Blog - Science-Education-Research

A drafted man is like a draft horse because…

A case of analogy in scientific discovery

Keith S. Taber

How is a drafted man like a draft horse (beyond them both having been required to give service?)

"The phthisical soldier is to his messmates
what
the glandered horse is to its yoke fellow"
Jean-Antoine Villemin quoted by Goetz, 2013

Analogy in science

I have discussed many examples of analogies in these pages. Often, these are analogies intended to help communicate scientific ideas – to introduce some scientific concept by suggesting it is similar to something already familiar. However, analogy is important in the practice of science itself – not just when teaching about or communicating science to the general public. Scientific discoveries are often made by analogical thinking – perhaps this as-yet-unexplained phenomenon is a bit like that other well-conceptualised phenomenon?

Analogies are more than just similes (simply suggesting that X is like Y; say that the brain is like a telephone exchange ¹) because they are based on an explicit structural mapping. That is, there are parallels between relationships within a concept.

So,

to say that the atom is a tiny solar system would just be a metaphor, and
to simply state that the atom is like a tiny solar system would be a simile;
but to say that the atom is like a tiny solar system because both consist of a more massive central body orbited by much less massive bodies would be an analogy. ²

Read about analogies in science

A medical science analogy

Thomas Goetz describes how, in the nineteenth century, Jean-Antoine Villemin suspected that the disease known as phthisis (tuberculosis, 'T.B.') was passed between people, and that this tended to occur when people were living in crowded conditions. Villemin was an army surgeon and the disease was very common among soldiers, even though they tended to be drawn from younger, healthier members of the population. (This phenomenon continued into the twentieth century long after the cause of the infection was understood. ³)

Heavy horses: it is not just the workload of draught horses that risks their health ⁴
(Image by Daniel Borker from Pixabay)

Villemin knew that a horse disease, glanders, was often found to spread among horses that were yoked closely together to work in teams, and he suspected something similar was occurring among the enlisted men due to their living and working in close quarters.

"…Jean-Antoine Villemin, a French army surgeon…in the 1860s conducted a series of experiments testing whether tuberculosis could be transmitted form one animal to another. Villemin's interest began when he observed how tuberculosis seemed to affect young men who moved to the city, even though they were previously healthy in their rural homes. He compared the effect to how glanders, a horse disease, seemed to spread when a team [of horses] was yoked together. "The phthisical soldier is to his messmates what the glandered horse is to its yoke fellow", Villemin conjectured."
Goetz, 2013, p.104

To a modern reader this seems an unremarkable suggestion, but that would be an ahistorical evaluation. Glanders is an infectious disease, and so is tuberculosis, so being in close contact with an infected cospecific is clearly a risk factor for being infected. Yet, when Villemin was practising medicine it was not accepted that tuberculosis was infectious, and infectious agents such as bacteria and viruses had not been identified.

Before the identification of the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis as the infectious agent, there was no specific test to demarcate tuberculosis from other diseases. This mattered as although T.B. tends to especially affect the pulmonary system, it can cause a wide range of problems for an infected person. Scrofula, causing swollen lymph nodes, was historically seen as quite distinct from consumption, recognised by bloody coughing, but these are now both recognised as the results of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection (when the bacterium moves from the lungs into the lymphatic system it leads to the symptoms of scrofula). The bacterium can spread through the bloodstream to cause systemic disease. However, a person may be infected with the bacterium for years before becoming ill. Before the advent of 'germ theory', and the ability to identify specific 'germs', the modern account of tuberculosis as a complex condition with diverse symptoms caused by a single infectious agent was not at all obvious.

The contexts of discovery and justification

Although the analogy with glanders was suggestive to Villemin, this was just the formation of a hypothesis: that T.B. could be passed from one person to another via some form of material transfer during close contact. The context of discovery was the recognition of an analogy, but the context of justification needed to be the laboratory.

Sacrifices for medical science

The basic method for testing the hypothesis consisted of taking diseased animals (today we would say infected, but that was not yet accepted), excising diseased material from their bodies, or taking samples of tissue from diseased people, and introducing it into the bodies of healthy animals. If the healthy animals quickly showed signs of disease, when similar controls remained healthy, it seemed likely that the transfer of material from the diseased animal was the cause.

Although the microbes responsible for T.B. and similar diseases had not been found, autopsy showed irregularities in diseased bodies. The immune system acts to localise the infection and contain it within tissue nobules or granuloma known as 'tubercles'. These tubercles are large enough to be detected and recognised post-mortem.

It was therefore possible to harvest diseased material and introduce it into healthy animals:

"If one shaves a narrow area on the ear of a rabbit or at the groin or on the chest under the elbow of a dog, and then creates a subcutaneous wound so small and so shallow that it does not yield the slightest drop of blood, and then one introduces into this wound, such that it cannot escape, a pinhead-sized packet of tuberculous material obtained from a man, a cow or a rabbit that has already been rendered tuberculous; or if, alternatively, one uses a Pravaz [hypodermic] syringe to instil, under the skin of the animal, a few droplets of sputum from a patient with phthisis…"
Villemin, 1868/2015, p.256

Villemin reports that the tiny wound quickly heals, and then the introduced material cannot be felt beneath the site of introduction. However after a few days:

"a slight swelling is observed, accompanied in some cases by redness and warmth, and one observes the progressive development of a local tubercle of a size between that of a hemp seed and that of a cobnut. When they reach a certain volume, these tubercles generally ulcerate. In some cases, there is an inflammatory reaction…"
Villemin, 1868/2015, p.256

Despite these signs, the animals remain in reasonable health – for a while,

"Only after 15, 20 or 30 days does it become evident that they are losing weight, and have lost their appetite, gaiety and vivacity of movement. Some, after going into decline for a certain period, regain some weight. Others gradually weaken, falling into the doldrums, often suffering from debilitating diarrhoea, finally succumbing to their illness in a state of emaciation."
Villemin, 1868/2015, p.256

In the doldrums

The doldrums refers to oceanic waters within about five degrees of the equator where there are often 'lulls' or calms with no substantial winds. Sailing ships relied on winds to make progress, and ships that were in the doldrums might be becalmed for extended periods, and so unable to make progress, leaving crews listless and frustrated – and possibly running out of essential supplies.

"Down dropt the breeze, the sails dropt down, 'Twas sad as sad could be; And we did speak only to break The silence of the sea!

All in a hot and copper sky, The bloody Sun, at noon, Right up above the mast did stand, No bigger than the Moon.

Day after day, day after day, We stuck, nor breath nor motion; As idle as a painted ship Upon a painted ocean.

Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink."
Extract from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, 1834, Samuel Taylor Coleridge

So, the inoculated animals 'fell into the duldrums', metaphorically speaking.

Read about metaphors in science

Under a hot and copper sky
(Image by Youssef Jheir from Pixabay)

The needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of humans

It was widely considered entirely acceptable to sacrifice the lives and well-being of animals in this way, to generate knowledge that is was hoped might help reduce human suffering. 'Animal rights' had not become a mainstream cause (even if animals had occasionally been subject to legal prosecution and sometimes found guilty in European courts – suggesting they had responsibilities if not rights).

Similar experiments were later carried out by Robert Koch in his own investigations of T.B. and other diseases soon after. Indeed, Goetz notes that when working on anthrax in 1875,

"As Koch's experiments went on, his backyard menagerie began to thin out; his daughter, Getrud, grew concerned that she was losing all her pets."
p.27
Goetz, 2013, p.27

"Let us hope that daddy can draw conclusions from his experiments soon…"
(Image by Adina Voicu from Pixabay )

Although animals are still used in medical research today, there is much more concern about their welfare and researchers are expected to avoid the suffering and death of more animals than considered strictly necessary. ⁵ Wherever possible, alternatives to animal experimentation are preferred.

Inadmissible analogies?

One of the arguments made against animal studies is that as different species are by definition different in their anatomy and physiology, non-human animals are imperfect models for human disease processes. One argument that Villemin faced was that his inoculations between animals was most successful in rabbits, when, it was claimed, rabbits were widely tubercular in the normal population. In other words, it was suggested that Villemin only found evidence of disease in his inoculated test animals because they probably already had the disease anyway.

That suggests the need for some sort of experimental control, and Villemin reported that

"…despite routine sequestration and the tortures that the vivisectionists force them to endure, rabbits are almost never tuberculous. I have explored more than a hundred lungs from these rodents from markets and I found none to be tuberculous."
Villemin, 1868/2015, p.257

Indirect evidence

Villemin had made an analogy between disease transfer between horses to disease transfer between humans. His experiments did not directly test disease transfer between humans – as that would not have been considered unethical (and so "absolutely forbidden") even at a time when animal (i.e., non-human animal) research was not widely questioned:

I believe that I have experimentally demonstrated that phthisis, like syphilis and glanders, is communicable by inoculation. It can be inoculated from humans to certain animals, and from these animals to others of the same species. Can it be inoculated between humans? It is absolutely forbidden for us to provide experimental proof of this, but all the evidence is in favour of an affirmative response.
Villemin, 1868/2015, p.265

So, Villemin did not demonstrate that T.B. could be transferred between people, but only that analogous transfers occurred. So, in a sense, the context of justification, as well as the context of discovery, relied on analogies. Despite this, the indirect evince was strong and Villemin's failure to persuade most of the wider scientific community of his arguments likely reflected the general paradigmatic beliefs at the time that disease was caused by hereditary weakness, or through broad environmental conditions, rather than minute amounts of material being transferred between bodies.

Mycobacterium tuberculosis – the infectious agent in tuberculosis – could only be detected once suitable microscopes were available – Koch published his discovery of the bacterium in 1882.

(source: Wikipedia Commons)

Koch was able to be more persuasive because he was also able to actually identify a microbe present in diseased bodies, as well as show inoculation led to the microbe being found in the inoculated animal. That shift in thinking required the acceptance of a different kind of analogy: that the presence, or absence, of a bacterium in the tissues mapped onto being infected with, or free from, a disease.

present in tissues	Mycobacterium tuberculosis a microscopic 'germ' – only visible under the microscope	absent in tissues
↕︎		↕︎
infected	tuberculosis a widespread and often fatal disease of people and other mammals	not infected

In a sense, diagnosis through microbiological methods relies on a kind of analogy

Sources cited:

Daniel, T. M. (2015). Jean-Antoine Villemin and the infectious nature of tuberculosis. The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 19(3), 267-268. https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtld.06.0636
Frith, J. (2014). History of Tuberculosis. Part 1 – Phthisis, consumption and the White Plague. Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, 22(2), 29-35.
Goetz, T. (2013). The Remedy. Robert Koch, Arthur Conan Doyle, and the quest to cure tuberculosis. Gotham Books.
Surget, A. (2022). Being between Scylla and Charybdis: designing animal studies in neurosciences and psychiatry – too ethical to be ethical? In Seminar series: Berlin-Bordeaux Working Group Translating Validity in Psychiatric Research.
Taber, K. S. (2013). Upper Secondary Students' Understanding of the Basic Physical Interactions in Analogous Atomic and Solar Systems. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1377-1406. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9312-3
Villemin, J. A. (1868/2015). On the virulence and specificity of tuberculosis [De la virulence et de la spécificité de la tuberculose]. The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 19(3), 256-266. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtld.06.0636-v

Notes

¹ As analogies link to what is familiar, they tend to reflect cultural contexts. At one time the mind was referred to as being like a slate. The once-common comparison of the brain to a telephone exchange has tended to have been largely displaced now by the commparison to a computer.

² Whilst this is a common teaching analogy, it is also problematic if it taught without considering the negative aspects of the analogy (e.g. electrons repel each other, unlike planets; planets vary in mass etc.), and if the target concept is not clearly presented as one (simplified) model of atomic structure. See Taber, 2013.

³ "During both World War I and World War II in the US Army, tuberculosis was the leading cause of discharge [i.e., from the service]. Annual incidence of tuberculosis in the military of Western countries is very low, however in the last several decades microepidemics have occurred in small close knit units on US and British Naval warships and land based units deployed overseas. Living and working in close quarters and overseas deployment to tuberculosis-endemic areas of the world such as Afghanistan, Iraq and South-East Asia remain significant risk factors for tuberculosis infection in military personnel, particularly multidrug resistant tuberculosis."
Frith, 2014, p.29

⁴ Some horses have been bred to be fast runners, and others to be capable of pulling heavy loads. (That is some have been artificially selected to be like sprinters or cyclists, and others to be like weightlifters or shot-putters). The latter are variously called draft (U.S. spelling) / draught (British spelling) horses (US), dray horses, carthorses, work horses or heavy horses. When a load was too heavy to be moved by a single horse, several would be harnessed together into a team – providing more power. Ironically the term 'horsepower' was popularised by James Watts – whose name has since been given to the modern international (S.I.) unit of power – in marketing his steam engines. According to the Institute of Physics,

Whilst the peak mechanical power of a single horse can reach up to 15 horsepower, it is estimated that a typical horse can only sustain an output of 1 horsepower (746 W) for three hours and, if working for an eight-hour day, a horse might output only three quarters of one horsepower.
https://spark.iop.org/why-one-horsepower-more-power-one-horse

⁵ Alexandre Surget (Associate Professor at University of Tours, France) has even argued that the guidelines adopted in animal experiments are sometimes counter-productive as they encourage experiments with too few animals, and consequently too little statistical power, to support robust conclusions – in effect sacrificing animals without reasonable expectations of securing sound knowledge (Surget, 2022).

Any research that makes demands of resources and the input of others, but which is designed in such a way that it is unlikely to produce reliable new knowledge, can be considered unethical.

Read about research ethics

Share on Facebook

Not actually a government event

"It's just the name of the shop, love"

Keith S. Taber

An invitation

This week I received an invitation to chair an event (well, as most weeks, I received several of those, but this one seemed to be actually on a topic I knew a little about…).

Dear Keith,

"It is my pleasure to invite you to chair at Government Events' upcoming event The Delivering Excellence in Teaching STEM in Schools Conference 2023, taking place online on 29^th of March 2023.

Chairing would involve giving a short opening and closing address, chairing the Q&A and panel discussions, and providing insights throughout the day.

Invited Speakers Include:

Kiera Newmark, Deputy Director for STEM, Digital and EdTech, Department for Education

Maria Rossini, Head of Education, British Science Association

Sam Parrett, Chief Executive, London South East Colleges

I feel you would add great value and insight to the day and I would be delighted to confirm your involvement in this event! …"

(Well, I claim to know a bit about teaching science, not so much about teaching technology or mathematics, or engineering {that I was not aware was really part of the National Curriculum}.)

Read about STEM education

So, at face value this would be a government-sponsored event, including a senior representative from the ministry of education – so perhaps another chance for me to lobby to have the embarrassing errors in the English National Curriculum for science corrected – as well as a leading executive from the 'British Ass'. ¹

My initial reaction was mixed. This was clearly an important topic, and one where I probably was qualified to act as chair and might be able to make a useful contribution. And it was on-line, so I would not have to travel. Then again, I retired from teaching because I suffer from regular bouts of fatigue, and find I have to limit my high intensity inputs as I tire very easily and quickly these days. Chairing a session might not completely drain me, but a whole conference?

Due diligence

Finding myself tempted, I felt the need to do some due diligence. Was this really what it seemed? What would be involved?

The invitation seemed genuine enough, even if it included one of those dodgy legalese footers sometimes used by scam artists to put people off sharing dubious messages. (The 'you must not tell anyone' trope reminds me of what fictional blackmailers say about not contacting the police.)

A rather silly legal disclaimer.
It seems from the wording, presumably carefully chosen by the legal department, that this disclaimer only applies to "email (which included any attachment)" – whereas mine did not.

This one suggested that if I had received the message in error I should

permanently delete it from my computer without making a copy
then reply to say I had done so

I will leave the reader to spot the obvious problem there.

However, this lack of clear logic did remind me of the similarly bizarre statement about the conservation of energy in the National Curriculum which perhaps gave some credence to this being a government event.

Luckily, I was the intended recipient, but in any case I take the view that if someone sends me an unsolicited email, then they have no right to tell me what to do with it, and as in this case I discovered they had already announced the invitation on their website (see image above), I could not see how any court would uphold their claim that the message was confidential.

Government events?

I was clearly aware that just because an event was organised by an entity called "Government Events" was not assurance this really was a government event. So I checked out the website. (The lack of any link in the invitation email to the event webpage, or indeed the organisation more generally, might have been an oversight, but seemed odd.)

As you will have likely guessed, this was not a government event.

In situations such as this I am always put in mind of the 'song' 'Shirt' by the dadaist-inspired Bonzo Dog Doo-dah Band which included a joke about a man who takes his shirt to a dry cleaner for 'express cleaning' and was then told it would be ready for collection in three weeks. ¹

Three weeks!? But, the sign outside says '59 minute cleaning'

Yes, that's just the name of the shop, love.

On searching out the website I found that "Government events" claims to be "Supporting UK Public Sector Teams to Deliver World Class Public Services" and to be "the UK's No. 1 provider of public sector conferences, training courses and case study focused insights and intelligence". By "public sector conferences" they presumably mean conferences for the public sector, not conferences in the pubic sector.

It transpired that "Government Events" is one brand of an organisation called "Professional Development Group". That organisation has a webpage featuring members of its "Advisory Board [which] is made up of senior executives and academics from both corporate and public-sector background" but its website did not seem to provide any information about its governance or who its executives or owners were. (Professional Development Group does have a listing in the Companies House registry showing two current directors.)

Possibly the senior leadership team at Professional Development Group? But probably not.

A bias against the private sector?

Perhaps I am simply displaying my personal bias towards the public sector? I've worked in state schools, a state college, and a state university. I have worked in the private sector if we include after-school, and holiday, jobs (mainly for Boots the Chemist or Boots the Pharmacist as they should be known), but my career is very much public sector. And I've not liked what I've seen as the inappropriate and misguided attempts to make the health and education service behave like a series of competing units in a free market. (And do not 'get me going' on the state of utilities in England now – the selling off of state assets at discounted rates to profit-making concerns (seemingly to fund temporary tax cuts for electoral advantage), and so replacing unitary authorities (with no need to budget for continuously needing to advertise and to try to poach each others' customers) by dozens of competing and, recently, often failing, profit-making companies that often own each other or are owned overseas.)

So, although I have no problem with the private sector, which no doubts does some things better, I am suspicious of core 'public sector' activities being moved into the commercial sphere.

Perhaps "Government Events" does a good job despite the misleading name. After all they are kite-marked by an organisation called the CPD Certification Service (a trademark of The CPD Certification Service Ltd, so another privately owned company. Again, the website did not give any information about governance or The CPD Certification Service Ltd's executives. But four directors are named in the public listing at Company's House). This all seems alien to someone from the public sector where organisations go out of their way to provide such information, and value transparency in such matters. (Three of the four directors share the same family name, 'Savage', which might raise some questions in a publicly governed organisation.)

A bit pricey for an on-line meeting?

But even if Professional Development Group do a wonderful job, do they offer value for money?

The conference is aimed at "teachers who work in STEM and senior leadership representatives from schools". If they work in state schools the cost per delegate is £399.00 (plus V.A.T., but schools should be able to reclaim that). For that they get a one-day on line conference. The chair (currently listed as" "Keith Taber, Professor of Science Education, University of Cambridge (invited)", but that will need to be changed*) is due to open the event at 09.50, and to wind it up with some closing remarks at 16.20. The £399 will presumably not include accommodation, refreshments, lunch, a notepad, a branded pen, a tote bag for the goodies, or any of the other features of face-to-face events.

It will include a chance to hear a range of speakers. Currently listed (caveat emptor: "programme subject to change without notice") are ten specified presentations as well as two Key Supporter Sessions (!) The advertised topics seem valuable:

National Trends and Updates on Boosting the Profile of STEM Subjects in Schools
Best Practice for Implementing Flexible Working to Help Recruit and Retain STEM Teachers
Providing an Inclusive and Accessible STEM Curriculum for Pupils with SEND
Driving Increased Interest and Participation in STEM Among Female Students
Encouraging Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds to Study STEM Subjects
Taking Action to Boost Extracurricular Engagement with STEM Subjects

• Primary: Implementing a Whole School Approach to Boost the Profile of STEM Subjects	• Secondary: Supporting Students to Succeed and Improve Outcomes in STEM Examinations
• Primary: Partnership Working to Promote STEM Education in Primary Schools	• Secondary: Working with Employers and Universities to Encourage Post-Secondary STEM

However, anyone looking to book should notice that at this point only one of the ten mooted speakers has confirmed – the rest are 'invited'.

I was also intrigued by the two slots reserved for 'Key Supporter Session's. You, dear reader, could buy ('sponsor') one of these slots to talk at the conference.

You can sponsor the conference

Professional Development Group offer "sponsorship and exhibition packages" for their events. This would allow a sponsor to meet their "target audience", to "demonstrate your products or services" and even to "speak alongside industry [sic] leading experts".

Someone wishing to invest as a Key Supporter (pricing not disclosed) gets branding on the Website and Event Guide and a "20-minute speaking slot followed by Q&A". (For this specific conference it seems you could buy time to sell your wares in the 10.40 slot or the 13.55 slot.)

Perhaps you have invented a new type of perpetual motion kit for use in the classroom and are seeking an opportunity to demonstrate and market your wares? ["demonstrate your products or services"]
Perhaps you think that evolution is not really science because it is only a theory, and you want to subject delegates to a diatribe on why impressionable young people should not be indoctrinated with such dangerous speculations? ["speak alongside industry [sic] leading experts"]
Perhaps your company mines and refines uranium ore, and is looking to find a market for the vast amounts of fine slag produced, and think it might make an excellent modelling material for use in design and technology classes? [meet "your target audience"]

A Strategic Headline Sponsor at a Professional Development Group event can also purchase other features such as a "pre show marketing email to all registered delegates". I guess the terms and conditions of signing up to a Professional Development Group event mean delegates agree to receive such sponsored advertising.

What's wrong with selling conference slots?

There is nothing inherently immoral about selling slots at a commercial conference – after all, it is a commercial event – so, it is primarily about 'the bottom line' of the balance sheet. But that's my point. This would be unacceptable at an academic conference, where some speakers are invited because they are considered to have something relevant to say, and others wishing to present have to submit their proposals to peer review.

What I find, if not immoral, certainly distasteful here, is that an on-line conference of the kind that would likely be arranged for free or for a nominal fee in an academic context, is being priced at £399 for state school teachers at a time when public services are under immense pressures and budgets need to be very wisely spent. How can this price be justified?

Perhaps the speaker fees are a significant cost. But I doubt that: I was not offered any fee to give up a day of my time to chair the meeting, and so I expect the other speakers are also being expected to speak for free as well. That's how things usually work in academia and the state sector. (But if this is a commercial activity, then the professional speakers SHOULD ask for a fee. If they are taking time out of school, and so already being paid, then perhaps the fee could be used to buy school books or pay for supply teachers?) Indeed, there are two slots for fee-paying speakers who wish to advertise their wares.

So, this is perhaps not actually a scam, but it does not meet the standards of honesty and transparency I would expect in the state sector (because it is only masquerading as state sector), and the event seems to be priced in order to make money for shareholders, not primarily to meet a mission of "Supporting UK Public Sector Teams".

If the COVID pandemic taught us anything, it is that many (probably not all, but surely most) meetings can be held just as well on line, so avoiding all the time, money and carbon footprints of moving people around the country. Oh, and consequently, it showed us that most of these meetings (a) can be offered for free where they are hosted by a public sector organisation that can consider them as meeting part of its core mission; and (b) that even when that does not apply, and so costs have to be covered, they can be arranged for a fraction of the expense of a face-to-face event at a hired venue.

As you may have guessed, I declined.*

* I replied to decline this opportunity on 19th November. Checking on 25th November, I see I am still listed as Chair (invited). See note ¹

Notes

¹ In the academic world, the term 'invited speaker' is used to designate a conference speaker who was invited by the organisers in contrast to a speaker who applied to speak and proposed a contribution in response to an open call. However, 'invited speaker' here seems to mean someone whom has been invited to speak, in contrast to someone who has agreed to.

² I have a pretty poor memory, but do recall seeing Bonzo stalwart Neil Innes play at Nottingham University when I was a student. He sang their most successful song, "I'm the urban spaceman" (which reached no. 5 in the UK single charts and led to Innnes getting an Ivor Novello award for his song-writing), then announced, deadpan, "that was a medley of hit".

Share on Facebook

Out of the womb of darkness

Medical ethics in 20th Century movies

Keith S. Taber

The hero of the film, Dr Holden, is presented as a scientist. Here he is trying to collect some data.
(still from '***The Night of the Demon***')

"The Night of the Demon" is a 1957 British film about an American professor who visits England to investigate a supposed satanic cult. It was just shown on English television. It was considered as a horror film at the time of its release, although the short scenes that actually feature a (supposedly real? merely imagined? *) monster are laughable today (think Star Trek's Gorn in the original series, and consider if it is believable as anything other than an actor wearing a lizard suit – and you get the level of horror involved). [*Apparently the director, Jacques Tourneur, never intended a demon to be shown, but the film's producer decided to add footage showing the monster in the opening scenes, potentially undermining the whole point of the film: but giving the publicity department something they could work with. ⁶]

A real scary demon (in 1959) and a convincing alien (in 1967)?
(stills from '**The Night of the Demon**' and ' **Star Trek**' episode 'Arena')
[Move the slider to see more of each image.]

The film's protagonist is a psychologist, Dr. John Holden, who dismisses stories of demons and witchcraft and the like, and has made a career studying people's beliefs about such superstitions. Dr Holden's visit to Britain deliberately coincided with a conference at which he was to present, as well as coincidentally with the death of one of his colleagues (who had been subject to a hex for investigating the cult).

'***Night of the Demon***' (Dir. Jacques Tourneur) movie poster: Sabre Film Production.
[As was common at the time, although the film was in monochrome, the publicity was coloured. Whether the colour painting of the monster looks even less scary than the version in the film itself is a moot point.]

The film works much better as a kind of psychological thriller examining the power of beliefs, than as horror. (Director: 1 – Producer, 0.) That, if we believe something enough, it can have real effects is well acknowledged – but this does not need a supernatural explanation. People can be 'scared' to death by what they imagine, and how they respond to their fears. Researchers expecting a positive outcome from their research are likely to inadvertently behave in ways that leads to this very result: thus the use of double blind studies in medical trials, so that the researchers do not know which patients are receiving which treatment.

Read about expectancy effects in research

While the modern viewer will find little of suspense in the film, I did metaphorically at least 'recoil with shock' from one moment of 'horror'. At the conference a patient (Rand Hobart) is wheeled in on a trolley – someone suspected of having committed a murder associated with the cult, whom the authorities had allowed to be questioned by the researchers…at the conference.

"The authorities have lent me this suspected murderer for the benefit of dramatic effect and for plot development purposes"
(still from '***The Night of the Demon***').

A variety of movie posters were produced for the film ⁶ – arguably this one reflects the *genuinely* horrific aspect of ther story. To a modern viewer this might also appear the most honest representation of the film as the demon given prominence in some versions of the poster barely features in the film.

Holden's British colleague, Professor O'Brien, explains to the delegates,

"For a period of time this man has been as you see him here. He fails to respond to any normal stimulation. His experience, whatever it was, which we hope here to discover, has left him in a state of absolute catatonic immobility. When I first investigated this case, the problem of how to hypnotise an unresponsive person was the major one. Now the proceedings may be somewhat dramatic, but they are necessary. The only way of bringing his mind out of the womb of darkness into which it has retreated to protect itself, is by therapeutic shock, electrical or chemical. For our purposes we are today using pentothal [? ¹] and later methylamphetamine."
Introducing a demonstration of non-consensual use of drugs on a prisoner/patient

"Okay, we'll give him a barbiturate, then we'll hypnotise him, then a stimulant, and if that does not kill him, surely he will simply, calmly and rationally, tell us what so traumatised him that he has completely withdrawn into his subconscious."
(Still from '**The Night of the Demon**')

After an injection, Hobart comes out of his catatonic state, becomes aware of his surroundings, and panics.

The dignity of the accused: Hobart is forced out of his '*state of absolute catatonic immobility*' to discover he is an exhibit at a scientific conference.
(Still from '**The Night of the Demon**'.)

He is physically restrained, and examined by Holden (supposedly the 'hero' of the piece), who then hypnotises him.

"Look at the light. (Yes, I know we have just forcibly brought you round, but now you will sleep.)"
(Still from '**The Night of the Demon**'.)

He is then given an injection of methylamphetamine before being questioned by O'Brien and Holden. He becomes agitated (what, after being forcibly given 'speed'?), breaks free, and leaps, out of a conveniently placed window, to his death.

Now, of course, this is all just fiction – a story. No one is really drugged, and Hobart is played by an' actor who is unharmed. (I can be fairly sure of that as the part was played by Brian Wilde who much later turned up alive and well as prison officer 'Mr Barrowclough' in BBC's Ronnie Barker vehicle 'Porridge'.)

The magic of the movies – people do not stay dead, and there are no professional misconduct charges brought against our hero.
(Stills from '**The Night of the Demon**' and from BBC series 'Porridge'.³ )
[Move the slider to see more of each image.]

Yet this is not some fantastical film (the Gorn's distant cousin aside) but played for realism. Would a psychiatric patient and murder suspect have been released to be paraded and demonstrated at a conference on the paranormal in 1957? I expect not. Would the presenters have been allowed to drug Hobart without his consent?

Read about voluntary, informed, consent

An adult cannot normally be medicated without their consent unless they are considered to lack the ability to make responsible decisions for themselves. Today, it might be possible to give a patient drugs without consent if they have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act (1983) and it was considered the action was necessary for their safety or for the safety of others. Hobart was certainly not an immediate threat to anyone before he was brought out of his trance.

However, even if this enforced use of drugs was sanctioned, this would not be done in a public place with dozens of onlookers. ⁴ And it would not be done (in the U.K. at least!) simply to question someone about a crime.⁵ Presumably, the makers of the film either thought that this scene reflected something quite reasonable, or, at least, that the cinema-going public would find this sufficiently feasible to suspend disbelief. If this fictitious episode did not reflect acceptable ethical standards at the time, it would seem to tell us something about public perceptions of the attitude of those in authority (whether the actual authorities who were meant to have a duty of care to a person under arrest, or those designated with professional roles and academic titles) to human rights.

Today, however, professionals such as researchers, doctors, and even teachers, are prepared for their work with a strong emphasis on professional ethics. In medical care, the interest of the patient themselves comes first. In research, informants are voluntary participants in our studies, who offer us the gift of data, and are not subjects of our enquiries to be treated simply as available material for our work.

Yet, actually, this is largely a modern perspective that has developed in recent decades, and sadly there are many real stories, even in living memory, of professionals deciding that people (and this usually meant people with less standing or power in their society) should be drugged, or shocked, or operated on, without their consent and even against their explicit wishes; for what is seen as their own, or even what is judged as some greater, good; in circumstances where it would be totally unacceptable in most countries these days.

So, although this is not really a horror film by today's measures, I hope any other researchers (or medical practitioners) who were watching the film shared my own reaction to this scene: 'no, they cannot do that!'

At least, they could not do that today.

Read about research ethics

Notes

¹ This sounds to me like 'pentatyl', but I could not find any reference to a therapeutic drug of that name. Fentanyl is a powerful anti-pain drug, which like amphetamines is abused for recreational use – but was only introduced into practice the year after the film was made. It was most likely referring to sodium thiopental, known as pentothal, and much used (in movies and television, at least) as a truth serum. ⁵ As it is a barbiturate, and so is used in anaesthesia, it does not seem an obvious drug of choice to wake someone from a catatonic state.

² The script is based loosely on a 1911 M. R. James short story, 'Casting the Runes' that does not include the episode discussed.

³ I have flipped this image (as can be seen form the newspaper) to put Wilde (playing alongside Ronnie Barker, standing, and Richard Beckinsale), on the right hand side of picture.

⁴ Which is not to claim that such a public demonstration would have been unlikely at another time and place. Execution was still used in the U.K. until 1964 (during my lifetime), although by that time being found guilty of vagrancy (being unemployed and hanging around {unfortunate pun unintended}) for the second time was no longer a capital offence. However, after 1868 executions were no longer carried out in public.

It was not unknown for the corpses of executed criminals to be subject to public dissection in Renaissance [sic, ironically] Europe.

⁵ Fiction, of course, has myriad scenes where 'truth drugs' are used to obtain secrets from prisoners – but usually those carrying out the torture are the 'bad guys', either criminals or agents of what is represented in the story as an enemy or dystopian state.

⁶ Some variations on a theme. (For some reason, for its slightly cut U.S. release 'The Night of the Demon' was called 'The Curse of the Demon'.) The various representations of the demon and the prominence given to it seem odd to a modern viewer given how little the demon actually features in the film.

The references to actually seeing demons and monsters from hell on the screen, "the most terrifying story ever told", and "scenes of terror never before imagined" raises the question of whether the copywriters were expected to watch a film before producing their copy.

Share on Facebook

Passive learners in unethical control conditions

When 'direct instruction' just becomes poor instruction

Keith S. Taber

An experiment that has been set up to ensure the control condition fails, and so compares an innovation with a substandard teaching condition, can – at best – only show the innovation is not as bad as the substandard teaching

One of the things which angers me when I read research papers is examples of what I think of as 'rhetorical research' that use unethical control conditions (Taber, 2019). That is, educational research which sets up one group of students to be taught in a way that is clearly disadvantages them to ensure the success of an experimental teaching approach,

"I am suggesting that some of the experimental studies reported in the literature are rhetorical in the … sense that the researchers clearly expect to demonstrate a well- established effect, albeit in a specific context where it has not previously been demonstrated. The general form of the question 'will this much-tested teaching approach also work here' is clearly set up expecting the answer 'yes'. Indeed, control conditions may be chosen to give the experiment the best possible chance of producing a positive outcome for the experimental treatment."
Taber, 2019, p.108

This irks me for two reasons. The first, obviously, is that researchers have been prepared to (ab)use learners as 'data fodder' and subject them to poor learning contexts in order to have the best chance of getting positive results for the innovation supposedly being 'tested'. However, it also annoys me as this is inherently a poor research design (and so a poor use of resources) as it severely limits what can be found out. An experiment that compares an innovation with a substandard teaching condition can, at best, show the innovation is not as ineffecitive as the substandard teaching in the control condition; but it cannot tell us if the innovation is at least as effective as existing good practice.

This irritation is compounded when the work I am reading is not some amateur report thrown together for a predatory journal, but an otherwise serious study published in a good research outlet. That was certainly the case for a paper I read today in Research in Science Education (the journal of the Australasian Science Education Research Association) on problem-based learning (Tarhan, Ayar-Kayali, Urek & Acar, 2008).

Rhetorical studies?

Genuine research is undertaken to find something out. The researchers in this enquiry claim:

"This research study aims to examine the effectiveness of a [sic] problem-based learning [PbBL] on 9th grade students' understanding of intermolecular forces (dipole- dipole forces, London dispersion forces and hydrogen bonding)."
Tarhan, et al., 2008, p.285

But they choose to compare PbBL with a teaching approach that they expect to be ineffective. Here the researchers might have asked "how does teaching year 9 students about intermolecular forces though problem-based learning compared with current good practice?" After all, even if PbBL worked quite well, if it is not quite as effective as the way teachers are currently teaching the topic then, all other things being equal, there is no reason to shift to it; whereas if it outperforms even our best current approaches, then there is a reason to recommend it to teachers and roll out associated professional development opportunities.

Problem-based learning (third column) uses a problem (*i.e.*, a task which cannot be solved simply by recalling prior learning or employing an algorithmic routine) as the focus and motivation for learning about a topic

Of course, that over-simplifies the situation, as in education, 'all other things' never are equal (every school, class, teacher…is unique). An approach that works best on average will not work best everywhere. But knowing what works best on average (that is, taken across the diverse range of teaching and learning contexts) is certainly a very useful starting point when teachers want to consider what might work best in their own classrooms.

Rhetorical research is poor research, as it is set up (deliberately or inadvertently) to demonstrate a particular outcome, and, so, has built-in bias. In the case of experimental studies, this often means choosing an ineffective instructional approach for the comparison class. Why else would researchers select a control condition they know is not suitable for bringing about the educational outcomes they are testing for?

Problem-Based Learning in a 9th Grade Chemistry Class

Tarhan and colleagues' study was undertaken in one school with 78 students divided into two groups. One group was taught through a sequence based on problem-based learning that involved students undertaking research in groups, gently supported and steered by the teacher. The approach allowed student dialogue, which is believed to be valuable in learning, and motivated students to be active engaged in enquiry. When such an approach is well judged it has potential to count as 'scaffolding' of learning. This seems a very worthwhile innovation – well worth developing and evaluating.

Of course, work in one school cannot be assumed to generalise elsewhere, and small-scale experimental work of this kind is open to major threats to validity, such as expectancy effects and researcher bias – but this is unfortunately always true of these kinds of studies (which are often all educational researchers are resourced to carry out). Finding out what works best in some educational context at least potentially contributes to building up an overall picture (Taber, 2019). ¹

Why is this rhetorical research?

I consider this rhetoric research because of the claims the authors make at the start of the study:

"Research in science education therefore has focused on applying active learning techniques, which ensure the affective construction of knowledge, prevent the formation of alternate conceptions, and remedy existing alternate conceptions…Other studies suggest that active learning methods increase learning achievement by requiring students to play a more active role in the learning process…According to active learning principles, which emphasise constructivism, students must engage in researching, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making, analysis and synthesis during construction of their knowledge."
Tarhan, et al., 2008, pp.285-286

If they genuinely believed that, then to test the effectiveness of their PbBL activity, Tarhan and colleagues needed to compare it with some other teaching condition that they are confident can "ensure the affective construction of knowledge, prevent the formation of alternate conceptions, and remedy existing alternate conceptions… requir[e] students to play a more active role in the learning process…[and] engage in researching, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making, analysis and synthesis during construction of their knowledge." A failure to do that means that the 'experiment' has been biased – it has been set up to ensure the control condition fails.

Unethical research?

"In most educational research experiments of [this] type…potential harm is likely to be limited to subjecting students (and teachers) to conditions where teaching may be less effective, and perhaps demotivating. This may happen in experimental treatments with genuine innovations (given the nature of research). It can also potentially occur in control conditions if students are subjected to teaching inputs of low effectiveness when better alternatives were available. This may be judged only a modest level of harm, but – given that the whole purpose of experiments to test teaching innovations is to facilitate improvements in teaching effectiveness – this possibility should be taken seriously."
Taber, 2019, p.94

The same teacher taught both classes: "Both of the groups were taught by the same chemistry teacher, who was experienced in active learning and PbBL" (p.288). This would seem to reduce the 'teacher effect' – outcomes being effected because the teacher of one one class being more effective than that of another. (Reduce, rather than eliminate, as different teachers have different styles, skills, and varied expertise: so, most teachers are more suited to, and competent in, some teaching approaches than others.)

So, this teacher was certainly capable of teaching in the ways that Tarhan and colleagues claim as necessary for effective learning ("active learning techniques"). However, the control condition sets up the opposite of active learning, so-called passive learning:

"In this study, the control group was taught the same topics as the experimental group using a teacher-centred traditional didactic lecture format. Teaching strategies were dependent on teacher expression and question-answer format. However, students were passive participants during the lessons and they only listened and took notes as the teacher lectured on the content.

The lesson was begun with teacher explanation about polar and nonpolar covalent bonding. She defined formation of dipole-dipole forces between polar molecules. She explained that because of the difference in electronegativities between the H and Cl atoms for HCl molecule is 0.9, they are polar molecules and there are dipole-dipole forces between HCl molecules. She also stated that the intermolecular dipole-dipole forces are weaker than intramolecular bonds such as covalent and ionic bonding. She gave the example of vaporisation and decomposition of HCl. She explained that while 16 kJ/mol of energy is needed to overcome the intermolecular attraction between HCl molecules in liquid HCl during vaporisation process of HCl, 431 kJ/mol of energy is required to break the covalent bond between the H and Cl atoms in the HCl molecule. In the other lesson, the teacher reminded the students of dipole-dipole forces and then considered London dispersion forces as weak intermolecular forces that arise from the attractive force between instantaneous dipole in nonpolar molecules. She gave the examples of F₂, Cl₂, Br₂, I₂ and said that because the differences in electronegativity for these examples are zero, these molecules are non-polar and had intermolecular London dispersion forces. The effects of molecular size and mass on the strengths of London dispersion forces were discussed on the same examples. She compared the strengths of dipole-dipole forces and London dispersion forces by explaining the differences in melting and boiling points for polar (MgO, HCl and NO) and non-polar molecules (F₂, Cl₂, Br₂, and I₂). The teacher classified London dispersion forces and dipole- dipole as van der Waals forces, and indicated that there are both London dispersion forces and dipole-dipole forces between polar molecules and only London dispersion forces between nonpolar molecules. In the last lesson, teacher called attention to the differences in boiling points of H₂O and H₂S and defined hydrogen bonds as the other intermolecular forces besides dipole-dipole and London dispersion forces. Strengths of hydrogen bonds depending on molecular properties were explained and compared in HF, NH₃ and H₂O. She gave some examples of intermolecular forces in daily life. The lesson was concluded with a comparison of intermolecular forces with each other and intramolecular forces."
Tarhan, et al., 2008, p.293

Lecturing is not ideal for teaching university students. It is generally not suitable for teaching school children (and it is not consistent with what is expected in Turkish schools).

This was a lost opportunity to seriously evaluate the teaching through PbBL by comparing with teaching that followed the national policy recommendations. Moreover, it was a dereliction of the duty that educators should never deliberately disadvantage learners. It is reasonable to experiment with children's learning when you feel there is a good chance of positive outcomes: it is not acceptable to deliberately set up learners to fail (e.g., by organising 'passive' learning when you claim to believe effective learning activities are necessarily 'active').

Isn't this 'direct instruction'?

Now, perhaps the account of the teaching given by Tarhan and colleagues might seem to fit the label of 'direct teaching'. Whilst Tarhan et al. claim constructivist teaching is clearly necessary for effective learning, there are some educators who claim that constructivist approaches are inferior, and a more direct approach, 'direct instruction', is more likely to lead to learning gains.

This has been a lively debate, but often the various commentators use terminology differently and argue across each other (Taber, 2010). The proponents of direct instruction often criticise teaching that expects learners to take nearly all the responsibility for learning, with minimal teacher support. I would also criticise that (except perhaps in the case of graduate research students once they have demonstrated their competence, including knowing when to seek supervisory guidance). That is quite unlike genuine constructivist teaching which is optimally guided (Taber, 2011): where the teacher manages activities, constantly monitors learner progress, and intervenes with various forms of direction and support as needed. Tarhan and colleagues' description of their problem-based learning experimental condition appears to have had this kind of guidance:

"The teacher visited each group briefly, and steered students appropriately by using some guiding questions and encouraging them to generate their hypothesis. The teacher also stimulated the students to gain more information on topics such as the polar structure of molecules, differences in electronegativity, electron number, atom size and the relationship between these parameters and melting-boiling points…The teacher encouraged students to discuss the differences in melting and boiling points for polar and non-polar molecules. The students came up with [their] research questions under the guidance of the teacher…"
Tarhan, et al., 2008, pp.290-291

By contrast, descriptions of effective direct instruction do involve tightly planned teaching with carefully scripted teacher moves of the kind quoted in the account, above, of the control condition. (But any wise teacher knows that lessons can only be scripted as a provisional plan: the teacher has to constantly check the learners are making sense of teaching as intended, and must be prepared to change pace, repeat sections, re-order or substitute activities, invent new analogies and examples, and so forth.)

However, this instruction is not simply a one-way transfer of information, but rather a teacher-led process that engages students in active learning to process the material being introduced by the teacher. If this is done by breaking the material into manageable learning quanta, each of which students engage with in dialogic learning activities before preceding to the next, then this is constructivist teaching (even if it may also be considered by some as 'direct instruction'!)

Effective teaching moves between teacher input and student activities and is not just the teacher communicating information to the learners.

By contrast, the lecture format adopted by Tarhan's team was based on the teacher offering a multi-step argument (delivered over several lessons) and asking the learners to follow and retain an extensive presentation.

"The lesson was begun with teacher explanation …

She defined …

She explained…

She also stated…

She gave the example …

She explained that …

the teacher reminded the students …

She gave the examples of …

She compared…

The teacher classified …

and indicated that …

[the] teacher called attention to …

She gave some examples of …"
Tarhan, et al., 2008, p.293

This is a description of the transmission of information through a communication channel: not an account of teaching which engages with students' thinking and guides them to new understandings.

Ethical review

Despite the paper having been published in a major journal, Research in Science Education, there seems to be no mention that the study design has been through any kind of institutional ethical review before the research began. Moreover, there is no reference to the learners or their parents/guardians having been asked for, or having given, voluntary, informed, consent, as is usually required in research with human participants. Indeed Tarhen and colleagues refer to the children as the 'subjects' of their research, not participants in their study.

Perhaps ethical review was not expected in the national context (at least, in 2008). Certainly, it is difficult to imagine how voluntary, informed, consent would be obtained if parents were to be informed that half of the learners would be deliberately subject to a teaching approach the researchers claim lacks any of the features "students must engage in…during construction of their knowledge".

PbBL is better than…deliberately teaching in a way designed to limit learning

Tarhan and colleagues, unsurprisingly, report that on a post-test the students who were taught through PbBL out-performed these students who were lectured at. It would have been very surprising (and so potentially more interesting, and, perhaps, even useful, research!) had they found anything else, given the way the research was biased.

So, to summarise:

At the outset of the paper it is reported that it is already established that effective learning requires students to engage in active learning tasks.
Students in the experimental conditions undertook learning through a PbBL sequence designed to engage them in active learning.
Students in the control condition were subject to a sequence of lecturing inputs designed to ensure they were passive.
Students in the active learning condition outperformed the students in the passive learning condition

Which I suggest can be considered both rhetorical research, and unethical.

The study can be considered both rhetorical and unfair to the learners assigned to be in the control group

Read about rhetorical experiments

Read about unethical control conditions

Work cited:

Taber, K. S. (2010). Constructivism and direct instruction as competing instructional paradigms: An essay review. Education Review, 13(8), 1-44. [Download the article here]
Taber, K. S. (2011). Constructivism as educational theory: Contingency in learning, and optimally guided instruction. In J. Hassaskhah (Ed.), Educational Theory (pp. 39-61). New York: Nova [Download the chapter here]
Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69-119. doi:10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058 [The author's manuscript version is available for download.]
Tarhan, L., Ayar-Kayali, H., Urek, R. O., & Acar, B. (2008). Problem-Based Learning in 9th Grade Chemistry Class: 'Intermolecular Forces'. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9050-0

Note:

¹ There is a major issue which is often ignored in studies of his type (where a pedagogical innovation is trialled in a single school area, school or classroom). Finding that problem-based learning (or whatever) is effective in one school when teaching one topic to one year group does not allow us to generalise to other classrooms, schools, country, educational level, topics and disciplines.

Indeed, as every school, every teacher, every class, etc., is unique in some ways, it might be argued that one only really finds out if an approach will work well 'here' by trying it out 'here' – and whether it is universally applicable by trying it everywhere. Clearly academic researchers cannot carry out such a programme, but individual teachers and departments can try out promising approaches for themselves (i.e., context-directed research, such as 'action research').

We might ask if there is any point in researchers carrying out studies of the type discussed in this article, there they start by saying an approach has been widely demonstrated, and then test it in what seems an arbitrarily chosen (or, more likely, convenient) curriculum and classroom context, given that we cannot generalise from individual studies, and it is not viable to test every possible context.

However, there are some sensible guidelines for how series of such studies into the same type of pedagogic innovation in different contexts can be more useful in (a) helping determine the range of contexts where an approach is effective (through what we might call 'incremental generalisation'), and (b) document the research contexts is sufficient detail to support readers in making judgements about the degree of similarity with their own teaching context (Taber, 2019).

Read about replication studies

Read about incremental generalisation

Share on Facebook

Cells are buzzing cities that are balloons with harpoons

What can either wander door to door, or rush to respond; and when it arrives might touch, sniff, nip, rear up, stroke, seal, or kill?

Keith S. Taber

a science teacher would need to be more circumspect in throwing some of these metaphors out there, without then doing some work to transition from them to more technical, literal, and canonical accounts

BBC Radio 4's 'Start the week' programme is not a science programme, but tends to invite in guests (often authors of some kind) each week according to some common theme. This week there was a science theme and the episode was titled 'Building the Body, Opening the Heart', and was fascinating. It also offers something of a case study in how science gets communicated in the media.

**Building the Body, Opening the Heart**

The guests all had life-science backgrounds:

Siddhartha Mukherjee is a physician (M.D. from Harvard) and biologist (Stanford, and Oxford {D.Phil.}) – a medical oncologist at Columbia University
Sian Harding is Professor of Cardiac Pharmacology at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, and Director of the Imperial Cardiac Regenerative Medicine Centre
Paul McAuley is best known as a science fiction author (his blog is called 'Earth and other unlikely worlds', but has a background in botany.

Their host was geneticist and broadcaster Adam Rutherford.

Communicating science through the media

As a science educator I listen to science programmes both to enhance and update my own science knowledge and understanding, but also to hear how experts present scientific ideas when communicating to a general audience. Although neither science popularisation nor the work of scientists in communicating to the public is entirely the same as formal teaching (for example,

there is no curriculum with specified target knowledge; and
the audiences
- are not well-defined,
- are usually much more diverse than found in classrooms, and
- are free to leave at any point they lose interest or get a better offer),

they are, like teachers, seeking to inform and explain science.

Science communicators, whether professional journalists or scientists popularising their work, face similar challenges to science teachers in getting across often complex and abstract ideas; and, like them, need to make the unfamiliar familiar. Science teachers are taught about how they need to connect new material with the learners' prior knowledge and experiences if it is to make sense to the students. But successful broadcasters and popularisers also know they need to do this, using such tactics as simplification, modelling, metaphor and simile, analogy, teleology, anthropomorphism and narrative.

Perhaps one of the the biggest differences between science teaching and science communication in the media is the ultimate criterion of success. For science teachers this is (sadly) usually, primarily at least, whether students have understood the material, and will later recall it, sufficiently to demonstrate target knowledge in exams. The teacher may prefer to focus on whether students enjoy science, or develop good attitudes to science, or will consider working in science: but, even so, they are usually held to account for students' performance levels in high-stakes tests.

Science journalists and popularisers do not need to worry about that. Rather, they have to be sufficiently engaging for the audience to feel they are learning something of interest and understanding it. Of course, teachers certainly need to be engaging as well, but they cannot compromise what is taught, and how it is understood, in order to entertain.

With that in mind, I was fascinated at the range of ways the panel of guests communicated the science in this radio show. Much of the programme had a focus on cells – and these were described in a variety of ways.

Talking about cells

Dr Rutherford introduced cells as

"the basic building blocks of life on earth"; and observed that he had
"spent much of my life staring down microscopes at these funny, sort of mundane, unremarkable, gloopy balloons"; before suggesting that cells were
"actually really these incredible cities buzzing with activity".

Dr. Mukherjee noted that

"they're fantastical living machines" [where a cell is the] "smallest unit of life…and these units were built, as it were, part upon part like you would build a Lego kit"

Listeners were told how Robert Hooke named 'cells' after observing cork under the microscope because the material looked like a series of small rooms (like the cells where monks slept in monasteries). Hooke (1665) reported,

"I took a good clear piece of Cork, and with a Pen-knife sharpen'd as keen as a Razor, I cut a piece of it off, and…cut off from the former smooth surface an exceeding thin piece of it, and…I could exceeding plainly perceive it to be all perforated and porous, much like a Honey-comb, but that the pores of it were not regular; yet it was not unlike a Honey-comb in these particulars

…these pores, or cells, were not very deep, but consisted of a great many little Boxes, separated out of one continued long pore, by certain Diaphragms, as is visible by the Figure B, which represents a sight of those pores split the long-ways.
Robert Hooke

Hooke's drawing of the 'pores' or 'cells' in cork

Components of cells

Dr. Mukherjee described how

"In my book I sort of board the cell as though it's a spacecraft, you will see that it's in fact organised into rooms and there are byways and channels and of course all of these organelles which allow it to work."

We were told that "the cell has its own skeleton", and that the organelles included the mitochondria and nuclei ,

"[mitochondria] are the energy producing organelles, they make energy in most cells, our cells for instance, in human cells. In human cells there's a nucleus, which stores DNA, which is where all the genetic information is stored."

A cell that secretes antibodies which are like harpoons or missiles that it sends out to kill a pathogen?

(Images by by envandrare and OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay)

Immune cells

Rutherford moved the conversation onto the immune system, prompting 'Sid' that "There's a lovely phrase you use to describe T cells, which is door to door wanderers that can detect even the whiff of an invader". Dr. Mukherjee distinguished between the cells of the innate immune system,

"Those are usually the first responder cells. In humans they would be macrophages, and neutrophils and monocytes among them. These cells usually rush to the site of an injury, or an infection, and they try to kill the pathogen, or seal up the pathogen…"

and the cells of the adaptive system, such as B cells and T cells,

"The B cell is a cell that eventually becomes a plasma cell which secretes antibodies. Antibodies, they are like harpoons or missiles which the cell sends out to kill a pathogen…

[A T cell] goes around sniffing other cells, basically touching them and trying to find out whether they have been altered in some way, particularly if they are carrying inside them a virus or any other kind of pathogen, and if it finds this pathogen or a virus in your body, it is going to go and kill that virus or pathogen"

A cell that goes around sniffing other cells, touching them? ¹
(Images by allinonemovie and OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay)

Cells of the heart

Another topic was the work of Professor Harding on the heart. She informed listeners that heart cells did not get replaced very quickly, so that typically when a person dies half of their heart cells had been there since birth! (That was something I had not realised. It is believed that this is related to how heart cells need to pulse in synchrony so that the whole organ functions as an effective pumping device – making long lasting cells that seldom need replacing more important than in many other tissues.)

At least, this relates to the cardiomyocytes – the cells that pulse when the heart beats (a pulse that can now be observed in single cells in vitro). Professor Harding described how in the heart tissue there are also other 'supporting' cells, such as "resident macrophages" (immune cells) as well as other cells moving around the cardiomyocytes. She describe her observations of the cells in Petri dishes,

"When you look at them in the dish it's incredible to see them interact. I've got a… video [of] cardiomyocytes in a dish. The cardiomyocytes pretty much just stay there and beat and don't do anything very much, and I had this on time lapse, and you could see cells moving around them. And so, in one case, the cell (I think it was a fibroblast, it looked like a fibroblast), it came and it palpated at the cardiomyocyte, and it nipped off bits of it, it sampled bits of the cardiomyocyte, and it just stroked it all the way round, and then it was, it seemed to like it a lot.

[In] another dish I had the same sort of cardiomyocyte, a very similar cell came in, it went up to the cardiomyocyte, it touched it, and as soon as it touched it, I can only describe it as it reared up and it had, little blobs appeared all over its surface, and it rushed off, literally rushed off, although it was time lapse so it was two minutes over 24 hours, so, it literally rushed off, so what had it found, why did one like it and the other one didn't?"

Making the unfamiliar, familiar

The snippets from the broadcast that I have reported above demonstrate a wide range of ways that the unfamiliar is made familiar by describing it in terms that a listener can relate to through their existing prior knowledge and experience. In these various examples the listener is left to carry across from the analogue features of the familiar (the city, the Lego bricks, human interactions, etc.) those that parallel features of the target concept – the cell. So, for example, the listener is assumed to appreciate that cells, unlike Lego bricks, are not built up through rigid, raised lumps that fit precisely in depressions on the next brick/cell. ²

Analogies with the familiar

Hooke's original label of the cell was based on a kind of analogy – an attempt to compare what we has seeing with something familiar: "pores, or cells…a great many little Boxes". He used the familiar simile of the honeycomb (something directly familiar to many more people in the seventeenth century when food was not subject to large-scale industrialised processing and packaging).

Other analogies, metaphors and similes abound. Cells are visually like "gloopy balloons", but functionally are "building blocks" (strictly a metaphor, albeit one that is used so often it has become treated as though a literal description) which can be conceptualised as being put together "like you would build a Lego kit" (a simile) although they are neither fixed, discrete blocks of a single material, nor organised by some external builder. They can be considered conceptually as the"smallest unit of life"(though philosophers argue about such descriptions and what counts as an individual in living systems).

The machine description ("fantastical living machines") reflects one metaphor very common in early modern science and cells as "incredible cities" is also a metaphor. Whether cells are literally machines is a matter of how we extend or limit our definition of machines: cells are certainly not actually cities, however, and calling them such is a way of drawing attention to the level of activity within each (often, apparently from observation, quite static) cell. B cells secrete antibodies, which the listener is old are like (a simile) harpoons or missiles – weapons.

Skeletons of the dead

Whether "the cell has its own skeleton" is a literal or metaphorical statement is arguable. It surely would have originally been a metaphoric description – there are structures in the cell which can be considered analogous to the skeleton of an organism. If such a metaphor is used widely enough, in time the term's scope expands to include its new use – and it becomes (what is called, metaphorically) a 'dead metaphor'.

Telling stories about cells

A narrative is used to help a listener imagine the cell at the scale of "a spacecraft". This is "organised into rooms and there are byways and channels" offering an analogy for the complex internal structure of a cell. Most people have never actually boarded a spacecraft, but they are ubiquitous in television and movie fiction, so a listener can certainly imagine what this might be like.

Endoplastic reticulum? (Still from **Star Trek: The Motion Picture**, Paramount Pictures, 1979)

Oversimplification?

The discussion of organelles illustrates how simplifications have to be made when introducing complex material. This always brings with it dangers of oversimplification that may impede further learning, or even encourage the development of alternative conceptions. So, the nucleus does not, strictly, 'store' "all the genetic information" in a cell (mitochondria carry their own genes for example).

More seriously, perhaps, mitochondria do not "make energy". 'More seriously' as the principle of conservation of energy is one of the most basic tenets of modern science and is considered a very strong candidate for a universal law. Children are often taught in school that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Science communication which is contrary to this basic curriculum science could confuse learners – or indeed members of the public seeking to understand debates about energy policy and sustainability.

Anthropomorphising cells

Cells are not only compared to inanimate entities like balloons, building bricks, cities and spaceships. They are also described in ways that make them seem like sentient agents – agents that have experiences, and conscious intentions, just as people do. So, some immune cells are metaphorical 'first responders' and just as emergency services workers they "rush to the site" of an incident. To rush is not just to move quickly, buy to deliberately do so. (By contrast, Paul McAuley refers to "innocent" amoeboid cells that collectively form into the plasmodium of a slime mould spending most of their lives"bumbling around by themselves" before they "get together". ) The immune cells act deliberately – they "try" to kill. Other immune cells "send out" metaphorical 'missiles' "to kill a pathogen". Again this language suggests deliberate action (i.e., to send out) and purpose.

That is, what is described is not just some evolved process, but something teleological: there is a purpose to sending out antibodies – it is a deliberate act with an aim in mind. This type of language is very common in biology – even referring to the 'function' of the heart or kidney or a reflex arc could be considered as misinterpreting the outcome of evolutionary developments. (The heart pumps blood through the vascular system, but referring to a function could suggest some sense of deliberate design.)

Not all cells are equal

I wonder how many readers noticed the reference above to 'supporting' cells in the heart. Professor Harding had said

"When you look inside the [heart] tissue there are many other cells [than cardiomyocytes] that are in there, supporting it, there are resident macrophages, I think we still don't know really what they are doing in there"

Why should some heart cells be seen as more important and others less so? Presumably because 'the function' of a heart is to beat, to pump, so clearly the cells that pulse are the stars, and the other cells that may be necessary but are not obviously pulsing just a supporting cast. (So, cardiomyocytes are considered heart cells, but macrophages in the same tissue are only cells that are found in the heart, "residents" – to use an analogy of my own, like migrants that have not been offered citizenship!)³

That is, there is a danger here that this way of thinking could bias research foci leading researchers to ignore something that may ultimately prove important. This is not fanciful, as it has happened before, in the case of the brain:

"Glial cells, consisting of microglia, astrocytes, and oligodendrocyte lineage cells as their major components, constitute a large fraction of the mammalian brain. Originally considered as purely non-functional glue for neurons, decades of research have highlighted the importance as well as further functions of glial cells."
Jäkel and Dimou, 2017

The lives of cells

Narrative is used again in relation to the immune cells: an infection is presented as a kind of emergency event which is addressed by special (human like) workers who protect the body by repelling or neutralising invaders. "Sniffing" is surely an anthropomorphic metaphor, as cells do not actually sniff (they may detect diffusing substances, but do not actively inhale them). Even "touching" is surely an anthropomorphism. When we say two objects are 'touching' we mean they are in contact, as we touch things by contact. But touching is sensing, not simply adjacency.

If that seems to be stretching my argument too far, to refer to immune cells "trying to find out…" is to use language suggesting an epistemic agent that can not only behave deliberately, but which is able to acquire knowledge. A cell can only "find" an infectious agent if it is (i.e., deliberately) looking for something. These metaphors are very effective in building up a narrative for the listener. Such a narrative adopts familiar 'schemata', recognisable patterns – the listener is aware of emergency workers speeding to the scene of an incident and trying to put out a fire or seeking to diagnose a medical issue. By fitting new information into a pattern that is familiar to the audience, technical and abstract ideas are not only made easier to understand, but more likely to be recalled later.

Again, an anthropomorphic narrative is used to describe interactions between heart cells. So, a fibroblast that "palpates at" a cardiomyocyte seems to be displaying deliberate behaviour: if "nipping" might be heard as some kind of automatic action – "sampling" and "stroking" surely seem to be deliberate behaviour. A cell that "came in, it went up [to another]" seems to be acting deliberately. "Rearing up" certainly brings to mind a sentient being, like a dog or a horse. Did the cell actually 'rear up'? It clearly gave that impression to Professor Harding – that was the best way, indeed the "only" way, she had to communicate what she saw.

Again we have cells "rushing" around. Or do we? The cell that had reared up, "rushed off". Actually, it appeared to "rush" when the highly magnified footage was played at 720 times the speed of the actual events. Despite acknowledging this extreme acceleration of the activity, the impression was so strong that Professor Harding felt justified in claiming the cell "literally rushed off, although it was time lapse so it was two minutes over 24 hours, so, it literally rushed off…". Whatever it did, that looked like rushing with the distortion of time-lapse viewing, it certainly did not literally rush anywhere.

But the narrative helps motivate a very interesting question, which is why the two superficially similar cells 'behaved' ('reacted', 'responded' – it is actually difficult to find completely neutral language) so differently when in contact with a cardiomyocyte. In more anthropomorphic terms: what had these cells "found, why did one like it and the other one didn't?"

Literally speaking?

Metaphorical language is ubiquitous as we have to build all our abstract ideas (and science has plenty of those) in terms of what we can experience and make sense of. This is an iterative process. We start with what is immediately available in experience, extend metaphorically to form new concepts, and in time, once those have "settled in" and "taken root" and "firmed up" (so to speak!) they can then be themselves borrowed as the foundation for new concepts. This is true both in how the individual learns (according to constructivism) and how humanity has developed culture and extended language.

So, should science communicators (whether scientists themselves, journalists or teachers) try to limit themselves to literal language?

Even if this were possible, it would put aside some of our strongest tools for 'making the unfamiliar familiar' (to broadcast audiences, to the public, to learners in formal education). However these devices also bring risks that the initial presentations (with their simplifications and metaphors and analogies and anthropomorphic narratives…) not only engage listeners but can also come to be understood as the scientific account. That is is not an imagined risk is shown by the vast numbers of learners who think atoms want to fill their shells with octets of electrons, and so act accordingly – and think this because they believe it is what they have been taught.

Does it matter if listeners think the simplification, the analogy, the metaphor, the humanising story,… is the scientific account? Perhaps usually not in the case of the audience listening to a radio show or watching a documentary out of interest.

In education it does matter, as often learners are often expected to progress beyond these introductory accounts in their thinking, and teachers' models and metaphors and stories are only meant as a starting point in building up a formal understanding. The teacher has to first establish some kind of anchor point in the students' existing understandings and experiences, but then mould this towards the target knowledge set out in the curriculum (which is often a simplified account of canonical knowledge) before the metaphor or image or story becomes firmed-up in the learners' minds as 'the' scientific account.

'Building the Body, Opening the Heart' was a good listen, and a very informative and entertaining episode that covered a lot of ideas. It certainly included some good comparisons that science teachers might borrow. But I think in a formal educational context a science teacher would need to be more circumspect in throwing some of these metaphors out there, without then doing some work to transition from them to more technical, literal, and canonical accounts.

Read about science analogies

Read about science metaphors

Read about science similes

Read about anthropomorphism

Read about teleology

Work cited:

Hooke, R. (1665). Micrographia.
Jäkel S and Dimou L (2017) Glial Cells and Their Function in the Adult Brain: A Journey through the History of Their Ablation. Frontiers in Cellullar Neuroscience, 11:24. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2017.00024
Taber, K. S. (2013). Upper Secondary Students' Understanding of the Basic Physical Interactions in Analogous Atomic and Solar Systems. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1377-1406. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9312-3

Notes:

¹ The right hand image portrays a mine, a weapon that is used at sea to damage and destroy (surface or submarine) boats. The mine is also triggered by contact ('touch').

² That is, in an analogy there are positive and negative aspects: there are ways in which the analogue IS like the target, and ways in which the analogue is NOT like the target. Using an analogy in communication relies on the right features being mapped from the familiar analogue to the unfamiliar target being introduced. In teaching it is important to be explicit about this, or inappropriate transfers may be made: e.g., the atom is a tiny solar system so it is held together by gravity (Taber, 2013).

³ It may be a pure coincidence in relation to the choice of term 'resident' here, but in medicine 'residents' have not yet fully qualified as specialist physicians or surgeons, and so are on placement and/or under supervision, rather than having permanent status in a hospital faculty.

Share on Facebook

Using water to feed the fire

How NOT to heat up your blast furnace

Keith S. Taber

"From one of the known ingredients of steam being a highly inflammable body, and the other that essential part of the air which supports combustion, it was imagined that [steam] would have the effect of increasing the fire …"

Producing iron requires high temperatures: adding H2O does not help
(Image by zephylwer0 from Pixabay)

The challenge of chemical combination

School science teachers are likely aware of how chemistry poses some significant leaning challenges for learners. One of these is the nature of chemical compounds. That is, compounds of chemical elements.

It may seem obvious to learners that when we 'mix' two components with different properties we should get a mixture with a combination of the component properties. So far, so good. But of course, in chemical reactions we do not just mix different substances, but rather they chemically react. So, sodium will react with chlorine, which can be understood in terms of processes occurring at the nanoscopic scale where molecules of a gas interact with the metallic lattice of sodium cations and delocalised electrons.

Sodium and chlorine behaving badly

Although we can model this process, we cannot observe it directly, or even the starting structures at that scale. Understandably, students often struggle to relate the macroscopic and molecular:

As Sodium is a reactive meterial [sic] and chlorine is a acid. When Sodium is placed in Chlorine, Sodium react badly making a flame and maybe a noise. I think why this reaction happen is because as Sodium reactive metal meaning that it atomic configuration is unstable make the metal danger And as Chlorine is a dangerous acid. When sodium is placed in Chlorine, the sodium start dissolving in the acid due to all the particle rushing around quickly pushing together with Chlorine atom. Producing Sodium chloride.
Student setting out on Advanced level chemistry, quoted in Taber, 1996

So, for example, if we do burn sodium in chlorine we end up with sodium chloride which is a new substance that has its own properties – properties which are not simply some mixture of, or intermediate between, the properties of the substances we start with (the reactants).

Indeed, sodium is a dangerous material to handle: it will react vigorously with water (in a person's sweat for example!) and burns violently in air. Chlorine is so nasty that it has been used as a weapon of war (and since banned as an 'unacceptable' weapon, even in war). In the 'great' war ('great' only because of its scale) the way men died in agony from breathing chlorine was much reported, as well as the effects on those who survived the gas – being blinded for example.

"In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning."
Wilfred Owen, Dulce et Decorum Est ¹

Sweet and honourable? ¹ (Image by Bruce Mewett from Pixabay)

Sodium chloride certainly has its associated hazards – if eaten in excess it is a risk factor for high blood pressure for example – but is certainly not dangerous in anything like the same sense. Many people put sodium chloride on their chips (often along with ethanoic acid solution). No one would want sodium on their food, or to eat in a canteen with a chlorine atmosphere!

When is something both present and not present?

Why this is especially challenging is that the chemistry teacher tells the students that although, at one level, the new substance does not contain its precursors – there is no sodium (substance) or chlorine (substance) in the substance sodium chloride – yet it is a compound of these elements and in some some sense the elements remain 'in' the compound.

Learning chemistry requires understanding how disciplinary concepts explained in terms of submicroscopic level models (After Figure 5, Taber, 2013)

This links to that key theoretical framework in chemistry where we can explain macroscopic (bench scale) phenomena in terms of models of matter at the submicroscopic (indeed nanoscopic or even subnanoscopic) scale. The sense in which sodium chloride 'contains' sodium and chlorine is that it is comprised of a lattice of sodium ions and chloride ions – species which include the specific types of nuclei (those of charge +11 and +17 respectively) that define those elements.

So, when we ask whether the elements are in some sense 'in' the compound we have to think in terms of these abstract models at a tiny scale – there is no sodium substance or chlorine substance present, but there is something that is inherently identified with these two elements. In a sense, but a very abstract sense, the elements are still present. Or, perhaps, better, something intrinsic to those elements is still present.

"We are working here with two complementary meanings for the idea of element, one at the (macroscopic) level of phenomena we can demonstrate to students (substances, and their reactions); the other deriving from a theoretical model in terms of conjectured submicroscopic entities ('quanticles'…).
However, there is also a sense in which an element is considered to be present, in a virtual or potential sense, within its compounds. This use is more common among French-speaking chemists, and in the English-speaking world we normally consider it quite inappropriate to suggest that sodium is somehow present in sodium chloride, or hydrogen in water. Yet, of course, chemical formulae (NaCl, H₂O, etc) tell us that the compounds somehow 'contain' the elements."
Taber, 2012, p.19

A source of alternative conceptions

This is easy to understand for someone very familiar with molecular level models – but is understandably difficult for novice learners. Thus we can reasonably understand why there are common alternative conceptions along the lines of students thinking that, for example, a compound of a dangerous element (say chlorine) must also be dangerous. Yet we 'mix' and react a soft, reactive, metal and a choking green gas – and get hard white crystals that safely dissolve in water to give a solution we can use in cooking, or to soak our feet, or to gargle with.

An historical precedent

Because science teachers and chemists are so used to thinking in models at the molecular level, we can forget just how unfamiliar this perspective is to the novice, and so the challenge of acquiring the scientific ways of thinking that have become 'second nature' through extensive application.

I was therefore fascinated to see an example of this same alternative conception, assuming a compound will show the properties of its constituent elements, reported by the scientist Sir John Herschel (astronomer, chemist, mathematician, philosopher…), not in a school science context, but rather an industrial context.

"The smelting of iron requires the application of the most violent heat that can be raised, and is commonly performed in tall furnaces, urged by great iron bellows driven by steam-engines. Instead of employing this power to force air into the furnace through the intervention of bellows, it was, on one occasion, attempted to employ the steam itself in, apparently, a much less circuitous manner; viz. by directing the current of steam in a violent blast, from the boiler at once into the fire. From one of the known ingredients of steam being a highly inflammable body, and the other that essential part of the air which supports combustion, it was imagined that this would have the effect of increasing the fire to tenfold fury, whereas it simply blew it out; a result which a slight consideration of the laws of chemical combination, and the state in which the ingredient elements exist in steam, would have enabled any one to predict without a trial."
Herschel, J. F. W. (1830/1851/2017), §37 ²

So, here, instead of dropping marks on a test, this misunderstanding of the chemistry leads to a well-intentioned industrialist trying to generate heat in a blast furnace by adding water to the fire. But this does remind us just how counter-intuitive some of the things taught in science are. It might also be a useful anecdote to share with students to help them appreciate that that their errors are by no means unusual, or necessarily a reflection on their ability.

Perhaps this might even be a useful teaching example that could be built up into a historical anecdote which students might readily recall and that will help them remember that compounds have new properties that may be quite different from their constituent elements. So, while a mixture of the flammable gas hydrogen and oxygen can be explosive, a combination (that is, a chemical combination – a compound), of hydrogen and oxygen will not 'feed' a fire but dampen it down. Just as well, really, as otherwise emergency fire and rescue services would need to find an alternative to the widely available, inexpensive, recyclable, non-toxic, agent they widely use in fighting fires.

Compounds and mixtures are not interchangeable (Image by David Mark from Pixabay)

Work cited:

Herschel, J. F. W. (1830/1851/2017). Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. Project Gutenberg EBook.
Taber, K. S. (1996) Chlorine is an oxide, heat causes molecules to melt, and sodium reacts badly in chlorine: a survey of the background knowledge of one A level chemistry class, School Science Review, 78 (282), pp.39-48. [Download the manuscript version here.]
Taber, K. S. (2012). Key concepts in chemistry. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Teaching Secondary Chemistry (2nd ed., pp. 1-47). London: Hodder Education. [Read the author's manuscript version.]
Taber, K. S. (2013). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156-168. doi:10.1039/C3RP00012E

Notes:

¹ Wilfred Owen was famous for his war poetry written about the horrors of the trench fighting in the 'first world war'. Owen was killed a week before the war ended. 'Dulce Et Decorum Est' referred to a Latin phrase or motto (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori) that Owen labelled as 'the old lie', that it was sweet and honourable to die in the service of one's country.

² For some reason, "…it was imagined that this would have the effect of increasing the fire to tenfold fury, whereas it simply blew it out…" puts me in mind of

"the mighty ships tore across the empty wastes of space and finally dived screaming on to…Earth – where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally swallowed by a small dog."
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Share on Facebook

The missing mass of the electron

Annihilating mass in communicating science

Keith S. Taber

An episode of 'In Our Time' about the electron

The BBC radio programme 'In Our Time' today tackled the electron. As part of the exploration there was the introduction of the positron, and the notion of matter-antimatter annihilation. These are quite brave topics to introduce in a programme with a diverse general audience (last week Melvyn Bragg and his guests discussed Plato's Atlantis and next week the programme theme is the Knights Templar).

Prof. Victoria Martin of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh explained:

If we take a pair of matter and antimatter, so, since we are talking about the electron today, if we take an electron and the positron, and you put them together, they would annihilate.
And they would annihilate not into nothingness, because they both had mass, so they both had energy from E=mc² that tells us if you have mass you have energy. So, they would annihilate into energy, but it would not just be any kind of energy: the particular kind of energy you get when you annihilate an electron and a positron is a photon, a particle of light. And it will have a very specific amount of energy. Its energy will be equal to the sum of the energy of electron and the positron that they had initially when they collided together.
Prof. Victoria Martin on 'In Our Time'

"*An electron and the positron, and you put them together, they would annihilate…they would annihilate into energy*" – but this could be misleading.

Now, I am sure that is somewhat different from how Prof. Martin would treat this topic with university physics students – of course, science in the media has to be pitched at the largely non-specialist audience.

Read about science in the media

It struck me that this presentation had the potential to reinforce a common alternative conception ('misconception') that mass is converted into energy in certain processes. Although I am aware now that this is an alternative conception, I seem to recall that is pretty much what I had once understood from things I had read and heard.

It was only when I came to prepare to teach the topic that I realised that I had a misunderstanding. That, I think, is quite common for teachers – when we have to prepare a topic well enough to explain it to others, we may spot flaws in our own understanding (Taber, 2009)

So, for example, I had thought that in nuclear processes, such as in a fission reactor or fusion in stars, the mass defect (the apparent loss of mass as the resulting nuclear fragments have less mass than those present before the process) was due to that amount of mass being converted to energy. This is sometimes said to explain why nuclear explosions are so much more violent than chemical explosions, as (given E=mc²): a tiny amount of mass can be changed into a great deal of energy.

Prof. Martin's explanation seemed to support this way of thinking: "they would annihilate into energy".

An alternative conception of particle annihilation: This scheme seems to be implied by Prof. Martin's comments

What is conserved?

It is sometimes suggested that, classically, mass and energy were considered to be separately conserved in processes, but since Einstein's theories of relativity have been adopted, now it is considered that mass can be considered as if a form of energy such that what is conserved is a kind of hybrid conglomerate. That is, energy is still considered conserved, but only when we account for mass that may have been inter-converted with energy. (Please note, this is not quite right – see below.)

So, according to this (mis)conception: in the case of an electron-positron annihilation, the mass of the two particles is converted to an equivalent energy – the mass of the electron and the mass of the positron disappear from the universe and an equivalent quantity of energy is created. Although energy is created, energy is still conserved if we allow for the mass that was converted into this new energy. Each time an electron and positron annihilate, their masses of about 2 ✕ 10^-30 kg disappear from the universe and in its place something like 2 ✕ 10^-13 J appears instead – but that's okay as we can consider 2 ✕ 10^-30 kg as a potential form of energy worth 2 ✕ 10^-13 J.

However, this is contrary to what Einstein (1917/2004) actually suggested.

Einstein did not suggest that matter could be changed to energy

Equivalence, not interconversion

What Einstein actually suggested was not that mass could be considered as if another kind/form of energy (alongside kinetic energy and gravitational potential, etc.) that needed to be taken into account in considering energy conservation, but rather that inertial mass can be considered as an (independent) measure of energy.

That is, we think energy is always conserved. And we think that mass is always conserved. And in a sense they are two measures of the same thing. We might see these two statements as having redundancy:

In a isolated system we will always have the same total quantity of energy before and after any process.
In a isolated system we will always have the same total quantity of mass before and after any process.

As mass is always associated with energy, and so vice versa, either of these statements implies the other. ¹

Two conceptions of the shift from a Newtonian to a relativistic view of the conservation of energy (move the slider to change the image)

No interconversion?

So, mass cannot be changed into energy, nor vice versa. The sense in which we can 'interconvert' is that we can always calculate the energy equivalence of a certain mass (E=mc²) or mass equivalence of some quantity of energy (m=E/c²).

So, the 'interconversion' is more like a change of units than a change of entity.

Although we might think of kinetic energy being converted to potential energy reflects a natural process (something changes), we know that changing joules to electron-volts is merely use of a different unit (nothing changes).

If we think of a simple pendulum under ideal conditions ² it could oscillate for ever, with the total energy unchanged, but with the kinetic energy being converted to potential energy – which is then converted back to kinetic energy – and so on, ad infinitum. The total energy would be fixed although the amount of kinetic energy and the amount of potential energy would be constantly changing. We could calculate the energy in joules or some other unit such as eV or ergs (or calories or kWh or…). We could convert from one unit to another, but this would not change anything about the physical system. (So, this is less like converting pounds to dollars, and more like converting an amount reported in pounds {e.g., £24.83} into an amount reported in pence {e.g., 2483p}.)

Using this analogy, the electron and positron being converted to a photon is somewhat like kinetic energy changing to potential energy in a swinging pendulum (something changes), but it is not the case that mass is changed into energy. Rather we can do our calculations in terms of energy or mass and will get (effectively, given E=mc²) the same answer (just as we can add up a shopping list in pounds or pence, and get the same outcome given the conversion factor, 1.00£ = 100p).

So, where does the mass go?

If mass is conserved, then where does the mass defect – the amount by which the sum of masses of daughter particles is less than the mass of the parent particle(s) – in nuclear processes go? And, more pertinent to the present example, what happens to the mass of the electron and positron when they mutually annihilate?

To understand this, it might help to bear in mind that in principle these process are like any other natural processes – such as the swinging pendulum, or a weight being lifted with pulley, or methane being combusted in a Bunsen burner, or heating water in a kettle, or photosynthesis, or a braking cycle coming to a halt with the aid of friction.

In any natural process (we currently believe)

the total mass of the universe is unchanged…
- but mass may be reconfigured
the total energy of the universe is unchanged…
- but energy may be reconfigured; and
as mass and energy are associated, any reconfigurations of mass and energy are directly correlated.

So, in any change that involves energy transfers, there is an associated mass transfer (albeit usually one too small to notice or easily measure). We can, for example, calculate the (tiny) increase in mass due to water being heated in a kettle – and know just as the energy involved in heating the water came from somewhere else, there is an equivalent (tiny) decrease of mass somewhere else in the wider system (perhaps due to falling of water powering a hydroelectric power station). If we are boiling water to make a cup of tea, we may well be talking about a change in mass of the order of only 0.000 000 001 g according to my calculations for another posting.

Read 'How much damage can eight neutrons do? Scientific literacy and desk accessories in science fiction.'

The annihilation of the electron and positron is no different: there may be reconfigurations in the arrangement of mass and energy in the universe, but mass (and so energy) is conserved.

So, the question is, if the electron and positron, both massive particles (in the physics sense, that they have some mass) are annihilated, then where does their mass go if it is conserved? The answer is reflected in Prof. Martin's statement that "the particular kind of energy you get when you annihilate an electron and a positron is a photon, a particle of light". The mass is carried away by the photon.

The mass of a massless particle?

This may seem odd to those who have learnt that, unlike the electron and positron, the photon is massless. Strictly the photon has no rest mass, whereas the electron and positron do have rest mass – that is, they have inertial mass even when judged by an observer at rest in relation to them.

So, the photon only has 'no mass' when it is observed to be stationary – which nicely brings us back to Einstein who noted that electromagnetic radiation such as light could never appear to be at rest compared to the observer, as its very nature as a progressive electromagnetic wave would cease if one could travel alongside it at the same velocity. This led Einstein to conclude that the speed of light in any given medium was invariant (always the same for any observer), leading to his theory of special relativity.

So, a photon (despite having no 'rest' mass) not only carries energy, but also the associated mass.

Although we might think in terms of two particles being converted to a certain amount of energy as Prof. Martin suggests, this is slightly distorted thinking: the particles are converted to a different particle which now 'has' the mass from both, and so will also 'have' the energy associated with that amount of mass.

Mass is conserved during the electron-positron annihilation

A slight complication is that the electron and position are in relative motion when they annihilate, so there is some kinetic energy involved as well as the energy associated with their rest masses. But this does not change the logic of the general scheme. Just as there is an energy associated with the particles' rest masses, there is a mass component associated with their kinetic energy.

The total mass-energy equivalence before the annihilation has to include both the particle rest masses and their kinetic energy. The mass-energy equivalence afterwards (being conserved in any process) also reflects this. The energy of the photon (and the frequency of the radiation) reflects both the particle masses and their kinetic energies at the moment of the annihilation. The mass (being perfectly correlated with energy) carried away by the photon also reflects both the particle masses and their kinetic energies.

How could 'In Our Time' have improved the presentation?

It is easy to be critical of people doing their best to simplify complex topics. Any teacher knows that well-planned explanations can fail to get across key ideas as one is always reliant on what the audience already understands and thinks. Learners interpret what they hear and read in terms of their current 'interpretive resources' and habits of thinking.

Read about constructivism

A physicist or physics student hearing the episode would likely interpret Prof. Martin's statement within a canonical conceptual framework. However, someone holding the 'misconception' that mass is converted to energy in nuclear processes would likely interpret "they would annihilate into energy" as fitting, and reinforcing, that alternative conception.

I think a key issue here is a slippage that apparently refers to energy being formed in the annihilation, rather than radiation: (i.e., Prof. Martin could have said "they would annihilate into [radiation]"). When the positron and electron 'become' a photon, matter is changed to radiation – but it is not changed to energy, as matter has mass, and (as mass and energy have an equivalence) the energy is already there in the system.

Energy is reconfigured, but is not formed, in the annihilation process.

So, this whole essay is simply suggesting that a change of one word – from energy to radiation – could potentially avoid the formation of, or the reinforcing of, the alternative conception that mass is changed into energy in processes studied in particle physics. As experienced science teachers will know, sometimes such small shifts can make a good deal of difference to how we are interpreted and, so, what comes to be understood.

Addenda:

Reply from Prof. Victoria Martin on twitter (@MamaPhysikerin), September 30:

"E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ is a better way to relate energy, mass and momentum. Works for both massive and massless states."
@MamaPhysikerin

Work cited:

Einstein, A. (1917/2004). Relativity. The special and the general theory. (R. W. Lawson, Trans.). The Folio Society.
Taber, K. S. (2009). Learning from experience and teaching by example: reflecting upon personal learning experience to inform teaching practice. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 82-91.

Notes

¹ In what is often called a closed system there is no mass entering or leaving the system. However, energy can transfer to, or from, the system from its surroundings. Classically it might be assumed that the mass of a closed system is constant as the amount of matter is fixed, but Einstein realised that if there is a net energy influx to, or outflow from, the system, than some mass would also be transferred – even though no matter enters or leaves.

² Perhaps in a uniform gravitational field, not subject to to any frictional forces, with an inextensible string supporting the bob, and in thermal equilibrium with its environment.

Share on Facebook

Falsifying research conclusions

You do not need to falsify your results if you are happy to draw conclusions contrary to the outcome of your data analysis.

Keith S. Taber

Li and colleagues claim that their innovation is successful in improving teaching quality and student learning: but their own data analaysis does not support this.

I recently read a research study to evaluate a teaching innovation where the authors

presented their results,
reported the statistical test they had used to analyse their results,
acknowledged that the outcome of their experiment was negative (not statistically significant), then
stated their findings as having obtained a positive outcome, and
concluded their paper by arguing they had demonstrated their teaching innovation was effective.

Li, Ouyang, Xu and Zhang's (2022) paper in the *Journal of Chemical Education* contravenes the scientific norm that your conclusions should be consistent with the outcome of your data analysis.
(Magnified portions of this scheme are presented below)

And this was not in a paper in one of those predatory journals that I have criticised so often here – this was a study in a well regarded journal published by a learned scientific society!

The legal analogy

I have suggested (Taber, 2013) that writing up research can be understood in terms of a number of metaphoric roles: researchers need to

tell the story of their research;
teach readers about the unfamiliar aspects of their work;
make a case for the knowledge claims they make.

All three aspects are important in making a paper accessible and useful to readers, but arguably the most important aspect is the 'legal' analogy: a research paper is an argument to make a claim for new public knowledge. A paper that does not make its case does not add anything of substance to the literature.

Imagine a criminal case where the prosecution seeks to make its argument at a pre-trial hearing:

"The police found fingerprints and D.N.A. evidence at the scene, which they believe were from the accused."
"Were these traces sent for forensic analysis?"
"Of course. The laboratory undertook the standard tests to identify who left these traces."
"And what did these analyses reveal?"
"Well according to the current standards that are widely accepted in the field, the laboratory was unable to find a definite match between the material collected at the scene, and fingerprints and a D.N.A. sample provided by the defendant."
"And what did the police conclude from these findings?"
"The police concluded that the fingerprints and D.N.A. evidence show that the accused was at the scene of the crime."

It seems unlikely that such a scenario has ever played out, at least in any democratic country where there is an independent judiciary, as the prosecution would be open to ridicule and it is quite likely the judge would have some comments about wasting court time. What would seem even more remarkable, however, would be if the judge decided on the basis of this presentation that there was a prima facie case to answer that should proceed to a full jury trial.

Yet in educational research, it seems parallel logic can be persuasive enough to get a paper published in a good peer-reviewed journal.

Testing an educational innovation

The paper was entitled 'Implementation of the Student-Centered Team-Based Learning Teaching Method in a Medicinal Chemistry Curriculum' (Li, Ouyang, Xu & Zhang, 2022), and it was published in the Journal of Chemical Education. 'J.Chem.Ed.' is a well-established, highly respected periodical that takes peer review seriously. It is published by a learned scientific society – the American Chemical Society.

That a study published in such a prestige outlet should have such a serious and obvious flaw is worrying. Of course, no matter how good editorial and peer review standards are, it is inevitable that sometimes work with serious flaws will get published, and it is easy to pick out the odd problematic paper and ignore the vast majority of quality work being published. But, I did think this was a blatant problem that should have been spotted.

Indeed, because I have a lot of respect for the Journal of Chemical Education I decided not to blog about it ("but that is what you are doing…?"; yes, but stick with me) and to take time to write a detailed letter to the journal setting out the problem in the hope this would be acknowledged and the published paper would not stand unchallenged in the literature. The journal declined to publish my letter although the referees seemed to generally accept the critique. This suggests to me that this was not just an isolated case of something slipping through – but a failure to appreciate the need for robust scientific standards in publishing educational research.

Read the letter submitted to the Journal of Chemical Education

A flawed paper does not imply worthless research

I am certainly not suggesting that there is no merit in Li, Ouyang, Xu and Zhang's work. Nor am I arguing that their work was not worth publishing in the journal. My argument is that Li and colleague's paper draws an invalid conclusion, and makes misleading statements inconsistent with the research data presented, and that it should not have been published in this form. These problems are pretty obvious, and should (I felt) have been spotted in peer review. The authors should have been asked to address these issues, and follow normal scientific standards and norms such that their conclusions follow from, rather than contradict, their results.

That is my take. Please read my reasoning below (and the original study if you have access to J.Chem.Ed.) and make up your own mind.

Li, Ouyang, Xu and Zhang report an innovation in a university course. They consider this to have been a successful innovation, and it may well have great merits. The core problem is that Li and colleagues claim that their innovation is successful in improving teaching quality and student learning: when their own data analysis does not support this.

The evidence for a successful innovation

There is much material in the paper on the nature of the innovation, and there is evidence about student responses to it. Here, I am only concerned with the failure of the paper to offer a logical chain of argument to support their knowledge claim that the teaching innovation improved student achievement.

There are (to my reading – please judge for yourself if you can access the paper) some slight ambiguities in some parts of the description of the collection and analysis of achievement data (see note ⁵ below), but the key indicator relied on by Li, Ouyang, Xu and Zhang is the average score achieved by students in four teaching groups, three of which experienced the teaching innovation (these are denoted collectively as the 'the experimental group') and one group which did not (denoted as 'the control group', although there is no control of variables in the study ¹). Each class comprised of 40 students.

The study is not published open access, so I cannot reproduce the copyright figures from the paper here, but below I have drawn a graph of these key data:

Key results from Li et al, 2022: this data was the basis for claiming an effective teaching innovation.

Loading poll ...

It is on the basis of this set of results that Li and colleagues claim that "the average score showed a constant upward trend, and a steady increase was found". Surely, anyone interrogating these data might have pause to wonder if that is the most authentic description of the pattern of scores year on year.

Does anyone teaching in a university really think that assessment methods are good enough to produce average class scores that are meaningful to 3 or 4 significant figures. To a more reasonable level of precision, nearest %age point (which is presumably what these numbers are – that is not made explicit), the results were:

Cohort	Average class score
2017	80
2018	80
2019	80
2020	80

Average class scores (2 s.f.) year on year

When presented to a realistic level of precision, the obvious pattern is…no substantive change year on year!

A truncated graph

In their paper, Li and colleagues do present a graph to compare the average results in 2017 with (not 2018, but) 2019 and 2020, somewhat similar to the one I have reproduced here which should have made it very clear how little the scores varied between cohorts. However, Li and colleagues did not include on their axis the full range of possible scores, but rather only included a small portion of the full range – from 79.4 to 80.4.

This is a perfectly valid procedure often used in science, and it is quite explicitly done (the x-axis is clearly marked), but it does give a visual impression of a large spread of scores which could be quite misleading. In effect, their Figure 4b includes just a slither of my graph above, as shown below. If one takes the portion of the image below that is not greyed out, and stretches it to cover the full extent of the x axis of a graph, that is what is presented in the published account.

In the paper in *J.Chem.Ed.*, Li and colleagues (2022) truncate the scale on their average score axis to expand 1% of the full range (approximated above in the area not shaded over) into a whole graph as their Figure 4b. This gives a visual impression of widely varying scores (to anyone who does not read the axis labels).

Compare images: you can use the 'slider' to change how much of each of the two images is shown.

What might have caused those small variations?

If anyone does think that differences of a few tenths of a percent in average class scores are notable, and that this demonstrates increasing student achievement, then we might ask what causes this?

Li and colleagues seem to be convinced that the change in teaching approach caused the (very modest) increase in scores year on year. That would be possible. (Indeed, Li et al seem to be arguing that the very, very modest shift from 2017 to subsequent years was due to the change of teaching approach; but the not-quite-so-modest shifts from 2018 to 2019 to 2020 are due to developing teacher competence!) However, drawing that conclusion requires making a ceteris paribus assumption: that all other things are equal. That is, that any other relevant variables have been controlled.

Read about confounding variables

Another possibility however is simply that each year the teaching team are more familiar with the science, and have had more experience teaching it to groups at this level. That is quite reasonable and could explain why there might be a modest increase in student outcomes on a course year on year.

Non-equivalent groups of students?

However, a big assumption here is that each of the year groups can be considered to be intrinsically the same at the start of the course (and to have equivalent relevant experiences outside the focal course during the programme). Often in quasi-experimental studies (where randomisation to conditions is not possible ¹) a pre-test is used to check for equivalence prior to the innovation: after all, if students are starting from different levels of background knowledge and understanding then they are likely to score differently at the end of a course – and no further explanation of any measured differences in course achievement need be sought.

Read about testing for initial equivalence

In experiments, you randomly assign the units of analysis (e.g., students) to the conditions, which gives some basis for at least comparing any differences in outcomes with the variations likely by chance. But this was not a true experiment as there was no randomisation – the comparisons are between successive year groups.

In Li and colleagues' study, the 40 students taking the class in 2017 are implicitly assumed equivalent to the 40 students taking the class in each of the years 20818-2020: but no evidence is presented to support this assumption. ³

Yet anyone who has taught the same course over a period of time knows that even when a course is unchanged and the entrance requirements stable, there are naturally variations from one year to the next. That is one of the challenges of educational research (Taber, 2019): you never can "take two identical students…two identical classes…two identical teachers…two identical institutions".

Novelty or expectation effects?

We would also have to ignore any difference introduced by the general effect of there being an innovation beyond the nature of the specific innovation (Taber, 2019). That is, students might be more attentive and motivated simply because this course does things differently to their other current courses and past courses. (Perhaps not, but it cannot be ruled out.)

The researchers are likely enthusiastic for, and had high expectations for, the innovation (so high that it seems to have biased their interpretation of the data and blinded them to the obvious problems with their argument) and much research shows that high expectation, in its own right, often influences outcomes.

Read about expectancy effects in studies

Equivalent examination questions and marking?

We also have to assume the assessment was entirely equivalent across the four years. ⁴ The scores were based on aggregating a number of components:

"The course score was calculated on a percentage basis: attendance (5%), preclass preview (10%), in-class group presentation (10%), postclass mind map (5%), unit tests (10%), midterm examination (20%), and final examination (40%)."
Li, et al, 2022, p.1858

This raises questions about the marking and the examinations:

Are the same test and examination questions used each year (that is not usually the case as students can acquire copies of past papers)?
If not, how were these instruments standardised to ensure they were not more difficult in some years than others?
How reliable is the marking? (Reliable meaning the same scores/mark would be assigned to the same work on a different occasion.)

These various issues do not appear to have been considered.

Change of assessment methodology?

The description above of how the students' course scores were calculated raises another problem. The 2017 cohort were taught by "direct instruction". This is not explained as the authors presumably think we all know exactly what that is : I imagine lectures. By comparison, in the innovation (2018-2020 cohorts):

"The preclass stage of the SCTBL strategy is the distribution of the group preview task; each student in the group is responsible for a task point. The completion of the preview task stimulates students' learning motivation. The in-class stage is a team presentation (typically PowerPoint (PPT)), which promotes students' understanding of knowledge points. The postclass stage is the assignment of team homework and consolidation of knowledge points using a mind map. Mind maps allow an orderly sorting and summarization of the knowledge gathered in the class; they are conducive to connecting knowledge systems and play an important role in consolidating class knowledge."
Li, et al, 2022, p.1856, emphasis added.

Now the assessment of the preview tasks, the in-class group presentations, and the mind maps all contributed to the overall student scores (10%, 10%, 5% respectively). But these are parts of the innovative teaching strategy – they are (presumably) not part of 'direct instruction'. So, the description of how the student class scores were derived only applies to 2018-2020, and the methodology used in 2017 must have been different. (This is not discussed in the paper.) ⁵

A quarter of the score for the 'experimental' groups came from assessment components that could not have been part of the assessment regime applied to the 2017 cohort. At the very least, the tests and examinations must have been more heavily weighed into the 'control' group students' overall scores. This makes it very unlikely the scores can be meaningfully directly compared from 2017 to subsequent years: if the authors think otherwise they should have presented persuasive evidence of equivalence.

Li and colleagues want to convince us that variations in average course scores can be assumed to be due to a change in teaching approach – even though there are other conflating variables.

So, groups that we cannot assume are equivalent are assessed in ways that we cannot assume to be equivalent and obtain nearly identical average levels of achievement. Despite that, Li and colleagues want to persuade us that the very modest differences in average scores between the 'control' and 'experimental' groups (which is actually larger between different 'experimental group' cohorts than between the 'control' group and the successive 'experimental' cohort) are large enough to be significant and demonstrate their teaching innovation improves student achievement.

Statistical inference

So, even if we thought shifts of less than a 1% average in class achievement were telling, there are no good reasons to assume they are down to the innovation rather than some other factor. But Li and colleagues use statistical tests to tell them whether differences between the 'control' and 'experimental' conditions are significant. They find – just what anyone looking at the graph above would expect – "there is no significant difference in average score" (p.1860).

The scientific convention in using such tests is that the choice of test, and confidence level (e.g., a probability of p<0.05 to be taken as significant) is determined in advance, and the researchers accept the outcomes of the analysis. There is a kind of contract involved – a decision to use a statistical test (chosen in advance as being a valid way of deciding the outcome of an experiment) is seen as a commitment to accept its outcomes. ² This is a form of honesty in scientific work. Just as it is not acceptable to fabricate data, nor is is acceptable to ignore experimental outcomes when drawing conclusions from research.

Special pleading is allowed in mitigation (e.g., "although our results were non-significant, we think this was due to the small samples sizes, and suggest that further research should be undertaken with large groups {and we are happy to do this if someone gives us a grant}"), but the scientist is not allowed to simply set aside the results of the analysis.

Li and colleagues found no significant difference between the two conditions, yet that did not stop them claiming, and the Journal of Chemical Education publishing, a conclusion that the new teaching approach improved student achievement!

Yet setting aside the results of their analysis is what Li and colleagues do. They carry out an analysis, then simply ignore the findings, and conclude the opposite:

"To conclude, our results suggest that the SCTBL method is an effective way to improve teaching quality and student achievement."
Li, et al, 2022, p.1861

It was this complete disregard of scientific values, rather than the more common failure to appreciate that they were not comparing like with like, that I found really shocking – and led to me writing a formal letter to the journal. Not so much surprise that researchers might do this (I know how intoxicating research can be, and how easy it is to become convinced in one's ideas) but that the peer reviewers for the Journal of Chemical Education did not make the firmest recommendation to the editor that this manuscript could NOT be published until it was corrected so that the conclusion was consistent with the findings.

This seems a very stark failure of peer review, and allows a paper to appear in the literature that presents a conclusion totally unsupported by the evidence available and the analysis undertaken. This also means that Li, Ouyang, Xu and Zhang now have a publication on their academic records that any careful reader can see is critically flawed – something that could have been avoided had peer reviewers:

used their common sense to appreciate that variations in class average scores from year to year between 79.8 and 80.3 could not possibly be seen as sufficient to indicate a difference in the effectiveness of teaching approaches;
recommended that the authors follow the usual scientific norms and adopt the reasonable scholarly value position that the conclusion of your research should follow from, and not contradict, the results of your data analysis.

Work cited:

Li, W., Ouyang, Y., Xu, J., & Zhang, P. (2022). Implementation of the Student-Centered Team-Based Learning Teaching Method in a Medicinal Chemistry Curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(5), 1855-1862. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00978
Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based Research and Evidence-based Practice: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69-119. doi:10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058 [Download manuscript version]

Notes

¹ Strictly the 2017 cohort has the role of a comparison group, but NOT a control group as there was no randomisation or control of variables, so this was not a true experiment (but a 'quasi-experiment'). However, for clarity, I am here using the original authors' term 'control group'.

Read about experimental research design

² Some journals are now asking researchers to submit their research designs and protocols to peer review BEFORE starting the research. This prevents wasted effort on work that is flawed in design. Journals will publish a report of the research carried out according to an accepted design – as long as the researchers have kept to their research plans (or only made changes deemed necessary and acceptable by the journal). This prevents researchers seeking to change features of the research because it is not giving the expected findings and means that negative results as well as positive results do get published.

³ 'Implicitly' assumed as nowhere do the authors state that they think the classes all start as equivalent – but if they do not assume this then their argument has no logic.

Without this assumption, their argument is like claiming that growing conditions for tree development are better at the front of a house than at the back because on average the trees at the front are taller – even though fast-growing mature trees were planted at the front and slow-growing saplings at the back.

⁴ From my days working with new teachers, a common rookie mistake was assuming that one could tell a teaching innovation was successful because students achieved an average score of 63% on the (say, acids) module taught by the new method when the same class only averaged 46% on the previous (say, electromagnetism) module. Graduate scientists would look at me with genuine surprise when I asked how they knew the two tests were of comparable difficulty!

Read about why natural scientists tend to make poor social scientists

⁵ In my (rejected) letter to the Journal of Chemical Education I acknowledged some ambiguity in the paper's discussion of the results. Li and colleagues write:

"The average scores of undergraduates majoring in pharmaceutical engineering in the control group and the experimental group were calculated, and the results are shown in Figure 4b. Statistical significance testing was conducted on the exam scores year to year. The average score for the pharmaceutical engineering class was 79.8 points in 2017 (control group). When SCTBL was implemented for the first time in 2018, there was a slight improvement in the average score (i.e., an increase of 0.11 points, not shown in Figure 4b). However, by 2019 and 2020, the average score increased by 0.32 points and 0.54 points, respectively, with an obvious improvement trend. We used a t test to test whether the SCTBL method can create any significant difference in grades among control groups and the experimental group. The calculation results are shown as follows: t₁ = 0.0663, t₂ = 0.1930, t₃ =0.3279 (t₁ <t₂ <t₃ <t𝛼, t𝛼 =2.024, p>0.05), indicating that there is no significant difference in average score. After three years of continuous implementation of SCTBL, the average score showed a constant upward trend, and a steady increase was found. The SCTBL method brought about improvement in the class average, which provides evidence for its effectiveness in medicinal chemistry."
Li, et al, 2022, p.1858-1860, emphasis added

This appears to refer to three distinct measures:

average scores (produced by weighed summations of various assessment components as discussed above)
exam scores (perhaps just the "midterm examination…and final examination", or perhaps just the final examination?)
grades

Formal grades are not discussed in the paper (the word is only used in this one place), although the authors do refer to categorising students into descriptive classes ('levels') according to scores on 'assessments', and may see these as grades:

"Assessments have been divided into five levels: disqualified (below 60), qualified (60-69), medium (70-79), good (80-89), and excellent (90 and above)."
Li, et al, 2022, p.1856, emphasis added

In the longer extract above, the reference to testing difference in "grades" is followed by reporting the outcome of the test for "average score":

"We used a t test to test …grades …The calculation results … there is no significant difference in average score"

As Student's t-test was used, it seems unlikely that the assignment of students to grades could have been tested. That would surely have needed something like the Chi-squared statistic to test categorical data – looking for an association between (i) the distributions of the number of students in the different cells 'disqualified', 'qualified', 'medium', 'good' and 'excellent'; and (ii) treatment group.

Presumably, then, the statistical testing was applied to the average course scores shown in the graph above. This also makes sense because the classification into descriptive classes loses some of the detail in the data and there is no obvious reason why the researchers would deliberately chose to test 'reduced' data rather than the full data set with the greatest resolution.

Share on Facebook

Methodological and procedural flaws in published study

A letter to the editor of the Journal of Chemical Education

the authors draw a conclusion which is contrary to the results of their data analysis and so is invalid and misleading

I have copied below the text of a letter I wrote to the editor of the Journal of Chemical Education, to express my concern about the report of a study published in that journal. I was invited to formally submit the letter for consideration for publication. I did. Following peer review it was rejected.

Often when I see apparent problems in published research, I discuss them here. Usually, the journals concerned are predatory, and do not seem to take peer review seriously. That does not apply here. The Journal of Chemical Education is a long-established, well-respected, periodical published by a national learned scientific society: the American Chemical Society. Serious scientific journals often do publish comments from readers about published articles and even exchanges between correspondents and the original authors of the work commented on. I therefore thought it was more appropriate to express my concerns directly to the journal. ^𝛂 On this occasion, after peer review, the editor decided my letter was not suitable for publication. ^𝛃

I am aware of the irony – I am complaining about an article which passed peer review in a posting which is publishing a letter submitted, but rejected, after peer review. Readers should bear that in mind. The editor will have carefully considered the submission and the referee recommendations and reports, and decided to decline publication based on journal policy and the evaluation of my submission.

However, having read the peer reviewers' comments (which were largely positive about the submission and tended to agree with my critique ^𝜸), I saw no reason to change my mind. If such work is allowed to stand in the literature without comment, it provides a questionable example for other researchers, and, as the abstracts and conclusions from research papers are often considered in isolation (so, here, without being aware that the conclusions contradicted the results), it distorts the research literature.

To my reading, the published study sets aside accepted scientific standards and values – though I very much suspect inadvertently. Perhaps the authors' enthusiasm for their teaching innovation affected their judgement and dulled their critical faculties. We are all prone to that: but one would normally expect such a major problem to have been spotted in peer review, allowing the authors the opportunity to put this right before publication.

Read about falsifying research conclusions

Methodological and procedural flaws in published study

Abstract

A recent study reported in the journal is presented as an experimental test of a teaching innovation. Yet the research design does not meet the conditions for an experiment as there is insufficient control of variables and no random assignment to conditions. The study design used does not allow a comparison of student scores in the 'experimental' and 'control' conditions to provide a valid test of the innovation. Moreover, the authors draw a conclusion which is contrary to the results of their data analysis and so is invalid and misleading. While the authors may well feel justified in putting aside the outcome of their statistical analysis, this goes against good scientific norms and practice.

Dear Editor

I am writing regarding a recent article published in J.Chem.Ed. ¹, as I feel the reporting of this study, as published, is contrary to good scientific practice. The article, 'Implementation of the Student-Centered Team-Based Learning Teaching Method in a Medicinal Chemistry Curriculum' reports an innovation in pedagogy, and as such is likely to be of wide interest to readers of the journal. I welcome both this kind of work in developing pedagogy and its reporting to inform others; however, I think the report contravenes normal scientific standards.

Although the authors do not specify the type of research methodology they use, they do present their analysis in terms of 'experimental' and 'control' groups (e.g., p.1856), so it is reasonable to consider they see this as a kind of experimental research. There are many serious challenges when applying experimental method to social research, and it is not always feasible to address all such challenges in educational research designs ² – but perhaps any report of educational experimental research should acknowledge relevant limitations.

A true experiment requires units of analysis (e.g., students) to be assigned to conditions randomly, as this can avoid (or, strictly, reduce the likelihood) of systematic differences between groups. Here the comparison is across different cohorts. These may be largely similar, but that cannot just be assumed. (Strictly, the comparison group should not be labelled as a 'control' group.² ) There is clearly a risk of conflating variables.

Perhaps admission standards are changing over time?
Perhaps the teaching team has been acquiring teaching experience and expertise over time regardless of the innovation?

Moreover, if I have correctly interpreted the information on p.1858 about how student course scores after the introduction of the innovation in part derived from the novel activities in the new approach, then there is no reason to assume that the methodology of assigning scores is equivalent with that used in the 'control' (comparison) condition. The authors seem to simply assume the change in scoring methodology will not of itself change the score profile. Without evidence that assessment is equivalent across cohorts, this is an unsupportable assumption.

As it is not possible to 'blind' teachers and students to conditions there is a very real risk of expectancy effects which have been shown to often operate when researchers are positive about an innovation – when introducing the investigated innovation, teachers

may have a new burst of enthusiasm,
perhaps focus more than usual on this aspect of their work,
be more sensitive to students responses to teaching and so forth.

(None of this needs to be deliberate to potentially influence outcomes.) Although (indeed, perhaps because) there is often little that can be done in a teaching situation to address these challenges to experimental designs, it seems appropriate for suitable caveats to be included in a published report. I would have expected to have seen such caveats here.

However, a specific point that I feel must be challenged is in the presentation of results on p.1860. When designing an experiment, it is important to specify before collecting data how one will know what to conclude from the results. The adoption of inferential statistics is surely a commitment to accepting the outcomes of the analysis undertaken. Li and colleagues tell readers that "We used a t test to test whether the SCTBL method can create any significant difference in grades among control groups and the experimental group" and that "there is no significant difference in average score". This is despite the new approach requiring an "increased number of study tasks, and longer preclass preview time" (pp.1860-1).

I would not suggest this is necessarily a good enough reason for Li and colleagues to give up on their innovation, as they have lived experience of how it is working, and that may well offer good grounds for continuing to implement, refine, and evaluate it. As the authors themselves note, evaluation "should not only consider scores" (p.1858).

However, from a scientific point of view, this is a negative result. That certainly should not exclude publication (it is recognised that there is a bias against publishing negative results which distorts the literature in many fields) but it suggests, at the very least, that more work is needed before a positive conclusion can be drawn.

Therefore, I feel it is scientifically invalid for the authors to argue that as "the average score showed a constant [i.e., non-significant] upward trend, and a steady [i.e., non-significant] increase was found" they can claim their teaching "method brought about improvement in the class average, which provides evidence for its effectiveness in medicinal chemistry". Figure 4 reiterates this: a superficially impressive graphic, even if omits the 2018 data, actually shows just how little scores changed when it is noticed that the x-axis has a range only from 79.4-80.4 (%, presumably). The size of the variation across four cohorts (<1%, "an obvious improvement trend"?) is not only found to not be significant but can be compared with how 25% of student scores apparently derived from different types of assessment in the different conditions. ³

To reiterate, this is an interesting study, reporting valuable work. There might be very good reasons to continue the new pedagogic approach even if it does not increase student scores. However, I would argue that it is simply scientifically inadmissible to design an experiment where data will be analysed by statistical tests, and then to offer a conclusion contrary to the results of those tests. A reader who skipped to the end of the paper would find "To conclude, our results suggest that the SCTBL method is an effective way to improve teaching quality and student achievement" (p.1861) but that is to put aside the results of the analysis undertaken.

Keith S. Taber

Emeritus Professor of Science Education, University of Cambridge

References

¹ Li, W., Ouyang, Y., Xu, J., & Zhang, P. (2022). Implementation of the Student-Centered Team- Based Learning Teaching Method in a Medicinal Chemistry Curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(5), 1855-1862. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00978

² Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058

³ I felt there was some ambiguity regarding what figures 4a and 4b actually represent. The labels suggest they refer to "Assessment levels of pharmaceutical engineering classes [sic] in 2017-2020" and "Average scores of the medicinal chemistry course in the control group and the experimental group" (which might, by inspection, suggest that achievement on the medicinal chemistry course is falling behind shifts across the wider programme), but the references in the main text suggest that both figures refer only to the medicinal chemistry course, not the wider pharmaceutical engineering programme. Similarly, although the label for (b) refers to 'average scores' for the course, the text suggests the statistical tests were only applied to 'exam scores' (p.1858) which would only amount to 60% of the marks comprising the course scores (at least in 2018-2020; the information on how course scores were calculated for the 2017 cohort does not seem to be provided but clearly could not follow the methodology reported for the 2018-2020 cohorts). So, given that (a) and (b) do not seem consistent, it may be that the 'average scores' in (b) refers only to examination scores and not overall course scores. If so, that would at least suggest the general assessment methodology was comparable, as long as the setting and marking of examinations are equivalent across different years. However, even then, a reader would take a lot of persuasion that examination papers and marking are so consistent over time that changes of a third or half a percentage point between cohorts exceeds likely measurement error.

Read: Falsifying research conclusions. You do not need to falsify your results if you are happy to draw conclusions contrary to the outcome of your data analysis.

Notes:

^𝛂 This is the approach I have taken previously. For example, a couple of years ago a paper was published in the Royal Society of Chemistry's educational research journal, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, which to my reading had similar issues, including claiming "that an educational innovation was effective despite outcomes not reaching statistical significance" (Taber, 2020).

Taber, K. S. (2020). Comment on "Increasing chemistry students' knowledge, confidence, and conceptual understanding of pH using a collaborative computer pH simulation" by S. W. Watson, A. V. Dubrovskiy and M. L. Peters, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2020, 21, 528. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. doi:10.1039/D0RP00131G

^𝛃 I wrote directly to the editor, Prof. Tom Holme on 12th July 2022. I received a reply the next day, inviting me to submit my letter through the journal's manuscript submission system. I did this on the 14th.

I received the decision letter on 15th September. (The "manuscript is not suitable for publication in the Journal of Chemical Education in its present form.") The editor offered to consider a resubmission of "a thoroughly rewritten manuscript, with substantial modification, incorporating the reviewers' points and including any additional data they recommended". I decided that, although I am sure the letter could have been improved in some senses, any new manuscript sufficiently different to be considered "thoroughly rewritten manuscript, with substantial modification" would not so clearly make the important points I felt needed to be made.

𝜸 There were four reviewers. The editor informed me that the initial reviews led to a 'split' perspective, so a fourth referee was invited.

Referee 1 recommended that the letter was published as submitted.
Referee 2 recommended that the letter was published as submitted.
Referee 3 recommended major revisions should be undertaken.
Referee 4 recommended rejection.

*Read more about peer review and editorial decisions*

Share on Facebook

Are these fossils dead, yet?

Non-living fossils and dead metaphors

Keith S. Taber

Fossil pottery?
(Images by by Laurent Arroues {background}) and OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay)

I was intrigued by some dialogue that was part of one of (physicist) Jim Al-Khalili's interviews for the BBC's 'The Life Scientific' series, where Prof. Al-Khalili "talks to leading scientists about their work, finding out what inspires and motivates them and asking what their discoveries might do for mankind".

The Life Scientific – interviews with scientists about their lives and work

This week he was talking to Dr Judith Bunbury of St. Edmund's College and the Department of Earth Sciences at Cambridge ('Judith Bunbury on the shifting River Nile in the time of the Pharaohs'). It was a fascinating interview, and in particular discussed work showing how the Nile River has repeatedly changed its course over thousands of years. The Nile is considered the longest river in Africa (and possibly the world – the other contender being the Amazon).

Over time the river shifts is position as it unevenly lay down sediment and erodes the river banks – (Image by Makalu from Pixabay)

The exchange that especially piqued my interest followed an account of the diverse material recovered in studies that sample the sediments formed by the river. As sediments are laid down over time, a core (collected by an auger) can be understood to have formed on a time-line – with the oldest material at the bottom of the sample.

Within the sediment, researchers find fragments of animal bone, human teeth, pottery, mineral shards from the working of jewels…

"Are you sure the Nile flows this far?" Using an auger to collect a core (of ice in this case) (Image by David Mark from Pixabay)

Dr Bunbury was taking about how changing fashions allowed the pottery fragments to be useful in dating material – or as the episode webpage glossed this: "pottery fragments which can be reliably time-stamped to the fashion-conscious consumers in the reign of individual Pharaohs".

This is my transcription of the exchange:

[JAK]: …a bit like fossil hunting
[JB]: well, I mean, we're just treating pottery as a kind of fossil
a kind of fossil, yeah, > no, absolutely >
< and it is a fossil <
yes, well quite, I can see the similarities.
Prof. Jim Al-Khalili interviewing Dr Judith Bunbury

Now Prof. Jim has a very gentle, conversational, interview style, as befits a programme with extended interviews with scientists talking about their lives (unlike, say, a journalist faced with a politician where a more adversarial style might be needed), so this exchange probably comes as close to a disagreement or challenge as 'The Life Scientific' gets. Taking a slight liberty, I might represent this as:

Al-Khalili: your work is like fossil hunting, the pottery fragments are similar to fossils
Bunbury: no, they ARE fossils

So, here we have an ontological question: are the pottery fragments recovered in archaeological digs (actually) fossils or not?

Bunbury wants to class the finds as fossils.

Al-Khalili thinks that in this context 'a kind of fossil' and 'like fossil hunting' are similes ("I can see the similarities") – the finds are somewhat like fossils, but are not fossils per se.

Read about science similes

So, who is right?

Metaphorical fossils

The term fossil is commonly used in metaphorical ways. For example, for a person to be described as a fossil is to be characterised as a kind of anachronism that has not kept up with social changes.

The term also seems to have been adopted in some areas of science as a kind of adjective. One place it is used is in relation to evidence of dampened ocean turbulence,

"The term 'fossil turbulence' refers to remnants of turbulence in fluid which is no longer turbulent."
Gibson, 1980, p.221

If that seems like a contradiction, it is explained that

"Small scale fluctuations of temperature, salinity, and vorticity in the ocean occur in isolated patches apparently caused by bursts of active turbulence. After the turbulence has been dampened by stable stratification the fluctuations persist as fossil turbulence."
Gibson, 1980, p.221

So, 'fossil turbulence' is not actually turbulence, but more the afterglow of the turbulence: a bit like the aftermath of a lively party which leaves its traces: the the chaotic pattern of abandoned debris provides signs there has been a party although there is clearly no longer a party going on.

Another example from astronomy is fossil groups of galaxies, which are apparently "systems with a very luminous X-ray source …and a very optically dominant central galaxy" (Kanagusuku, Díaz-Giménez & Zandivarez, 2016). It seems,

"The true nature of fossil groups in the Universe still puzzles the astronomical community. These peculiar systems are one of the most intriguing places in the Universe where giant elliptical galaxies are hosted [sic]."
Kanagusuku, Díaz-Giménez & Zandivarez, 2016

('Hosted' here also seems metaphorical – who or what could be acting as a host to an elliptical galaxy?)

The term 'fossil group' was introduced for "for an apparently isolated elliptical galaxy surrounded by an X-ray halo, with an X-ray luminosity typical of a group of galaxies" (Zarattini, Biviano, Aguerri, Girardi & D'Onghia, 2012): so, something that looks like a single galaxy, but in other respsects resembles a whole group of galaxies?

Close examination might reveal other galaxies present, yet the 'fossil' group is "distinguished by a large gap between the brightest galaxy and the fainter members" (Dariush, Khosroshahi, Ponman, Pearce, Raychaudhury & Hartley, 2007). Of course, there is normally a 'large gap' between any two galaxies (space contains a lot of, well, space), but presumably this is another metaphor – there is a 'gap' between the magnitude of the luminosity of the brightest galaxy, and the magnitudes of the luminosities of the others.

Read about science metaphors

Dead metaphors

One way in which language changes over time is through the (metaphorical) death of metaphors. Terms that are initially introduced as metaphors sometimes get generally adopted and over time become accepted terminology.

Many words in current use today were originally coined in this way, and often people are quite unaware of their origins. References to the hands of a clock or watch will these days be taken as simply a technical term (or perhaps for those who only familiar with digital clocks, a complete mystery?) In time, this may happen to 'fossil turbulence' or 'fossil galaxy groups'.

What counts as a fossil?

But it seems reasonable to suggest that, currently at least, these are still metaphors, implying that in some sense the ocean fluctuations or the galactic groups are somewhat like fossils. But these are not actual fossils, just as tin-pot dictators are not actually fabricated from tin.

So, what are actual fossils. The 'classic' fossil takes the form of an ancient, often extinct, living organism, or a part thereof, but composed of rock which has over time replaced the original organic material. In this sense, Prof. Al-Khalili seems correct in suggesting bits of pottery are only akin to fossils, and not actually fossils. But is that how the experts use the term?

According to the British Geological Survey (BGS):

Fossils are the preserved remains of plants and animals whose bodies were buried in sediments, such as sand and mud, under ancient seas, lakes and rivers. Fossils also include any preserved trace of life that is typically more than 10 000 years old.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/fossils-and-geological-time/fossils/ ¹

Now, pottery is not the preserved remains of plants or animals or other living organisms, but the site goes on to explain,

Preserved evidence of the body parts of ancient animals, plants and other life forms are called 'body fossils'. 'Trace fossils' are the evidence left by organisms in sediment, such as footprints, burrows and plant roots.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/fossils-and-geological-time/fossils ¹

So, footprints, burrows, [evidence of] plant roots ²…or shards of pottery…can be trace fossils? After all, unearthed pottery is indirect evidence of living human creatures having been present in the environment, and, as the BGS also points out "the word fossil is derived from the Latin fossilis meaning 'unearthed'."

However, if the term originally simply meant something unearthed, then although the bits of pot would count as fossils – based on that argument so would potatoes growing in farmers' fields. So, clearly the English word 'fossil' has a more specific meaning in common use than its Latin ancestor.

But going by the BGS definition, Dr Bunbury's unearthed samples of pottery are certainly evidence of organisms left in sediment, so might be considered fossils. These fossils are not the remains of dead organisms, but neither is 'fossil' here simply a metaphor (not even a dead metaphor).

Work cited:

Dariush, A, Khosroshahi, H. G., Ponman, T. J., Pearce, F., Raychaudhury, S. & Hartley, W. (2007), The mass assembly of fossil groups of galaxies in the Millennium simulation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 382, Issue 1, 21 November 2007, Pages 433-442, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12385.x
Gibson, Carl H. (1980) Fossil Temperature, Salinity, and Vorticity Turbulence in the Ocean. In Jacques C.J. Nihoul (Ed.) Marine Turbulence, Elsevier, pp. 221-257.
Kanagusuku, María José, Díaz-Giménez, Eugenia & Zandivarez, Ariel (2016) Fossil groups in the Millennium simulation – From the brightest to the faintest galaxies during the past 8 Gyr, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 586 (2016) A40, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527269.
Romero, I. C., Nuñez Otaño, N. B., Gibson, M. E., Spears, T. M., Fairchild, C. J., Tarlton, L., . . . O'Keefe, J. M. K. (2021). First Record of Fungal Diversity in the Tropical and Warm-Temperate Middle Miocene Climate Optimum Forests of Eurasia [Original Research]. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.768405
Zarattini, S., Biviano, A., Aguerri, J. A. L., Girardi, M. & D'Onghia, E. (2012) Fossil group origins – XI. The dependence of galaxy orbits on the magnitude gap, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 655 (2021) A103, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038722.

Notes:

¹ "Fossils are the preserved remains of plants and animals whose bodies …". But this suggests that fungi do not form fossils. The same site points out that "We tend to think of fungi, such as mushrooms and toadstools, as being plants — but they are not. They neither grow from embryos nor photosynthesise and are put in a separate kingdom" (https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/fossils-and-geological-time/plants-2/) – yet does not seem to mention any examples of fungi that have been fossilised (so the comment could be read to be meant to suggest that fossil fungi are found as well as fossil plants; but could equally well be read to mean that as fungi are not plants they do not fossilise).

The second quote here is more inclusive: "Preserved evidence of the body parts of ancient animals, plants and other life forms…" The site does also specify that "Remains can include microscopically small fossils, such as single-celled foraminifera…" (https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/fossils-and-geological-time/fossils/).

So, just to be clear, fossil fungi have been found.

Fungal spores found in Thailand – figure 3 from Romero et al, 2021. These fossils were recovered form lignite (a form of coal) deposited in the Miocene epoch.
Copyright © 2021 Romero, Nuñez Otaño, Gibson, Spears, Fairchild, Tarlton, Jones, Belkin, Warny, Pound and O'Keefe; distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).

² If the roots were themselves fossilised then these would surely be body fossils as roots are parts of plant. Presumably this is meant to refer to the channels in soil when the roots grow through the soil.

Share on Facebook

Is the Big Bang Theory mistaken?

Not science fiction, but fictional science

Keith S. Taber

we are made of particles that have existed since the moment the universe began…those atoms travelled 14 billion years through time and space
The Big Bang Theory (but not quite the big bang theory).

What is the Big Bang Theory?

The big bang theory is a theory about the origin and evolution of the universe. Being a theory, it is conjectural, but it is the theory that is largely taken by scientists as our current best available account.

According to big bang theory, the entire universe started in a singularity, a state of infinite density and temperature, in which time space were created as well as matter. As the universe expanded it cooled to its present state – some, about, 13.8 billion years later.

Our current best understanding of the Cosmos is that the entire Universe was formed in a 'big bang'
(Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)

The term 'big bang' was originally intended as a kind of mockery – a sarcastic description of the notion – but the term was adopted by scientists, and has indeed become widely used in general culture.

Which brings me to 'The Big Bang Theory', which is said to have been the longest ever running sitcom ('situation comedy') – having been in production for longer than even 'Friends'.

***The Big Bang Theory***: Not science fiction, but fictional science? (Five of these characters have PhDs in science: one 'only' has a master's degree in engineering.)

A situation comedy is set around a situation. The situation was that two Cal Tech physicists are sharing an apartment. Leonard (basically a nice guy, but not very successful with women) is flatmate to Sheldon, a synaesthete, and kind of savant (a device on which to lever much of the humour) – a genius with an encyclopaedic knowledge of most areas of science but a deficient 'theory of mind' such that he lacks

insight into others, and so also
empathy, and
the ability to tell when people are using humour or being sarcastic to him.

If most physicists were like Sheldon we could understand why the big bang theory is still called the big bang theory even though the term was intended to be facetious. The show writers claim that Sheldon was not deliberately written to be on the autistic spectrum, but he tends to take statements literally: when it is suggested that he is crazy, he responds that he knows he is not as his mother had him tested as a child.

Sheldon (at right, partially in shot) has been widely recognised by viewers as showing signs of high-functioning Autism or Aspergers syndrome. (Still from **The Big Bang Theory**)

These guys hang out with Raj (Rajesh), an astrophysicist and Cambridge graduate so shy he is unable to speak to women, or indeed in their presence (presumably not a problem inherited from his father who is is a successful gynaecologist in India), and an engineer, Howard, who to my viewing is just an obnoxious creep with no obvious redeeming qualities. (But then I've not seen the full run.) When Howard becomes a NASA astronaut, he is bullied by the other astronauts, and whilst bullying is never acceptable, it is difficult to be too judgemental in his case.

This group are scientists, and they are 'nerds'. They watch science fiction and superhero movies, buy comic books and action figures, play competitive board games and acquire all the latests technical gadgets. And, apart from Sheldon (who has a strong belief in following a principled rigorous regime of personal hygiene that makes close contact with other humans seem repulsive) they try, and largely fail, to attract women.

In case this does not seem sufficiently stereotypical, the situation is complete when a young woman moves into in the flat opposite Leonard and Sheldon: Penny is the 'hot' new neighbour, who comes across as a 'dumb blonde' (she wants to be an actress – she is actually a waitress whilst she works at that), something of a hedonist, and not having the slightest knowledge of, or interest in, science. Penny's plan in life is to become a movie star, and her back-up plan is to become a television star.

If Sheldon and his friends tend to rather fetishise science and see it as inherently superior to other ways of engaging in the world, then Penny seems to reflect the other side of 'the two cultures' of C. P. Snow's famous lecture/essay that described an arts-science divide in mid-twentieth century British public life. That is, not only an acknowledged ignorance of scientific matters, but an ignorance that is almost worn as a badge of honour. Penny, of course, actually has a good deal of knowledge about many areas of culture that our 'heroes' are ignorant of.

Initially, Penny is the only lead female character in the show. This creates considerable ambiguity in how we are expected to see the show's representations of scientists during the early series. Is the viewer meant to be sharing their world where women are objects of recreation and sport and a distraction from the important business of the scientific quest? Or, is the audience being asked to laugh at these supposedly highly intelligent men who actually have such limited horizons?

Sheldon: I am a physicist. I have a working knowledge of the entire universe and everything it contains.
Penny. Who's Radiohead?
[pause]
Sheldon: I have a working knowledge of important things in the universe.

So, the premise is: can the nerdy, asthmatic, short-sighted, physicist win over the pretty, fun-loving, girl-next-door who is clearly seen to be 'out of his league'.

Spoiler alert

Do not read on if you wish to watch the show and find out for yourself. 😉

A marriage made in the heavens?

I recently saw an episode in series n (where n is a large positive integer) where Leonard and Penny decided to go to Las Vagas and get married. Leonard said he had written his own marriage vows – and it was these that struck me as problematic. My complaint was nothing to do with love and commitment, but just about physics.

Cal Tech physicist Leonard Hofstadter (played by Johnny Galecki) wrote his own vows for marriage to Penny (Kaley Cuoco) in '***The Big Bang Theory***'

A non-physical love?

I made a note of Leonard's line:

"Penny, we are made of particles that have existed since the moment the universe began. I like to think those atoms travelled 14 billion years through time and space to create us so that we could be together and make each other whole."
Leonard declares his love

Sweet. But wrong.

Perhaps Leonard had been confused by the series theme music, the 'History of Everything', by the band Barenaked Ladies. The song begins well enough:

"Our whole universe was in a hot dense state
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago, expansion started…"
Lyrics to History of Everything (The Big Bang Theory Theme)

but in the second verse we are told

"As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made."
Lyrics to History of Everything (The Big Bang Theory Theme)

which seems to reflect a couple of serious alternative conceptions.

So, the theme song seems to suggest that once the big bang had occurred, "nearly fourteen billion years ago", the elements were formed in a matter of seconds, and the galaxies in a matter of minutes. Leonard goes further, and suggests the atoms that he and Penny are comprised of have existed since "the moment the universe began". This is all contrary to the best understanding of physicists.

Surely Leonard, who defended his PhD thesis on particle physics, would know more about the canonical theories about the formation of those particles? (If not, he could ask Raj who once applied for a position in stellar evolution.)

The "hot dense state" was so hot that no particles could have condensed out. Certainly, some particles began to appear very soon after the big bang, but for much of the early 'history of everything' the only atoms that could exist were of the elements hydrogen, helium and lithium – as only the nuclei of these atoms were formed in the early universe.

The formation of heavier elements – carbon, oxygen, silicon and all the rest – occurred in stars – stars that did not exist until considerable cooling from the hot dense state had occurred. (See for example, 'A hundred percent conclusive science. Estimation and certainty in Maisie's galaxy'.) Most of the matter comprising Leonard, Penny, and the rest of us, does not reflect the few elements formed in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, but heavier elements that were formed billions of years later in stars that went supernovae and ejected material into space. ¹ As has often been noted, we are formed from stardust.

"…So don't forget the human trial,
The cry of love, the spark of life, dance thru the fire
Stardust we are
Close to divine
Stardust we are
See how we shine"
From the lyrics to 'Stardust we are' (The Flower Kings – written by Roine Stolt and Tomas Bodin)

Does it matter – it is only pretend

Of course The Big Bang Theory (unlike the big bang theory) is not conjecture, but fiction. So, does it matter if it gets the science wrong? The Big Bang Theory is not meant to be science fiction, but a fiction that uses science to anchor it into a situation that will allow viewers to suspend disbelief.

Leonard is a believable character, but Sheldon is an extreme outlier. Howard and Raj are caricatures, exaggerations, as indeed are Amy (neurobiologist) and Bernadette (microbiologist) the other core characters introduced later.

But the series creators and writers seem to have made a real effort at most points in the show to make the science background authentic. Dialogue, whiteboard contents, projects, laboratory settings and the like seem to have been constructed with great care so that the scientifically literate viewer is comfortable with the context of the show. This authentic professional context offers the credible framework within which the sometimes incredible events of the characters' lives and relationships do not seem immediately ridiculous.

In that context, Leonard getting something so wrong seems incongruent.

Then again, he is in love, so perhaps his vows are meant to tell the scientifically literate viewer that there is a greater truth than even science – that in matters of the heart, poetic truth trumps even physics?

A Marillion song tells us:

A wise man once wrote
That love is only
An ancient instinct
For reproduction
Natural selection
A wise man once said
That everything could be explained
And it's all in the brain
Lyrics from 'This is the 21st Century' (Hogarth)

But as the same song asks: "where is the wisdom in that?"

Source cited:

Snow, C. P. (1959/1998). The Rede Lecture, 1959: The two cultures. In The Two Cultures (pp. 1-51). Cambridge University Press.

Note:

¹ I was tempted to write 'most of the atoms'. Certainly most of the mass of a person is made up of atoms ² that were formed a long time after the big bang. However, in terms of numbers of atoms, there are more of the (lightest) hydrogen atoms than of any other element: we are about 70% water, and water comprises molecules of H₂O. So, that is getting close to half the atoms in us before we consider all the hydrogen in the fats and proteins and so forth.

² That, of course, assumes the particles we are made of are atoms. Actually, we are comprised chemically of molecules and ions and relatively very, very few free atoms (those that are there are accidentally there in the sense they are not functional). No discrete atoms exist within molecules. So, to talk of the hydrogen atoms in us is to abstract the atoms from molecules and ions.

Leonard confuses matters (and matter) by referring initially to particles (which could be nucleons, quarks?) but then equating these to atoms – even though atoms are unlikely to float around for nearly 14 billion years without interacting with radiation and other matter to get ionised, form molecules, that may then dissociate, etc.

For many people reading this, I am making a pedantic point. When we talk of the atoms in a person's body, we do not actually mean atoms per se, but component parts of molecules of compounds of the element indicated by the atom referred to*. A water molecule does not contain two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, but it does contain two hydrogen atomic nuclei, and the core of an oxygen atom (its nucleus, and inner electron 'shell') within an 'envelope' of electrons.

* So, it is easier to use the shorthand: 'two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen'.

The reason it is sometimes important to be pedantic is that learners often think of a molecule as just a number of atoms stuck together and not as a new unitary entity composed of the same set of collective components but in a new configuration that gives it different properties. (For example, learners sometimes think the electrons in a covalent bond are still 'owned' by different atoms.) There is an associated common alternative conception here: the assumption of initial atomicity, where students tend to think of chemical processes as being interactions between atoms, even though reacting substances are very, very rarely atomic in nature.

Read about the assumption of initial atomicity

Share on Facebook

The states of (don't) matter?

Which state of matter is fire?

Keith S. Taber

A trick question?

Education in Chemistry recently posed the question

What state of matter is fire?

This referred to an article in a recent issue of the magazine (May 2022, and also available on line) which proposed the slightly more subtle question 'Is fire a solid, liquid, gas, plasma – or something else entirely?'

This was an interesting and fun article, and I wondered how other readers might have responded.

An invitation

No one had commented on the article on line, so I offered my own comment, reproduced below. Before reading this, I would strongly recommend visiting the web-page and reading the original article – and considering how you would respond. (Indeed, if you wish, you can offer your own response there as a comment on the article.)

A personal response – a trick question?

Ian Farrell (2022) asks: "Is fire a solid, liquid, gas, plasma – or something else entirely?" I suggest this is something of a trick question. It is 'something else', even if not 'something else entirely'.

It is perhaps not 'something else entirely' because fire involves mixtures of substances, and those substances may be describable in terms of the states of matter.

However, it is 'something else', because the classification into different states of matter strictly applies to pure samples of substances. It does not strictly apply to many mixtures: for example, honey, is mostly ('solid') sugar dissolved in ('liquid') water, but is itself neither a solid nor a liquid. Ditto jams, ketchup and so forth. Glass is in practical everyday terms a solid, obviously, but, actually, it flows and very old windows are thicker near their bottom edges. (Because glass does not have a regular molecular level structure, it does not have a definite point at which it freezes/melts.) Many plastics and waxes are not actually single substances (polymers often contain molecules of various chain lengths), so, again, do not have sharp melting points that give a clear solid-liquid boundary.

Fire, however, is not just outside the classification scheme as it involves a mixture (or even because it involves variations in mixture composition and temperature at different points in the flame), but because it is not something material, but a process.

Therefore, asking if fire is a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma could be considered an 'ontological category error' as processes are not the type of entities that the classification can be validly applied to.

You may wish to object that fire is only possible because there is material present. Yes, that is true. But, consider these questions:

Is photosynthesis a solid, liquid, gas, plasma…?
Is distillation a solid, liquid, gas, plasma…?
is the Haber process a solid, liquid, gas, plasma…?
is chromatography a solid, liquid, gas, plasma…?
Is fermentation a solid, liquid, gas, plasma… ?
Is melting a solid, liquid, gas, plasma…?

In each case the question does not make sense, as – although each involves substances, and these may individually, at least at particular points in the process, be classified by state of matter- these are processes and not samples of material.

Farrell hints at this in offering readers the clue "once the fuel or oxygen is exhausted, fire ceases to exist. But that isn't the case for solids, liquids or gases". Indeed, no, because a sample of material is not a process, and a process is not a sample of material.

I am sure I am only making a point that many readers of Education in Chemistry spotted immediately, but, unfortunately, I suspect many lay people (including probably some primary teachers charged with teaching science) would not have spotted this.

Appreciating the key distinction between material (often not able to be simply assigned to a state of matter) and individual substances (where pure samples under particular conditions can be understood in terms of solid / liquid / gas / plasma) is central to chemistry, but even the people who wrote the English National Curriculum for science seem confused on this – it incorrectly describes chocolate, butter and cream as substances.

Sometimes this becomes ridiculous – as when a BBC website to help children learn science asked them to classify a range of objects as solid, liquid or gas. Including a cat! So, Farrell's question may be a trick question, but when some educators would perfectly seriously ask learners the same question about a cat, it is well worth teachers of chemistry pausing to think why the question does not apply to fire.

Relating this to student learning difficulties

That was my response at Education in Chemistry, but I was also aware that it related to a wider issue about the nature of students' alternative conceptions.

Prof. Michelene Chi, a researcher at Arizona State University, has argued that a common factor in a wide range of student alternative conceptions relates to how they intuitively classify phenomena on 'ontological trees'.

"Ontological categories refer to the basic categories of realities or the kinds of existent in the world, such as concrete objects, events, and abstractions."
Chi, 2005, pp.163-164

We can think of all the things in the world as being classifiable on a series of branching trees. This is a very common idea in biology, where humans would appear in the animal kingdom, but more specifically among the Chordates, and more specifically still in the Mammalia class, and even more specifically still as Primates. Of course the animals branch could also be considered part of a living things tree. However, some children may think that animals and humans are inherently different types of living things – that they would be on different branches.

Some student alternative conceptions can certainly be understood in terms of getting typologies wrong. One example is how electron spin is often understood. For familiar objects, spin is a contingent property (the bicycle wheel may, or may not, be spinning – it depends…). Students commonly assume this applies to quanticles such as electrons, whereas electron spin is intrinsic – you cannot stop an electron 'spinning', as you could a cycle wheel, as spin is an inherent property of electrons. Just as you cannot take the charge away from an electron, nor can you remove its spin.

Two ways of classifying some electron properties (after Figures 8 and 9 in Taber, 2008). The top figure shows the scientific model; the bottom is a representation of a common student alternative conception.

Chi (2009) suggested three overarching (or overbranching?) distinct ontologial trees being entities, processes and mental states. These are fundamentally different types of category. The entities 'tree' encompasses a widely diverse range of things: furniture, cats, cathedrals, grains of salt, Rodin sculptures, iPads, tectonic plates, fossil shark teeth, Blue Peter badges, guitar picks, tooth picks, pick axes, large hadron colliders, galaxies, mitochondria….

Despite this diversity, all these entities are materials things, not be confused with, for example, a belief that burning is the release of phlogiston (a mental state) or the decolonisation of the curriculum (a process).

Chi suggested that often learners look to classify phenomena in science as types of material object, when they are actually processes. So, for example, children may consider heat is a substance that moves about, rather than consider heating as a process which leads to temperature changes. ¹ Similarly 'electricity' may be seen as stuff, especailly when the term is undifferentiated by younger learners (being a blanket term relating to any electrical phenomenon). Chemical bonds are often thought of as material links, rather than processes that bind structures together. So, rather than covalent bonding being seen as an interaction between entities, it is seen as an entity (often as a 'shared pair of electrons').

Of course, science teachers (or at least the vast majority) do not make these errors. But any who do think that fire should be classifiable as one of the states of matter are making a similar, if less blatant, error of confusing matter and process. Chi's research suggests this is something we can easily tend to do, so it is not shameful – and Ian Farrell has done a useful service by highlighting this issue, and asking teachers to think about the matter…or rather, not the 'matter', but the process.

Work cited:

Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
Chi, M. T. (2009). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 89-110). Routledge.
Farrell, I. (2022). The burning question. Is fire a solid, liquid, gas, plasma – or something elkse entirely? Education in Chemistry, 59(3), 11.
Taber, K. S. (2008) Of Models, Mermaids and Methods: The Role of Analytical Pluralism in Understanding Student Learning in Science, in Ingrid V. Eriksson (Ed.) Science Education in the 21st Century, pp.69-106. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Note:

¹ The idea that heat was a substance, known as caloric, was for a long time a respectable scientific idea.

Share on Facebook