So far, in the last few months, they’ve been named in stories in USA Today and the New York Times, a feat I have been unable to match in my dayjob, sadly. They’re written by two different people, which nixes my theory that they came from the same freelancer. Maybe both writers live locally, which may explain, at least, why the NYTimes writer also mentioned a travel agency

“I’m a complete rationalist,” said Jesse Lebovics, manager of the Olympia and submarine Becuna for the Independence Seaport Museum. “I can explain most of it.

“But [the ship] certainly has a colorful enough history that I think if something were to be around, it makes sense it would be around the Olympia,” Lebovics said.

Sure, Jesse, nice “but” there. I’d think a few ghosts would be mighty convenient for you though.

I don’t necessarily blame the folks who run the Olympia for pitching this story. After all, we’ve seen Eastern State Penitentiary go from moldering historical curiosity to one of the most popular “haunted” places in America by embracing the ghost tourist industry. (By day a historic gem, by night a history-making cash cow.) And the Independence Seaport Museum is still reeling from the scandal left behind by its former president, who ran the place as his own personal cash/political favor machine.

Apparently, the ISM has already pimped out the ship to the ghost TV reality show industry, a necessary first step, I’m sure, before they partner with a ghost tour outfit. That is, if they can put it together in time. According to previous reports, they’re looking to sell it for $20 million or they’ve threatened to sink it off the coast of Cape May. My thinking is that it will join the SS United States and become another ghost ship of Philadelphia.

Um, not in the haunted sense, but the abandoned, looming over Ikea sense…although the Olympia doesn’t necessarily loom over anything.

You want to save the Olympia? Save the waterfront. May my father, a highway engineer since the 60′s, forgive me, but let’s get rid of I-95. The idea is so mad it might work.

UPDATE:

I can’t link it directly, but check out picture number four in the gallery. The caption says it all: “In recordings, Harry Burkhardt says, he has heard voices, including one that told him: ‘Save the ship!’”

Harry, are you certain Jesse wasn’t whispering in your ear?

Sometimes I think it you are less likely to see an exaggeration in a corporate release about a clinical trial than in an academic press release. The corporate flack is beholden to a separate set of rules much stricter than those seen in non-profit academic centers. (In general, however, they overcompensate their bland, corporate releases by being complete PsITAs when it comes to pitching their stories. What isn’t generally well known is how hard they try leaning on academic flacks to do their dirty work for them. In my experience, at least. )

According to Goldacre, among the chief flack crimes is not correctly depicting the size and quality of the research described. I know from experience that some press release editors frown on including such materials, assuming that good journalists would follow up and actually read the study and speak to the reporters. That might have been a safe assumption at one point, but no longer, since many press releases get picked up and used online (and often in print) verbatim.

Researchers at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire took one year’s worth of press releases from 10 medical research centres {The Annals tipsheet, quoted below, mentions 20, hmmm… –Greg}, a mixture of the most eminent universities and the most humble, as measured by their US News & World Report ranking. These centres each put out around one press release a week, so 200 were selected at random and analysed in detail.

Half of them covered research done in humans, and as an early clue to their quality, 23% didn’t bother to mention the number of participants – it’s hard to imagine anything more basic – and 34% failed to quantify their results. But what kinds of study were covered? In medical research we talk about the “hierarchies of evidence”, ranked by quality and type. Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the most reliable: because they ensure that conclusions are based on all of the information, rather than just some of it; and because – when conducted properly – they are the least vulnerable to bias.

He is absolutely right of course, depicting the quality of the study is every bit as important as spelling the lead researchers name correctly. (To be totally honest, I’ve probably failed on both accounts in the course of the hundreds of clinical science releases I’ve written.) And I couldn’t imagine writing a release that didn’t report the number of people in a study. However, it is entirely appropriate for such information to be placed further down in the release. Not buried, mind you, along with the boilerplate and the acknowledgments-you-know-people-won’t-read-but-you-add-anyway-to-appease-the-scientist’s-collaborators. It is also very tricky to explain studies in terms lay audiences might understand without including a few extra paragraphs explaining what a P value means. Again, there is a middle ground, but it behooves flacks to mention the statistical significance of the study they’re promoting. Even a small study with few people can be significant, a fact lost on most folks, flacks especially.

Probably a bigger crime, one that Goldacre doesn’t address directly and is probably not part of the study, is the inability to distinguish between animal and human trials. Many institutions shy away from mentioning animal models as a rule, since people often react angrily — even violently — to the shocking news that you may be working on lab rats. In the past, I’ve used the term “animal model” instead of specifying rat or mouse, which were usually the animal involved. If the study involved a primate, I would have to say something and risk the reaction.

I haven’t read the Dartmouth study myself, but it doesn’t appear that the sin of omission isn’t the only source of exaggeration noted in releases. Here is how the Annals of Internal Medicine’s press tipsheet summarized it:

The news media is often criticized for exaggerating science stories and deliberately sensationalizing the news. However, researchers argue that sensationalism may begin with the journalists’ sources. The researchers reviewed 200 press releases from 20 academic medical centers. They concluded that academic press releases often promote research with uncertain relevance to human health without acknowledging important cautions or limitations. However, since the researchers did not analyze news coverage stemming from the press releases, they could not directly link problems with press releases with exaggerated or sensational reporting. The study authors suggest that academic centers issue fewer releases about preliminary research, especially unpublished scientific meeting presentations. By issuing fewer press releases, academic centers could help reduce the chance that journalists and the public are misled about the importance or implications of medical research.

The problem is that the act of sending out a press release fundamentally risks exaggeration by calling attention to something. Even if you are perfectly clear that the study is small and adds but an incremental bit of information to the larger scientific world, the very fact you are writing a release is calling attention to it. And, of course, you can write the least sensational press release in the world and still have it taken out of context by a reporter looking for lurid headlines.

I’d also like to know what the researchers consider cautions or limitations. According to the Goldacre piece, 58% of releases lack these sorts of things. That’s a fairly high number that, doing the gut check, might be a matter of perspective. Would an un-read disclaimer — in the “forward-looking views”-sense — be viewed as proper caution? Were some releases entirely “cautious” while others not so complete in their cautioning?

So, should institutions send out fewer releases? Some, perhaps, but that’s a superficial answer. I know some places that have instituted a quota system on public relations people and use press releases as a measure of productivity. I think that is a poor practice that practically guarantees shoddy releases, of course. Then again, I’ve worked in places where I would have sent out twice the amount of news releases if I had the time, because the science there was just that plentiful and interesting. It isn’t all that cut and dry.

Press officers are always told to look for clinical relevance in basic science stories. They are told that journalists won’t write about it otherwise. This has a certain bit of truth to it, of course. The journalist you pitch must often, in turn, pitch an editor, who will generally ask about “the point of it all.” The horror.

The majority of biomedical press releases I have written have been about laboratory results. Basic science stuff, molecules bopping into each other, and all. And here you must work hard not to exaggerate the potential clinical use of those findings. Releases like these are often written with the trade press in mind as often — if not more often — than the popular press.

Why? Because, when done well, it helps establish researchers and their institutions as productive and interesting. Because basic science does, in fact, lead to advanced medicine. Because the noise beats signal out there and someone must shepherd the good science around the din.

Still, it is up to the press officer to be an advocate for their institution as well as responsibly advocate the science. That’s where it helps to find a useful story angle to pitch…which, when done thoughtlessly, inevitably leads to the use of the words “holy grail” or, worse, a reference to Star Trek. The trick is to pitch the story behind the science as well as the science itself in order to find the relevance, a feat that is far easier said than done.

With fewer science reporters out there it has become — for better or worse — incumbent upon public affairs people (PIOs, Flacks) to tell the story right the first time.

Robot attacked Swedish factory worker – The Local.

The incident took place in June 2007 at a factory in Bålsta, north of Stockholm, when the industrial worker was trying to carry out maintenance on a defective machine generally used to lift heavy rocks. Thinking he had cut off the power supply, the man approached the robot with no sense of trepidation.

But the robot suddenly came to life and grabbed a tight hold of the victim’s head. The man succeeded in defending himself but not before suffering serious injuries.

“The man was very lucky. He broke four ribs and came close to losing his life,” said Leif Johansson.

Another neat Eurekalert! feed story, one that offers tips for catching flies:

Caltech scientists discover mechanism for wind detection in fruit flies

Tiny, lightweight fruit flies need to know when it’s windy out so they can steady themselves and avoid being knocked off their feet or blown off course. But how do they figure out that it’s time to hunker down? According to a team led by California Institute of Technology (Caltech) scientists reporting in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, the flies have evolved a specialized population of neurons in their antennae that let them know not only when the wind is blowing, but also the direction from which it is coming.

The behavior of fruit flies in the face of a stiff breeze is remarkable in and of itself, notes David J. Anderson, the Roger W. Sperry Professor of Biology at Caltech, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Investigator. “We discovered that you can stop a fly dead in its tracks by blowing a gentle stream of air over it,” he explains, adding that the flies’ immobility is so complete, you could pick one up with a pair of chopsticks as long as a steady stream of wind was passing over the insect. Once the wind stops blowing, however, the flies immediately start walking around again.

Here’s a link to the video.

1) One in seven US teens is vitamin D deficient

One in seven American adolescents is vitamin D deficient, according to a new study by researchers in the Department of Public Health at Weill Cornell Medical College. The findings are published in the March issue of the journal Pediatrics and were presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies’ Annual Meeting in May 2008.

2) Not enough vitamin D in the diet could mean too much fat on adolescents

Too little vitamin D could be bad for more than your bones; it may also lead to fatter adolescents, researchers say.

A Medical College of Georgia study of more than 650 teens age 14-19 has found that those who reported higher vitamin D intakes had lower overall body fat and lower amounts of the fat in the abdomen, a type of fat known as visceral fat, which has been associated with health risks such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and hypertension.

The group with the lowest vitamin D intake, black females, had higher percentages of both body fat and visceral fat, while black males had the lowest percentages of body and visceral fat, even though their vitamin D intake was below the recommended levels. Only one group – white males – was getting the recommended minimum intake of vitamin D.

“This study was a cross-section so, while it cannot prove that higher intake of vitamin D caused the lower body fat, we know there is a relationship that needs to be explored further,” says Dr. Yanbin Dong, a molecular geneticist and cardiologist at the MCG Gerogia Prevention Institute.

In an article published in the April 2009 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, researchers found that teenagers who preferred popular songs with degrading sexual references were more likely to engage in intercourse or in pre-coital activities.

Already, with the euphemisms. What are pre-coital activities? Heavy petting? Badminton?

Writing in the article, Brian A. Primack, MD, EdM, MS, Center for Research on Health Care at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, states, “This study demonstrates that, among this sample of young adolescents, high exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex in popular music was independently associated with higher levels of sexual behavior. In fact, exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex was one of the strongest associations with sexual activity…These results provide further support for the need for additional research and educational intervention in this area.”

If I had known this then, I would have taken extra care in putting together mix tapes for the girls I fancied.

Surveys were completed by 711 ninth-grade students at three large urban high schools. These participants were exposed to over 14 hours each week of lyrics describing degrading sex. About one third had previously been sexually active. Compared to those with the least exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex, those with the most exposure were more than twice as likely to have had sexual intercourse. The relationship between exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex and sexual experience held equally for both young men and women.

Similarly, among those who had not had sexual intercourse, those in the highest third of exposure to lyrics describing degrading sex were nearly twice as likely to have progressed along a noncoital sexual continuum compared to those in the lowest third. Finally, the relationships between exposure to lyrics describing non-degrading sex and sexual outcomes were not significant.

Students reported the number of hours per day that they listen to music and their favorite musical artists. Through a detailed content analysis, the percentage was calculated of each artist’s most popular songs containing lyrics describing degrading sex. An exposure score for lyrics describing degrading sex was then computed by multiplying each student’s hours of music exposure by the percentage of his or her favorite artists’ songs that contain lyrics describing degrading sex.

Oh, OK, I think I found the problem here. They surveyed “711 ninth-grade students at three large urban high schools”…now, I’m no expert on youth culture, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a song popular among urban high schoolers that wasn’t about degrading sex. Of course kids listen to songs about sex.

When I was a kid, I’d hover over any material, in print, on video or sketched by a 17th c. Dutch Master in the often vain hopes that there would be some sort of sexual content in it. A kid would no sooner pass up a song about deviant sex than they would a Trader Joe’s Vanilla Joe-Joe (Crom, I love them). On the surface, there seems to be some correlation/causation confusion.

And that’s the danger of it. For all I know, this is probably good, legitimate science and there are factors here that just aren’t coming across in a press release. Mark my words, this press release will picked up unedited and regurgitated in news outlets across the land.

It doesn’t help to use phrases like “noncoital sexual continuum” as if that’s a normal everyday figure of speech. What does that mean? It sounds like the leading cause of blindness in teenage Borg. I’m assuming “noncoital sexual continuum” is how we round the bases in science-speak. Does that make it degrading? If so, I don’t know what’s normal.

How do you quantify degrading sexual lyrics, anyway?

“I’m sorry, son, that hip-hop song rates a 6.5 on the Ludacris scale and, well, that’s logarithmic and the logarithm is going to get you. Your mother and I don’t want that sort of thing in the house. You understand? Good, now here’s $20, go see American Pie 7 while your mother and I get our freak on…Gladys, where’s the butter and the Lil Wayne?”

A research review published recently in Nutrition Today(1) affirms that the high-quality protein in eggs makes a valuable contribution to muscle strength, provides a source of sustained energy and promotes satiety. High-quality protein is an important nutrient for active individuals at all life stages, and while most Americans consume the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for protein, additional research suggests that some Americans are not consuming enough high-quality protein to achieve and maintain optimal health.(2,3,4)

Eat more eggs! Eggggggs!

One wonders why they can’t bother to name this “all-natural, high-quality protein” (as if we might think eggs might contain entirely unnatural, low-quality proteins) in the press release. And by one, I guess I mean me, really. It is my blog, after all.

“While many Americans may be getting enough protein, they need to focus on consuming sources of higher-quality protein. Our review of the science suggests that eggs are an ideal protein choice, plus, they are very affordable,” says Donald K. Layman, Ph.D., co-author of the research review and professor emeritus at the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois. “In addition, individuals should focus on when they consume high-quality protein. Most protein consumption occurs in the evening, even though there are significant benefits to consuming more protein at breakfast, such as stimulation of muscle protein synthesis and long-lasting satiety.”

Egggs! Mystery Protein! EGGGGS!

To be fair, I haven’t read the Nutrition Today article, and the journal is peer-reviewed. So, my default skepticism aside, I can reasonably assume everything is on the up and up. It is a review article, after all, so I’d be curious if there were any anti-egg articles published in 2008 (when many of these studies were referenced).

Cardiff researchers could herald a new era in fundamental physics
Cardiff University researchers who are part of a British-German team searching the depths of space to study gravitational waves, may have stumbled on 1 of the most important discoveries in physics according to an American physicist

Cardiff University researchers who are part of a British-German team searching the depths of space to study gravitational waves, may have stumbled on one of the most important discoveries in physics according to an American physicist.

Craig Hogan, a physicist at Fermilab Centre for Particle Astrophysics in Illinois is convinced that he has found proof in the data of the gravitational wave detector GEO600 of a holographic Universe – and that his ideas could explain mysterious noise in the detector data that has not been explained so far.

The British-German team behind the GEO600, which includes scientists from the School of Physics and Astronomy’s Gravitational Physics Group, will now carry out new experiments in the coming months to yield more evidence about Craig Hogan’s assumptions. If proved correct, it could help in the quest to bring together quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of gravity.

I’ve been busy the last few weeks, so I missed the holographic hoopla from Craig Hogan. The idea is — in my likely erroneous inerpretations — that what we know as 3D reality is really 2D information projected from edges of the universe, the cosmological horizon, like a the cover of National Geographic (when we still thought holograms were cool). The Cardiff University is a bit of press release me-too-ism, but that’s largely forgivable (I do it myself sometimes) if a bit tacky (a spade’s a spade).

What I want to know is what are the consequences of living in a holographic universe. Are there any perks? Neat ways to hack reality, for example?

Or will holographic be the new woo word as we get tired of saying “quantum” everything? Only time and Oprah will tell.

Giant rockets could revolutionize lots of things: ice hockey, Buddhism, my daughter’s time outs for poking her little brother…

The release does give a wonderful idea of just how big the new Ares V rocket will be. Big enough to lift 396,000 lbs into orbit. That is, as the release puts it, 16 or 17 school buses or, as I reckon, about 200 average (178 lbs) adults (naked and without life support, that is, these shouldn’t be people you actually like).

In any case, yes, this thing should be able to lift a decent-sized telescope to orbit.

Confusing things, somewhat, is NASA’s own verbiage on the topic, according to the Ares V site:

The versatile, heavy-lifting Ares V is a two-stage, vertically stacked launch vehicle. It can carry nearly 414,000 pounds (188 metric tons) to low-Earth orbit. When working together with the Ares I crew launch vehicle to launch payloads into Earth orbit, Ares V can send nearly 157,000 pounds (71 metric tons) to the moon.

What’s even more confusing is all the geekspeak for the new shuttle replacement rockets. I think I got it, though, if you’re curious…

The Constellation Program is the umbrella name for the shuttle replacement.

The Orion is the capsule where the crew (about 4-6 people) sits.

The Ares I is the smaller rocket, capable of lifting 25 tons to orbit and beyond. It looks top heavy, which is fine, but it might shake a bit too much, which isn’t.

The Ares V is the aforementioned biggun.

The Altair is the lunar lander, which will go aboard an Ares V.

The Altair IV is where Dr. Morbius and his daughter Altaira live.

Meanwhile, none of this will happen for a while. The Ares I is set to launch in 2014, I believe. The shuttle, however, stops launching next year (making it very unlikely at this point I’ll ever see a shuttle launch in person).

Taking up the slack — since astronauts still need to go up and down the well — will be the Russians in their Soyuz (people mover) and Progress (thing mover) vehicles, which sensibly sit atop Soyuz rockets. (Seriously, NASA loves naming things.)

In addition, NASA is spending about $500 million or so — the cost of an average shuttle launch — on the COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) program. COTS is, essentially, a service contract to a commercial outfit that will send their own rockets up to resupply the space station.

Two companies recently won the contract: Space X (Elon Musk’s rocket company) and Orbital Sciences Corporation (who seriously have to work on their name if they are going to compete with Space X, a name that is only cool by comparison).

Space X has the Falcon 1 (which has launched before) and Falcon 9 (which hasn’t, but will soon). There’s a Falcon 9 variant called the heavy, which can carry more stuff (but less than the Ares V) They also have a crew capsule called the Dragon, which can carry seven folks and their luggage. I take back what I said, as goofy as “Space X” is, the company knows how to name stuff.

Orbital Sciences Corporation (yawn) has the Cygnus unmanned resupply vehicle and the Taurus rocket (which hasn’t lifted yet, either) I was wrong, the Taurus rocket has lifted, a number of times. The COTS entry is the Taurus II, which has yet to go up.
.

With some luck and skill, both COTS contractors will get their acts together this year and we’ll see some fun by 2010, when Roy Scheider will finally learn what happened to the Discovery.

Anyway, that’s all the geekiness I can manage before the sun comes up.