A cure for Blue Monday

Today is, apparently, the most depressing day of the year. So says the BBC online news (with a witty idea from The Optimists Society), but there’s also an item on this phenomenon in last week’s New Scientist.

I didn’t need the media to tell me this. I was already feeling pretty fed up. The work I had scheduled to start this morning hasn’t turned up, the postie didn’t deliver the original copy of my mum’s Will (which I’ve been waiting for since Christmas), and a colleague cheerily told me she’d secured a job that I was also in the running for (though I knew I’d not done well at the interview). On top of all that, I’m tired out after a stressful weekend in Yorkshire sorting out my mum’s clothes (off to Oxfam with 3 bin bags later) and paperwork.

However, there are two reasons to be cheerful:

According to New Scientist's editorial, “being too happy can actually be bad for you, … leaving you unwilling to make the effort to change your life for the better”.

And in among my mum’s paperwork I found a little slip of paper on which my granddad (who died when my mum was just 14) had written one of his “Slick sales slogans!”

“A cup of tea, a snack, a chat.
You’ll feel better after that!”

Cup of tea and last Oreo in the biscuit barrel here I come…

Melvyn Bragg hits the hot spot

Quote of the day, aka “How to get one over on Today’s pompous and self-important anchor man, John Humphrys”:

Trailing his show In Our Time (which immediately follows Today, at 9am on Thursdays) Melvyn Bragg said:

“So, the science of heat with … [names of guests].

“It’s extraordinary to think that until 1700 almost all the world was heated and lit by fire alone. Since then, we have discovered many ingenious ways to generate hot air — John …”

[Noises off: not-so-muffled laughter and noisy protestations from Mr H!]

Time: 8.35 (2:35 minutes into Today)

Biscuits: the driving force behind the nation’s freelance writers/editors

Freelance writers and editors, working at home, need to demonstrate a significant level of willpower; so I’m pleased to learn that scientists have published evidence to suggest that sneaking a daily dip into the biscuit barrel could, contrary to expectations, give your willpower a much needed boost.

Although I criticised the concept of Psychologies magazine last week, I am still drawn to psychology-related articles in the more serious press. Last week, while belated flicking through back issues of New Scientist, I came across a piece that pretty neatly sums up the chemistry/biology behind that eternal freelances’ problem: procrastination. And, in a twist of logic that Psychologies would surely be proud of, here I go reinterpreting the hard science for my own journalistic purposes…

Resist! by Helen Phillips (New Scientist, 13 September 2008, pp40–43) reports on several studies into self-control and willpower. Few readers will be surprised to learn that some people are better at self-control than others, that female impulse control is linked to the menstrual cycle, and that there are links between IQ and the ability to avoid temptation.

More interesting, though, is the news that resisting temptation appears to be controlled by the frontal lobes of the brain (especially the right frontal lobe), and that the effort of self-control also taxes the areas of the brain responsible for ‘working memory’. (One conclusion the researchers draw from these results is that teenagers find it hard to control their impulses because their frontal lobes are still developing.)

On top of that, there’s evidence that exercising willpower is also a physiological process – i.e. it’s a process that needs energy.

Helen Phillips cites studies published in the journals Psychological Science, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which suggest that self-control requires effort (energy) and, just as you can run out of energy when you’re pounding the treadmill at the gym, you can run of out self-control.

Part of the evidence for this comes from studying people’s heart rates while they’re being asked to resist temptation, which shows that there are peaks in energy use during temptation experiments. Another study (by Roy Baumeister at Florida State University) found that giving participants a sugary drink before their self-control was challenged improved their ability to resist temptation.

Ok, so here’s my spin on this news: eating a bicky or two before I set to work in the morning is actually good for me, because keeping up my blood sugar level boosts my self-control ‘muscle’.

A bit far fetched, perhaps? Not necessarily. One thing I’ve noticed since I turned freelance is that prioritisation (inextricably linked to resistance and self-control) is getting harder and harder. On the evidence of Phillips’ article, I now suspect my problem is caused by long-term depletion of willpower.

Ponder this for a moment:

Ten years ago the biggest drain on my self-control was the effort of getting out of bed, performing my daily ablutions and setting off for the office.

Fast forward a few years and my self-control was sorely tested by the arrival of a baby who needed me to think on his behalf (and I still do, 9 years on!), then later, along came the dog who had to be walked, fed and pampered, with rarely a day off from my responsibilities. (Not to mention all the other domestic chores, of which the most brain-taxing is invariably answering the question "What's for dinner?" )

These days I reckon I spend 90% of my time resisting doing the things I want to do, because I have so many other things that MUST BE DONE.

Having a deadline, therefore, is crucial. If, as now, I have work on the books, but nothing urgent, I can’t resist the temptation to blog instead of getting on with the paid-for stuff. And every day I’m also using up currency from my bank of self-control by “resisting” the temptation to tidy the house, put the rubbish out, stuff/unstuff the washing machine, prune my email inbox, write letters to friends I should’ve replied to in January…

It’s only biscuit power that’s helping me to resist all these exciting opportunities!!

One last thought before I really MUST get on with real work: one of Phillips’ interviewees strongly recommends writing detailed ‘to do’ lists as a way of giving yourself a leg-up to get over the procrastination fence:

“… Even something as simple as saying you will go to the gym at 5pm on a specific day is a more successful strategy than intending to exercise once a week. Planning can turn a difficult conscious decision into an unconscious habit, which makes the whole process faster and more efficient without depleting energy levels.”

So if you don’t hear from me for a while, it’s because I’m knee-deep in ‘to do’ spreadsheets.

What feminists did for a physicist

Dame Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell, interviewed on Woman’s Hour this morning, praised the feminist movement for its on-going efforts to raise awareness of her ground-breaking non-Nobel-laureate-winning work.

Bell Burnell has recently been appointed as the first female President of the Institute of Physics; and from what I heard on WH this morning, it sounds like she’ll do a fantastic job.

I already know several women who’ve studied physics because of her influence; now she’s in a position to encourage many, many more. The great thing about her comments today was that, instead of going down the “physics is exciting, it’s all about the stars and outer-space” hackneyed route, she pointed out that the great thing about physics is “there’s less to learn” – less, that is, than learning all the names of the bones in the body, or parts of a plant. There are a number of fundamental concepts and equations to grasp; the rest is about applying them.

I hadn’t ever thought of it like that; very clever way to turn children on to the subject, I reckon. After all, people so often get put off school science because it is, fundamentally, boring. The trick is to find a way to help them through the dull but necessary senior-school stuff so that they stick with it to a higher level where they really will get to learn about the fundamental principles of the universe.

It sounds like JBB has some ideas for doing just that; and it was great to hear a cheer for the feminists too. JBB might have been overlooked for the Nobel, which was given to her (male) supervisor, but the outrage of the feminist movement has probably done more to raise JBB's profile, to the extent that she reckons she’s probably better off without it!

Talking to the animals is not as daft as it sounds

Libby Purves (very irritating Radio 4 presenter) has just been speaking to Miranda Carey, a woman who gets people to talk (and listen) to horses as a form of psychotherapy (Midweek, Wednesday 24 September). Sitting alongside her in the studio was actor Ted Danson (ex. Cheers), who amusingly objected to Libby’s suggestion that this was all a bit “Californian wacko”. But is she right? An article I read in New Scientist (23 August) suggests this might not be quite as barmy as it sounds.

I wasn’t convinced by all the arguments put forward by Miranda Carey. She uses horses that have been traumatised (e.g. racehorses who’ve been stabled too much when they should have been out running in a herd in the fields), and gets her patients (one example was an abused and confused former prostitute) to work with the horses in a form of mutual therapy.

I could see the point of getting ex-cons to work with horses as a way of boosting their confidence. Why should a horse (or any other animal for that matter) care about your criminal record? They take you as they find you, and if you treat them right, you’ll be a friend for life. But I’m not so sure about the work she does with people who have more serious mental health problems. Even Libby expressed some concern (albeit in her infuriatingly jokey way) over the question of whether the animal needs to have been traumatised in order to fully appreciate the human’s worries… (Thank goodness Paul O’Grady – a well-known animal fanatic who apparently takes a sheep for a walk through the woods near his home in Kent – was in the studio to lend a bit of Northern commonsense to the proceedings!)

But there is something in Carey's argument. Kate Douglas, writing in New Scientist (23 August, pp33–35) says that over the thousands of years we’ve lived alongside dogs, the human-canine relationship has had a significant impact on dogs’ mental skills. If you think your dog’s trying to tell you something, you’re not just anthropomorphising.

Dogs, it seems, have developed an acute sense of right and wrong; they also have a repertoire of barks to tell us different things; and researchers in Cambridge (UK) have found that dogs can use human-like gestures to get their message across (e.g. pointing or staring at the thing they want). Dogs even learn in the same way as children – watching others complete a task, then copying and experimenting until they achieve the same goal.

None of that is really new to me, as a dog owner. I’ve learnt as much from my dog as he’s learnt from me (that’s why he can wind me around his paw to get what he wants). And if it’s true for dogs, why not also for horses, who’ve also been close companions to Homo sapiens for millennia?

And, if Paul O’Grady is right, why not sheep too?

Yet again, I’m glad I’m a vegetarian.

CERNtainly not a whimper

Well, we're all still here, folks. We haven't yet been sucked into a Black Hole as a result of the scientific shenanigans in Geneva this morning. But I gather the scientists did commission a study a while back, just to be certain that turning on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) wouldn't be the end of life on Earth (well, Earth itself, actually).

Twenty years ago I'd just finished my Finals (BA Joint Hons) in Physics and Music. I had never set out to be a physicist; all I wanted to do was gain an appreciation of this fundamental science. My final year dissertation was on "Potential applications for superconductors" - the technology that's today powering the beam of particles round its 27km circuit somewhere underneath Geneva. Guess what? I didn't predict this! But it was, I now realise, my first piece of 'science communication', because basically it was a literature search/summary of what was going on in physics labs around the world in what was then a pretty esoteric topic.

Fast forward 10 years, and I had just finished a Diploma in Science Communication at Birbeck. In the first year of this (then) two-year course, one of our number was from the CERN press office. I wonder whether he's still there? And I wonder whether he's one of the science communicators who, it seems, have learnt a thing or two from the 'spin doctors'.

Because this morning's coverage in the UK broadcast media is testimony to the CERN scientists' expertise as communicators. The Big Bang end-of-the-world-is-nigh-style coverage has grabbed the imaginations of small boys of my acquaintance (hopefully small girls too, but I haven't talked to any this week). I don't entirely approve of taking this tabloidese tack, but you have to admit, it's got a result.

Am I jealous of those science communicators who've finally got physics on the front pages? You bet! But I'm more niggled by the up-coming programme on Radio 4 this morning that's going to talk to 'celebrities who like science' in Physics Rocks.

Why should that get up my nose? Simple: the most enjoyable part of the Diploma for me was the Radio topic. I scripted and produced a radio programme aimed at schoolchildren on great careers in science, which included our take on the TOTP of celebrity scientists - Brian May being the best known back then. The intro theme tune for our programme "Free to choose" was Oasis's "Whatever" (You're free-ee, to be whatever you…) and we wound up with The Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony. And now I can't hear either of those tracks without being transported back to the BBC World Service studio where we put our programme together under 'live' conditions.

I loved it. I loved the teamwork, I loved the live action; and it was great working in the studio with all the slidy-fader-doodahs (reminded me of recording projects for the music half of my weird degree); and for a little while I really did think that a career in radio beckoned. Science radio - what better use of a degree in Physics and Music?

But just a couple of months later I made the ultimate 'choice' and gave up my freedom for ever (OK, slight exaggeration there; call it poetic licence). What am I on about? I became pregnant.

So yes, I'm jealous - a bit. But I made my choice and I don't regret it. Who knows, one day I may get back into the studio. In the meantime, well done to all the scientists and engineers at CERN - and three cheers for the fantastic internationally collaboration which goes to show that we can all work together when there's something we really want to achieve (please solve climate change next, chaps!!). But I'd like to give an extra cheer to the CERN press officers and all the PRs who've done a grand job in getting this story into the headlines.

It's not Frankenstein we should fear, but big pharma

Last week Prince Charles spoke out against genetically modified crops (aka "Frankenstein foods", if you read the tabloids).

It's about time people stopped focusing on the science (which may or may not be an issue) and thought long and hard about the economics of GM. What a pity Phil Woolas (Defra minister) continues to miss this key point. So I decided to set him straight:

Dear Mr Woolas

In the wake of Prince Charles's interview about genetically modified crops, you have been setting out the Government's policy towards GM. As a Labour Party member (who hasn't yet completely chucked in the towel), I'm writing to draw your attention to my concerns about GM, and to explain why I would like the Labour Party to re-think its attitude to GM.

For me, the issue is not about the science - it's the economic/political risks that concern me, principally the need to ensure "sustainability" of food supplies.

Do you really think it's a good idea to let the future of world food supplies lie in the hands of a small number of international chemicals companies? Letting the "market" control life's essentials is already leading us into trouble:

* We are already suffering the consequences of energy being controlled by hostile regimes and/or greedy international businesses. (Hence I'm all in favour of increasing home-grown energy from wind farms, wave power, PV, and micro-renewables.)
* Meanwhile, thousands die every day in developing countries because they can't afford to buy medicines from the pharmaceuticals giants; and back home in the UK some drugs have to be "rationed" because they are too expensive (i.e. shareholders in Glaxo et al don't want to see their profits shrink).

I don't object in principle to on-going scientific trials of GM crops, but they should be conducted by government scientists, and the results should be widely published. Any patents that result should be made "open source" so that farmers around the world can benefit from technological developments - instead of the technology being controlled by a handful of extremely powerful and secretive organisations (Monsanto, inevitably, springs to mind).

Of course, Mr Woolas is far too busy to reply in person, but the Labour Party's communications department assures me they'll pass on my comments to the appropriate department. Yeh, right. Well, I won't hold my breath…

Did I really say that?

New Scientist's 'Last Word' feature last week had a question about why people can be so aggressive in on-line forums. It's a question that's of great interest to me and my fellow editors.

It's not just that the polite world of SfEPline* can occasionally degenerated into a free-for-all slanging match; communicating via email can be problematic too.

For example, I still can't get used to writing emails to my mother or mother-in-law; their replies don't 'sound' like them, whereas I'm pretty sure my emails 'sound' like me - but do they?

Work-related communication is even more fraught with potential difficulties. I once clattered out an urgent work-related message and fired it off into the ether - apparently without carefully checking whether I'd added enough caveats and requisite 'chit chat'; for the the virtually instant response said my message was 'curt'.

Oh dear! Having built up a rapport with an e-correspondent you would think it's not always necessary to go through the "how are you; thanks for your last message; have a nice day" rigmarole, but apparently not.

(Or is it just that I'm 'curt' in real life too? …Don't answer that, thanks.)

Anyway, I hope that the New Scientist article and the link I gave to a research paper on "email sociability" in the NS blog will get picked up by researchers somewhere. At the very least, business email users could benefit from general guidance as to what is and is not deemed acceptable e-speak.

* SfEPline is a Yahoo group used by members of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders (of which I'm an Advanced member).

Fighting flab at 40 - a 'waist' of time?

No need to worry about fighting the flab when you hit your 40s. An exchange of letters in last week's New Scientist (19 July 2008, p73) suggests that putting on a few pounds as you get older is perfectly natural and, in fact, because it's an evolutionary development, trying to buck the trend is probably a waste of time.

The question on the magazine's 'Last Word' page was: "Why, as we age, do we find it easier to gain body fat and … why is it so much more difficult to get rid of?"

Apparently, our bodies become more efficient at storing fat as we get older. One respondent (from University of California) put the age-related fat issue down to evolution, saying that, in primitive societies older people wouldn't get priority for scarce food, so it's in their interest to develop a 'store' for lean times.