Author's posts
Jan 23 2010
Caverns measureless to man
I thought this week I would talk about conferences, since they are something that is very much part of life as a scientist and which are perhaps are a little alien to people.
My first scientific conference was in Durham, where I did my PhD, I took the opportunity to find accommodation in the town before I moved up from Bristol. There was a problem with this: the conference supplied us all with name badges on which we were to write our names in our own fair hand. I was sitting opposite to an elderly academic at lunch who felt my name was somewhat small and indistinct. So I re-wrote it in large capitals with my biro, going over the letters repeatedly to get a “bold” effect. Now my handwriting isn’t great at the best of times, doing large-size capitals freehand has the look of the scrawling on the lunatic asylum walls. Later I went off looking at rooms in houses, but felt I was getting funny looks when I asked for directions. Later I realised why: not only did I still have my lunatic-asylum name badge on, I had it on upside down!
In many ways that first conference set the pattern for future ones, accommodation was primitive: in Durham Castle, which is used as student accommodation during term time. I met an old chap who, on hearing what I was doing swore blind he had done it all 10 years ago (I checked, he hadn’t, they never have). I learnt interesting things from esteemed academics in the bar.
For most the price of attending a conference is to present a poster, or a talk. This means I am accustomed to public speaking, just an odd sort of public speaking. In fact when I’ve had to speak at weddings, I’ve felt the lack of an overhead projector and had to resist the temptation to “thank the organisers for inviting me”, this is nearly appropriate but needs rephrasing. Conferences have also given me ninja buffet skills, and an appreciation that if you march off confidently in any direction (in my case in search of lunch), then quite a few people will follow you for no better reason than it looks like you know what you’re doing.
I’m not sure how widespread the idea of a poster presentation is outside of science, the idea is you convert your most recent work into…. a poster, a jumble of text boxes, figures and graphs (see below). If you’re flash, and organised, you print it out as a single sheet on laminated paper at some central service and then carry it around in a special tube. Otherwise you print it out on a load of A3 sheets. Posters are typically viewed in an over-crowded hall whilst drinking warmish white wine and eating finger food, text on the posters is normally too small and you’re too far away – the combination of these things always gave me a splitting headache. Supervisors attempt to get their students to defend their posters, that’s to say chat to anyone who wanders up.
Conferences are where you learn all the interesting stuff that people don’t write down, like how it took some poor PhD. student months to get an experiment to work once and they’ve never quite managed it again, or how a little fix is required to get a numerical simulation to work. You also learn lore from the more senior members of the community: how X has been doing Y or small variants thereof for the last 20 years. How Z has been wrong for all of living memory. How W, although publishes great work is not a very nice man. You may get some idea of what someone’s master plan is (you’re certainly not going to get it from journal articles), you’ll get to appreciate that other academic groups work in radically different ways. I also learnt that science transcends barriers of language and culture, the scientists I meet on tour are my tribe, my closest relatives beyond my real family.
All these conferences mean I’ve done a fair amount of travelling, personally I don’t consider this a great benefit. Business travel rarely gives you much time for sightseeing and the places you end up there may not be sights to see, and if there were I’d much prefer to go with my wife rather than a random collection of other scientists. I’ve visited Rhode Island, Boston, Sante Fe, Heidelberg, Sitges, Akron (Ohio), Philadelphia, Cancun and numerous towns around the UK. The only upsides of Cancun were the tropical fish just off the shore, the ever present iguanas and the Mayan ruins, otherwise it’s an overpriced tourist hell-hole.
The best conferences I’ve been to have been the smaller ones, the invitation only ones, the ones where discussion is programmed into the schedule, the specialist meetings for young academics. The larger conferences tend to be soulless and confusing: which of the 10 parallel sessions should I attend? And is it physically possible to switch sessions? There is a fine conference in the UK for the polymer community, which used to be based near Moretonhampstead, but now lives in Pott Shrigley. The presence of the golf courses is significant here, the organisers liked their golf so we had a morning session, an evening session and an afternoon off for golf. The non-golf players went off for walks in the country, which was a fine bonding experience. I remember distinctly my future postdoc supervisor standing on a tussock in the middle of boggy ground suggesting to the rest of the group that we proceed no further. It turns out being a Fellow of the Royal Society does not guarantee good navigation skills!
Is there still a need for conferences, in these days of electronic communication? Although the prospects for online networking via various social media are great, currently uptake by scientists is pretty low in percentage terms and the bandwidth of the communication is low. The amount you learn about a person from just one face-to-face meeting is enormous compared to what you get through electronic media; electronic media are great as an introduction and for maintaining contact but there’s nothing like meeting people.
The “caverns measureless to man” title is in homage to the SIGGRAPH conference I attended in Boston, there were somewhere in the region of 20,000 delegates. It was held in the vast Boston Convention and Exhibition Center.
Jan 17 2010
We are the angry mob
Once again it feels like I’m accused being a member of an angry mob of twitterers. This time by Catherine Bennett in The Observer, over the censure of Rod Liddle, stimulated by his potential appointment as editor of The Independent. As far as I can tell Rod Liddle is a rather unpleasant individual both in terms of his personal treatment of those close to him and in his public writing, actually looking down the first page of his Spectator articles I would appear to agree with him approximately 10% of the time.
Catherine Bennett raised this as an issue of free speech, implying that we are attempting to remove Rod Liddle’s right to free speech and also the rights of those such as Jan Moir, whilst going easy on Islam4UK. As an articulate member of a mob, I’d like to say this is really not what I want to do. To my mind Rod Liddle, Islam4UK and the BNP should all have a right to let their views be known, I just don’t believe they have a right to express that freedom anywhere or any time. However, the corollary of this is that I believe that I also have the right to point out that what they say is stupid, unpleasant and wrong. When given a public platform the BNP and Islam4UK seem to do a pretty good job at making themselves look risible, remove that platform and you risk people imagining that they are eloquent and right for lack of any evidence to the contrary.
The intriguing question with people like Jan Moir and Rod Liddle is that they have liberal backgrounds of a sort, they are clearly pretty smart. So when they write something that sounds illiberal, offensive and pandering to the basest of instincts are they simply being “radical for pay”? Do they really believe what they write, or do they just write what they know will go down well with their employers and their readers, happy in the knowledge that all publicity is good publicity. Writing a blog brings these questions to the fore, because it’s very obvious how frequently a post is read (or at least looked at). Should I write something worthy, but dull to most people and get a few hits or something that people are impassioned about which will get many hits and mentions?
What is it I want from complaint? In a way I want to shout that someone is wrong on an equal footing, I want access to the means of production (okay dissemination, but you have to turn a phrase when you can). In the past the right to provide public comment was a special privilege, available to the few who had a newspaper column or similar. What I have written here contains no more or less research than the Observer piece, I’d humbly suggest that my opinion is of equal value to Catherine Bennett’s. I am happy to accept that her writing is somewhat superior to mine. Is this the message for mainstream media? Ill-informed rant is no longer viable, because anyone can do that – genuine insight, research, knowledge and good writing are valuable because they are hard.
Jan 16 2010
Follow Friday – a post for twitterers…
There is a tradition on Twitter, called Follow Friday in which, of a Friday, you mention people you follow who you think other people would be interested to follow. For me this is a cause of social stress for fear of forgetting someone I should remember, so I thought I’d try doing it in my own way. You can see all the people I follow here, and the people that mention me are here (I think you might need to login to twitter to follow those links).
And here, in alphabetical order to avoid accusations of favouritism, are my micro-biographies of people you should follow:
@andromedababe Observer of shagging frogs, lover of shoosies. Blogs at AndromedaBabe’s Blog on teaching and other stuff.
@BarbaraMaller a closet writer and chatter from California.
@ChristineOttery a journalist, doing an MA in science journalism, her blog is Open Minds and Parachutes but she is also published in proper media like the Guardian’s Comment is Free.
@Crafthole is a archeologist / historian person engaged married to @ladycrafthole. We share an interested in the scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries
@deborahshelton is an interior designer, see here. She hangs around with the historians.
@doyle2718 – it’s me mate from work: Doylie! The only one on twitter, the rest just think I’m odd…
@dr_andy_russell is an atmospheric physicist at Manchester University. Writes a blog. Handy for a knowledgeable opinion on climate change.
@DrEvanHarris is former LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, and was the party’s Science spokesman. He joined twitter recently and immediately gained a massive following of nerds and geeks, he uses twitter like a pro and is responsive to queries. His website is here.
@Drop4three an enigma I have yet to crack, he blogs at dropped
@Duddy an author of several novels of a scientific bent, and Cestrian and Keeper of Snails blog. She has retired from Twitter, but the blog is still well worth visiting
@GentlemanAdmn a gentleman and an administrator, he writes an eponymous history blog.
@graemearcher is a statistician and a relatively unpolitical politician who writes an occasional blog post on Conservative Home. He likes swimming, cats and Mr Keith.
@hangbitch always happy with an acerbic comment. She has a blog at Hang Bitch.
@HappyMouffetard is my wife, so I must mention her. Cruelly deprived of twitter at work, when she can she tweets on nature and gardening. Curator of The Inelegant Gardener
@iknowhim I always think of as mysterious, a cause de her avatar. She has a blog, Last Tango in Dulwich. And her twitter background is a very fine, if not sensible, shoe.
@Jackpot73 another friendly soul of the interwebs, who has been sharing my sense of humour, which may or may not be a good idea ;-)
@KateKatV is @PaoloViscardi’s mum! I know this is an impolite way to introduce someone, she also has a blog here.
@laales is a split between Hong Kong and Dorset (which is where I come from), she is a member of the historical faction.
@LadyCrafthole is a photographer who blogs at Lady Crafthole’s Blog. She makes little planet photos.
@lahossner is most mysterious, I believe she is a fan of books.
@langtry_girl was best able to finish the sentence: “Understanding the Periodic Table is very much like making love to a beautiful woman…” is an economist, so nearly a scientist ;-)
@louwiseman joins me from the gardening faction, she seems obsessed with insects at the moment.
@markgfh science editor of the Times, and fellow science-politics geek.
@MarkReckons is a fellow LibDem, and political blogger – you can find him here. A moderate in all things.
@masticatingmanx is a fan of food, no indication as to how this has affected waist-line but his blog looks pretty healthy. An inhabitant of the Isle of Man, which I have only seen as a distant shadow.
@MentalIndigest a macho biologist, proud of his snowsocks, my main competition in the race to identify the Friday Mystery Object (see below). He writes the Mental Indigestion blog
@Morphosaurus a teacher who was able to recognise tunicates from my inept description, keeper of Bastard the Cycad and author of multiple blogs.
@nemski is that rare creature: the American Liberal he comes from just down the road from Malvern (Mrs SomeBeans comes from the UK version). Various sciencey tweets.
@PaoloViscardi biologist and proper curator at a museum. Also master of the Friday Mystery Object, on his blog Zygoma, which provides me with much distraction.
@PatrickBaty and @PapersPaints are one and the same, analyser of historic paints and one-time instructor of tank drivers. He blogs at News from Colourman, he’s been on the TV but was upstaged by his cat, Caspar.
@philipmcdermott is a research associate and software engineer. He blogs at http://number23.org/
@Quackwriter author of Kill-Grief and alumni of the Wirral, curator of the Quack Doctor blog, which reports on the wacky medical adverts of the past.
@rebekahthornton is local. She sometimes has a mathematical air about her and is fond of darts.
@ripplestone is from the gardening tendency, although her name makes me think of geology. She blogs at Ripplestone Review.
@robajackson chemistry lecturer, card-carrying red, and trombone player. He blogs on chemistry and politics.
@sallybercow I started following all sorts of people for the election. Sally, self described #1950shousewifebot with a familiar surname is by far the most fun
@sarahsiddons seems to come to me from the historical faction, curator of the Weird, Ordinary, Wonderful blog.
@Schroedinger99 is a fellow skeptic, how did I manage not to add him sooner? He has a blog at Bad Reason.
@Sciorama a scientist I know from some time ago, a biological physicist with very red hair.
@Scisu interested in things sciencey, she blogs for BioData.
@smithatcity is a doctor and a Science Communicator in training at Imperial College, she blogs at in bed with medicine.
@Stephen_Curry a fellow scientist, who scatters x-rays from crystals. He blogs at Reciprocal Space.
@stephenemoss a biological scientist, his work was on the BBC website recently. We hang around together at virtual science policy gatherings. He blogs at a little bit at The Mad Professor.
@TiggerTherese is of the gardening tendency, her bio mentions being an ex-banker – but she doesn’t like to talk about it.
@thecredo I think may have escaped from The Thick of It. Originally the owner a mad old bearded-man avatar, this is how I will always see him.
@ThetisMercurio is in her own words rationalist, humanist, satirical… Staunch opponent of Steiner-Waldorf schools, the homoeopathy of education.
…and now I find I have shifted my social stress to a different sphere. My plan is to keep updating this post, if you spot any factual errors, find my biography offensive, or feel left out then please let me know.
Added Saturday (16/1/10): @scisu @Stephen_Curry, @Sciorama, @Samiahurst, @Quackwriter, @PatrickBaty, @paperspaints, @PaoloViscardi, @Nora_lumiere, @morphosaurus, @mentalindigest, @lucyinglis, @lesanto, @jackpot73, @happymouffetard, @GentlemanAdmn, @Gelada, @FyreFlye, @duddy, @daintyballerina, @ChristineOttery, @Carmenego, @BillyGottaJob, @BarbaraMaller
Added Friday (5/2/10): @dr_andy_russell
Added Friday (26/2/10): @crafthole
Added Friday (6/4/10): @jme_c, @MarkReckons, @TiggerTherese, @smithatcity, @DrEvanHarris
Added Friday (30/4/10): @hangbitch @nemski @louwiseman @sarahsiddons
Added Friday (7/5/10): @sallybercow @jordancdarwin @rose_darling @markgfh, @Schroedinger99
Added Friday (5/6/10): @laales, @KateKatV, @iknowhim, @doyle2718
Added Friday (30/7/10): @masticatingmanx, @robajackson, @deborahshelton, @lahossner
Added Friday (27/8/10): @ripplestone, @Steve_P_Knight, @Margit11, @langtry_girl
Added Friday (3/9/10): @andromedababe @thecredo @localbuilderuk
Added Friday (17/9/10): @philipmcdermott
http://bit.ly/7vp2rD
Jan 14 2010
Making Science and Engineering a Policy Issue
This is a post on the debate organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK featuring the science spokesmen of the Conservatives (Adam Afriyie), Labour (Lord Drayson) and Liberal Democrat (Evan Harris) parties. The debate was structured around pre-selected questions presented to the panel. It was chaired by Roger Highfield, editor of New Scientist and hosted at the Institute of Engineering and Technology.
Lord Drayson benefited from not being on the end of another sustained assault regarding the Science and Technology Facilities Council funding difficulties which have been a centrepiece of most of his recent public outings in this type of forum. The consensus seemed to be that outside problems with the STFC, science and technology had done quite well under Labour. The concerns over impact, which I discussed in a previous post made a showing, my view is that Impact is important but so is the way you measure and use it and the current ideas don’t seem to be going in the right direction. Lord Drayson was able to make a fair defence of recent government policy over stimulus which focuses on the shorter term when compared to stimulus packages in other countries, but he seemed shaky over how cuts in the higher education budget would be achieved.
Adam Afriyie suffered from the disadvantage of being in a party who seem to have consciously steered themselves away from concrete policy statements, spending a lot of time criticising the government but unable to enunciate much clear policy of their own. Concrete policies included a deferment of the REF Impact statements for 2 years (announced this morning), and the waiving of student debts for those going on to teach science. The statement that the “zeitgeist” of David Cameron would lead to increased charitable giving to the medical was met with the online equivalent of wry laughter, as a policy this seems particularly empty. The enthusiastic support of Chris Grayling (Tory shadow home secretary) for the sacking of Professor Nutt and his own rather confused position on the hiring and firing of scientific advisors, did not go down well.
Jan 09 2010
The science of Shrek
A lot of science goes into making a computer animations like Shrek or effects-heavy feature films, such as the remake of The Poseidon Adventure or Pirates of the Caribbean.
This science is something I’m interested in these days: Why does skin look like skin, hair look like hair and fabric look like fabric? There is a traditional physics approach to this which involves measuring stuff with complicated looking equipment and drawing graphs. This is part of the job, but another important component is the work of people interested in photorealistic computer graphics.
If you think computer graphics is all computer games and obvious stuff like Shrek, then check out Autodesk’s Fake or Foto test. Good photorealistic computer graphics are really good these days. Update: Actually, just watch this, full-screen.
There are three steps to making an image, or an animation, using photorealistic computer graphics:
Firstly, make a model of the scene in the computer, this should include the location and type of camera and lights as wells as the shape of objects in the scene. The shape is defined in terms of a “polygon mesh”, this is basically a fishing net in the shape of the thing you’re interested in. Usually “polygon” means triangle in this context. If you’re doing an animation then you can automate some of the scene generation by running physical simulations of objects in the scene. That’s to say, if you want a bouncing ball, you don’t have to make a set of scenes by hand with each scene showing the ball in a slightly different location – you can do this automatically. There is academic research here because efficiently simulating the motion of more complicated things like liquids, or 3601 plastic chairs, is really hard.
Secondly, give the objects in the scene optical properties like colour, transparency, shininess etc. A key feature of the optical properties is the way a material reflects light. This is the difference between a piece of chalk and a mirror, both reflect pretty much all the light that falls on them but if you shine a spotlight on a piece of chalk then that light ends up all over the place, whilst with a mirror the light all leaves in one direction. There is an interesting compromise to be made here, chalk scatters light as it does because of its rough surface. Now this can either be handled by making a very detailed model of that surface roughness (lots of triangles) and then treat each triangle as a little mirror, or I can make a very simple model of the surface and just say “If light hits here it can be scattered anywhere”. This is another area of academic research: how do I efficiently model a complicated material like fabric, because I really don’t want to put in every single fibre in a piece of fabric?
I went to a presentation, at SIGGRAPH (an enormous computer graphics conference) on the special effects for The Poseidon Adventure. The fluid dynamics simulation in this film are fantastic, when the ship sinks waves sloosh around impressively, but it looks a bit odd towards the end. It turns out this is because in the simulation they turned down gravity to make the waves bigger, and then hand paint on a splash right at end, as the Poseidon sinks below the waters. In the end this science serves what is ultimately an artistic, and a commercial, endeavour.
You can play with this sort of stuff for free, Blender is a very fine open source 3D design program used to build scenes (interface takes some getting used to) and luxrender is a physically based render, it’s based on the code described in the book: Physically-based rendering.
p.s. If you what to know how donkeys can talk, I don’t know.