olds have also put in the hard yards, under different economic circumstances. We have to look at a balance of effort and reward for effort. If the now 70-year-olds hadn’t put in the effort, the 25-year-olds would be hard pushed to find well-paid work and opportunities, because it was the past generation that
Who to believe? From Nia Vaughan Why do members of the public persist in continuing to live an unhealthy lifestyle, despite very public warnings and recommendations from various sources? Perhaps it is because they are highly confused about diet and lifestyle advice. Your article on diabetes being caused by eating fish (30 September, p 18) clearly contradicts UK government advice on the consumption of fish. This tells us that to maintain a healthy diet we should consume at least two or three portions of oily fish per week, for their beneficial oils. Yet in your article Shing-Hwa Liu recommends we limit our fish intake to a maximum of two portions per week to avoid the dangers of mercury-induced diabetes. This is not an isolated case. In the debate over whether children should be given the MMR vaccine, we had so-called “experts” supporting both sides of the argument, both lobbying parents to come round to their way of thinking. No wonder parents were, and still are, confused as to whether to have their child immunised. We are constantly warned of the dangers of ingesting high
levels of pesticides and herbicides from fruit and vegetables, yet we are told we should consume four or five portions per day. Some diet experts recommend a highcarbohydrate diet, while others say this is a recipe for obesity. No wonder the public are perplexed by diet and lifestyle advice, and simply plough ahead with their old ways irrespective of government or “expert” advice. What and who are we actually supposed to believe? Salford, Greater Manchester, UK
Hit the low notes From Andrew Stiller, Kallisti Music Press Subharmonics are nothing new (30 September, p 60). George Crumb scored them in his 1970 string quartet Black Angels, and I described them (as “undertones”) in my 1985 Handbook of Instrumentation. They can indeed be elicited from any bowed stringed instrument, as well as from certain woodwind and brass instruments, and even drums. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
For the record ● In our story about North Korea’s nuclear test (14 October, p 9) the size of the explosion, estimated at 0.5 kilotons, or the equivalent of 500 tons of TNT, is incorrectly compared to the Oklahoma City bomb of 1995. In fact, the Oklahoma City bomb was smaller by a factor of around 100. ● In the feature “Legally high” (30 September, p 41) we erroneously referred to John Halpern of Harvard Medical School as a psychologist. He is a psychiatrist.
Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
28 October 2006 | NewScientist | 27
20/10/06 3:49:40 pm