Scientists on television

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, July 28, 2010

The other day, I was talking to a friend and mentioned something about the Big bang theory, and the inevitable reference turned up: "yo mean the TV show?".

The thing is, The big bang theory, the wonderful sitcom that debuted in 2007 and has turned into a world success, represents a conflict for people, like this columnist, who have a scientific education.

On the one side, it is really good. It has endearing characters, among which the problematic Sheldon Cooper stands out, a theoretical physicist with two PhDs, and an IQ of 187, whose total lack of social abilities, humor and modesty (there are people who think that it has a slight form of Asperger's syndrome, a type of autism) makes him unbearable, cute and very funny, all at the same time.

Together with his friends Leonard, Howard and Rajesh, Sheldon works in the prestigious CalTech (California Institute of Technology), in Pasadena, and the adventures of this quartet obsessed with science and technology –but also with comics and other elements of geek culture– make every chapter a mixture of references to scientific theories and concepts –which are surprisingly accurate: the program has good scientific advisors– combined with very funny situations. A true delight for people who, beyond comedy, can appreciate the scientific jokes and references (even George Smoot, Physics Nobel laureate in 2006, of whom we talked here last week, participated in a small sequence at the end of one of the chapters).

But, on the other hand, the sitcom presents a series of stereotypes against which the science community has fought for a long time: it shows scientists as antisocial beings, misfits, geniuses but incapable of doing the easiest tasks, obsessive, absent-minded, ultra-logic and humorless.

Actually, scientists are just human beings… although, as anybody who lives near one –physicists, in particular, or even worse, mathematicians– can testify, all these stereotypes have a certain measure of truth. Maybe that's why we scientists love The big bang theory, even though sooner or later we have to pay the price of having our friends tell us that we're just like Sheldon.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Against scientific illiteracy

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, January 6, 2010

Every time that I go out on vacations I take with me something good to read. This year's end was no exception: I chose the most recent work of my friend Marcelino Cereijido, Mexican-argentine researcher at Cinvestav: Science as calamity, an assay about science illiteracy and its effects (Gedisa, 2009).

This is not the first time I enjoy his excellent prose and even better ideas. Several trips to the beach have been made more enjoyable thanks to other little jewels from him: Brainless science, double craziness (Siglo XXI, 1994, where he advices a young person about the challenges, difficulties and disappointments that awaits her if he or she decides to be a scientist in a third world country), Why we don't have science, (Siglo XXI, 1997, where he presents the well-sustained hypothesis that the culture of Latin-American countries, with their Hispanic-Portuguese catholic influence, is one of the fundamental causes that our countries do not understand, support, nor, most importantly, develop or take advantage of modern science), and Houssay's nape (Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1990, an intimate and penetrating autobiographic account that tells his experience when becoming a scientist –he even studied with Nobel awarded professors– to later be persecuted, imprisoned and exiled by the catholic obscurantism of the Argentine military dictatorship.

The book can, in my opinion, be divided in two sections. The first presents a view of science, its history and the current situation of scientific illiteracy. The second part –which I considered more convincing and stimulating- raises the grave problem that such illiteracy imposes the third world, placing it at disadvantage in front of the first world, and dares to make some proposal outlines for its solution.

Cereijido states that scientific illiteracy in non-developed countries consists not only in not having science of their own, but in lacking a culture that would allow them to even realize this, and to value the heavy problem of this lack. But the really alarming thing is to realize, as demonstrated in the book, that there has always been a strategy of the first world to guarantee that the third world keeps being underdeveloped. This asymmetry is what today is really threatening global equilibrium, so drastic measures need to be taken to fight it… Only we'll have to do it ourselves. This is the base for his stimulating proposals. Now the task will be to spread them, discuss them and put them in practice… Count me in.

One complaint, though: the book, unfortunately, like many books from Ibero-American editorials, is very badly edited. Commas before verbs, or incorrectly added into phrases, which change their meaning; numerous references that do not appear in the bibliography, repetitions and, even, some sloppyness in the way the text is organized; not author's mistakes, but the editor's, from whom we would expect a more profound and professional work (because is the editorial house's, not the author's, responsibility to take care of all the details, editorial as well as the coherence and clarity of the text).

Summarizing: an enjoyable and intelligent book, but also an important and timely one. Even urgent. I hope every person that has to do with science in Latin American countries (researchers, students, government people, politics… citizens!) reads it.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Scientific intolerance

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, november 4th, 2009

A month ago I criticized the fraud commited by people who promise to cure to almost any disease by using a machine called SCIO (against, of course, of a good amount of cash).

As always when pseudoscience and charlatans are attacked, I received some congratulatory e-mails, and some other (not many, luckily) that accused me of being dogmatic, intolerant and of disqualifying "other" forms or rationality "that deserve the same respect as the scientific worldview".

It's common to accuse science, and the people who practice it, promote it or communicate it, of being intolerant. But we must remember that science seeks only to study nature, in order to produce reliable knowledge that allows us to understand it and maybe predict it. When referring to the intolerance of science, normally what is questioned is its refusal to recognize practices such as astrology, the study of paranormal phenomena, miracle therapies based on principles "that go beyond science" or conspiracy theories, as scientific.

This exclusion is due in part to the fact that the methods of these disciplines ar not rigorous enough, or their data do not look reliable (in case they are not straightforward fakery). Sometimes, what is not acceptable are their study objects, since science studies only natural phenomena, not supernatural ones.

In science, for a statement to be accepted, it has to go through a complex process of peer review that involves the verification of data and methods, and the discussion of results. The reasons why scientists accept a affirmation have to do with its logical coherence, its plausibility within the existent scientific frame of knowledge, the reproducibility of experiments in which its based, and other reasons (among which some dose of politics and ideology are not excluded).

However, nothing makes a scientist happier than to discover that something that was known turns out to be incorrect. To find mistakes and inconsistencies in scientific theories forces researchers to find even better explanations. This is the force that pushes science forward.

But, for the process to work, it has to be subject to a highly rigorous quality control. The first duty of a scientist is not to delude himself. Science has an unavoidable commitment with reality. If, sometimes this sounds like intolerance, that's not a problem of the scientific method, but of the disciplines that try to pass as scientific... when they are not.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Science and technology week in Mexico

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, October 28th, 2009

Each year, in October, science popularizers get our busiest season, because that's when the national Science and technology week is held in Mexico.

As a matter of fact, the demand for all kinds of activities –conferences, courses, workshops, expositions, science fairs, concerts, starry nights, contests…- its such that many states opt to enlarge it, turning it into the Month of Science and Technology – and some, into several months! – so competition is not that intense.

The event, promoted and organized by the National Council for Science and Technology (Conacyt), has for 16 years placed scientific culture in the reach of literally millions of kids, youngsters and adults all over the country.

This year the national venue was the state of Tabasco, where I have been able to attend several activities organized together by the state government, the Tabasco Science and Technology Council (CCYTET) and a good number of organizations and enthusiastic people who are engaged in science popularization.

But is it worth it, with all the economic crisis and our country's problems, to spend budget and work in such an event? Here are four good reasons to do it:

-Because the standard of life in a country depends strongly on the size of its scientific-technological-industrial apparatus. An good-sized, active scientific community detonates the production of original knowledge which become technology and patents that can make a modern and powerful nation. Think of the Korean cell phones, Indian cars and Chinese computers we import, or of the Brazilian technology for oil extraction that we're far of matching. And the first step is to awaken scientific vocations in kids and young people (and of course, to give them jobs in research institutes, but that's another story).

-Because the scientific way of thinking is a powerful tool in fighting harmful beliefs, such as the conspiracy theories that deny the seriousness of the influenza pandemia and the usefulness of vaccines in preventing infection.

-Because if the citizens do not understand the science behind matters such as cloning, euthanasia, transgenic crops or stem-cell research, they cannot take part in the decisions we as a society need to take.

-Because science and technology, as products of human creativity, are and endless source of amazement and great ways of having a great time. All citizens have the right to enjoy them.

For these, and many other reasons, long live the Science and Technology Week! I only wish it could last all year long.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Good science-fiction

By Martí­n Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, September 23, 2009

I'm a fan of good science-fiction: the one that, as the name implies, joins science with fiction to see what this union produces.

In good science-fiction, fiction starts from authentic scientific knowledge and extends it through imagination to obtain stimulating and even revealing stories. (Less frequently, science obtains from fiction the inspiration to make explorations that show new worlds, or new possibilities).

I'm not a deep connoisseur, but I greatly enjoy the classics, such as Isaac Asimov. I have just delighted re-reading his excellent book of short stories, The martian way (1955).

And I know even less about Mexican science fiction. But I have just finished a stupendous book, Gel azul (Blue gel, Suma de letras, 2009), a pair of short stories from my friend Bernardo Fernández, known as Bef, one of the best contemporaneous Mexican cartoonists (or moneros, as he would put it).

The already famous Bef has built himself a second reputation as a novelist, wining prizes in Mexico and Spain. His detective-style novel Tiempo de alacranes (Joaquín Mortiz, 2005) won one in the Semana Negra de Guijón (Black Week at Guijón, Spain), and Gel azul won the Ignotus prize. It deserved it.

The point is that Bef is a great story-teller: intelligent, precise, efficient, charming, sensitive. In his novels, his obsessions are recurrent: the filthy, violent, unsuccessful, fallen-on-hard-times detective who, deep inside, is very likeable; the cute girl, unreachable and bitchy; the mystery to be solved; the fight against mafia, be it dealers or organ-stealers from those who dream a blue-tinted virtual dream while connected to the web.

It is worth to try to find it (sorry, no translation to English yet). It made me happy, made me think and I spent a really good time.

Because is hard to live in a city and in a country where such terrible things happen. Epidemics. Drought and then a flooding. Two crimes inspired by crazy men "inspired by god" (although in last Friday's shooting at the Mexico City Balderas subway station, it was also a Christian believer the only civilian that confronted the criminal: its clear that fanatics, not religion, are the problem).

It is not only legitimate, but sometimes necessary to find a useful evasion. No doubt, novels like Asmov's and Bef's are two excellent choices.

(By the way, the cover posted its not the Mexican edition of Gel azul, it's the Spanish one… I liked it better, it's drawn by Bachán.)

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Crazyness and losses

By Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published on Milenio Diario, september 16, 2009

In memory of Antonio Sánchez Ibarra

Yesterday, Roberto Garza in MILENIO DIARIO proposed that the activation of the pleasure brain centers that make people become drug addicts –or alcohol addicts, I might add- can explain why frequently "the most compulsive drug addicts are 'saved' by throwing themselves into a sudden religious conversion".

On the same page, religion expert Roberto Blancarte judged that the important thing is not whether we are dealing with a crazy person or somebody that really "talks with god", but to value their actions and sanction them in consequence, whatever their motives.

The truth is that the actions of evangelic priest José Mar Flores Pereyra, "highjacker" of a Mexicana airplane on 9/9/9 caused direct damages -and also indirect ones, through the wild speculations they generated.

Some people would like to directly blame his religious beliefs. I think this is a non-justified generalization that can spur discrimination against those who profess non-catholic religions.

We atheists and freethinkers tend to think that religions foster superstition and magical thinking. Personally, I think that religious thinking and rationality are not compatible (the great biologist Richard Dawkins, a furious promoter of atheism, of whom recently Blancarte spoke in his column, argues that to indoctrinate kids in religious faith is a form of child abuse).

But I think we have to distinguish between individual actions and group actions. (Although we have to, also, be careful with fanatics: the mother and wife of "Josmar" unconditionally approve of his craziness. And France is having serious problems with sects such as scientology, as reported yesterday in Milenio Diario.)

It is not a minor problem. Without a doubt, part of the solution lies in the promotion of scientific and rational thinking (which are, actually, the same thing).

That's why I am very sorry for the loss, last Sunday, of a great friend of mine and a great Mexican promoter of science: Antonio Sánchez Ibarra, from Sonora, a state in the northern part of Mexico, winner of the National Prize for Science Popularization in 2000, and an enthusiastic promoter of a lot of projects for the diffusion of astronomy, not only in the North of our Country, but in all of Latin America as well.

We certainly could use more promoters like him in our country.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe her

Inmegen: ¿good or bad news?

By Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published in Milenio Diario, September 9th, 2009

On August 26 mexican newspaper MILENIO Diario reported that the Federal budget for 2010 will feature a 47% cut to the National Institute of Genomic Medicine (Inmegen). 120 million pesos less (from 252 in 2009 to 132 in 2010).

The natural reaction would be anger, sadness or resignation in view of another example of the lack or value our government assigns to scientific research. Inmegen would be an isolated step in the right direction, and this cut is a worrying symptom against which we should protest. This is what Gerardo Jiménez, the Institute's head, did when he declared that the decision "puts several projects of scientific research related to the study of chronic and degenerative diseases at risk".

But there's another side of the coin. Inmegen has been questioned from several fronts. The most serious one is about corruption in the construction of their building, started in 2006 and today still unfinished and abandoned. Several damages to the Federal Treasure were identified, worth 33 million pesos, as well as overexpenses for 78 million (111 million in total). Its administrative director was fined with almost 3 million and incapacitated for 10 years by the recently disappeared Public Function Ministry (the architect responsible of the building was also incapacitated, for 15 years).

And the science being done at Inmegen also has its own problems. Their relatively modest study of "the Mexican genome" was artificially blown up to turn it, according to Mexican president Felipe Calderón, into "our entrance into XXI century medicine". The still distant benefits of genomic medicine have been exaggerated wildly. Its capacity for sequencing (reading) genomes, under-used during the influenza epidemic, has now been exceeded by the National University (UNAM), which –even with its ever-present limitations and its budget problems– has just inaugurated superior installations. And its reductionist approach, patent in talk of "Mexican" or "sonoran" (from the mexican state of Sonora) genomes, is biologically and even ethically questionable.

The traditional image of Mexicans is one of lazyness: a guy with a big "sombrero" and a sarape sleeping against a cactus. I think our real problem is one of perseverance: when necessary, we are able to start taking actions to solve our problems.

But sadly, we do not follow up. We build the road but don't give it maintenance. We created a Federal Elections Institute, but we didn't protect it so it wouldn't fall apart and loose all credibility. We created the Inmegen, but we don't guarantee it an appropriate building, personnel nor budget, and we don't ensure that budget is spent honestly.

What a waste.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe her

Fox: disatrous horoscope

By Martín Bonfil Olivera
Published in Milenio Diario, August 19, 2009

It's not surprising that Vicente Fox, Mexico's former president, declared on Saturday 15, at his Centro Fox in San Cristobal, at the graduation ceremony of the first generation of its Master in Politics course, that Mexico's economical crisis of is the result of "a convergence of stars in a negative sense, of negative vibes".

It's not surprising because he is very well known for his capacity for saying nonsense. Because his lack of culture is legendary. And because, even when he was president, it was clear that he and his wife Martha believed in all kinds of quackery.

Santiago Pando, the star advisor of Fox's presidential campaign, claimed to receive advise from the "galactic mayans", "light beings" whose voices he heard. And the President's Office hired a clairvoyant in 2006, Rebeca Moreno Lara, who acted as "mystical advisor" for the first lady.

So it's not surprising , but it is outrageous and worrying. It seems that, as a country and as a society, we still believe that the causes of our problems are in the stars, not in our own actions and decision. No wonder we haven't been able to solve them.

For the pseudoscience of astrology, certain "star combinations" are disastrous, fateful: they cause disasters (from the word disaster, stellar cataclysm and therefore something bad produced by stars).

Astronomers are tired of explaining that such star combinations don't really exist. They're only an effect of perspective: although two stars, seen from the Earth, may appear to be in "conjunction", they are separated by millions of miles (if not, by light years, equivalent to around 10 billion kilometers).

Maybe Fox's declaration is, by itself, a disastrous sign: a signal of the failure of our educational system, which allows that somebody that was the president harbours these primitive beliefs. Of the failure of our political system, converted into a publicity-driven media-cracy, that allows this uncultured character to win an election by a wide range. Of the failure of the effort by we science journalists and science writers, who have not managerd, through the media, to carry a minimum of scientific culture to the average citizen.

"Certainly" (as Fox would have said), a very bad sign.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!

Dinosaurs for free!

By Martín Bonfil Olivera

Published in Milenio Diario, August 5, 2009

Popularising science is placing scientific culture in reach of the general population: to turn science into a part of pop culture.

One way to do it is through exhibitions and museums, in which many visitors have the opportunity of directly experimenting and getting close, in a special surrounding, to the objects, phenomena and concepts of science.

But this is seldom achieved in such a marvelous way as in the exhibition "Huellas de vida" (life's footprints), which Mexico City's government and the Museo del Desierto (the dessert museum) from Saltillo, Coahuila, together with other institutions, have installed in the city's main square since May 22.

I confess that I approached the exhibition with some skepticism: I am accustomed to visit science museums, and didn't think I'd find something to amaze me. I was wrong.

From the first enormous fossil fish, with its monstrous mouth filled with teeth, that welcomes you in the first chamber, the journey is full with marvels. Complete fossils, some original and some replicas of superb quality, of terrestrial and "aerial" dinosaurs (actually, pterosaurs; among them, the grand Quetzalcoatlus). Robotic models, specimens of "living fossils" and of species that help us compare the routes from which evolution, sometimes, produces similar results in very different species. Actual, live paleontologists showing how they work.

And a really professional museography, in which the specimens can be enjoyed with safety, and the professional and enthusiastic attention of many young guides, perfectly prepared to answer even the oddest questions from an avid public.

Of course, going to the exhibition will not turn you into a dinosaur expert. But that's is not the idea. A science exhibition must only, as Carl Sagan begged, "spark the sense of wonder". This the exhibition fully achieves. Other museums should take it as an example to follow.

Honestly, don't miss it. It opens from 9:30 to 19:30 from Monday to Sunday. But hurry up: it ends on August 31. And if this was not enough, it's free! What a magnificent gift for the citizens of our city.

(translated by Adrián Robles Benavides)

To receive Science for pleasure weekly
in your email, subscribe here!