Reading the small print...

When it comes to science coverage, a glance beyond the headlines is always needed warns Russ Swan.

There can be more to a scientific discovery than meets the eye. But sometimes, well, you have to wonder. For example, I learned recently that the greatest of all comic book superheroes is Superman. This may surprise you as little as it did me because, even with limited knowledge of the genre, this is surely the whole point of the character. You might think that any debate over the relative strengths and weaknesses of cartoon champions would be restricted to the juice bar at a fantasy convention or the many nerdish web forums on teh internetz, but in fact this is a valid area of scientific research.

I know this because it said so in a publication announcement. Over the course of a mere 1400 words, the physics department at the University of Leicester explained last month how its students had spent seven years researching the relative strengths of a panoply of imaginary characters, with their findings published in two peer-reviewed journals. This is an example of what we in the trade like to call a load of old hooey. The basic facts are all true but, as in so many areas of research, context is everything. For a start, you might wonder how they got funding to read comics for seven years – bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD? It’s no surprise to learn that they didn’t. But what about those peer-reviewed journals? That sounds impressive… until you discover that these are actually a kind of internal student newsletter.

The whole thing is in fact simply an exercise to demonstrate to students how the publication process works, and to grab attention through a deliberately quirky choice of research topic. Mind you, the easily-uncovered truth didn’t stop the Daily Telegraph and others reporting the whole charade like a straight news story. We’re only half way through 2016, but already it is shaping up to be a vintage year for hooey.

Another example of what we might call Wednesday Thursday Friday (or WTF) hooey is the publication last month of a paper by computer scientists from Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) posing the question: can computers do magic? In general, any headline framed as a question will be answered in the negative. In this specific case, we can qualify that negative: No, because this isn’t flipping Hogwarts. Professor Peter McOwan from QMUL’s school of electronic engineering and computer science is behind this superficially meaningless bit of research, and reveals the truth with the flourish of a showman – which, being a part-time performer of magic, we should probably have anticipated.

The prestidigitating professor’s research concentrates on the potential of artificial intelligence to create new conjuring tricks, learning about things like optical illusions and word play by harvesting a number of social media platforms. It is actually more about psychology than computer science and, once again, it has a validity that isn’t apparent from a first-glance dismissal of the headline. But excuse me for a moment – given concerns about growing reliance on automated systems and the potential for AI to turn against us mere meatbags, is it really a good idea to start teaching the silicon sentience how to fool us? 2016 has also already provided a couple of strong candidates for the No Shit Sherlock award. Having learned from University College London that fat children eat bigger meals, we also discovered courtesy of the University of Cambridge that larger wine glasses lead people to drink more. Astonished? No, me neither.

Tediously, and much as I’d love to poke fun at them, both of these discoveries also have genuine scientific value. In the case of overweight youngsters, it is now known that they tend to have larger helpings at each meal, rather than eating more frequently. This in turn gives clues to ways of helping curb the obesity epidemic that we’ve heard so much about lately. Regarding the wine glasses, pity those poor Cambridge scientists who had to brave three months down the pub to conduct their research. Their version of in vino veritas reveals that the size of the glass affects the perception of how much is being drunk, regardless of the volume actually in there, leading to 10 percent higher consumption. Well pour me another glass and knock me down with a chaser. In the food business, it has long been known that larger plates lead people to take larger portions, which is why your local all-you-can-eat buffet wants you to eat off of glorified saucers. What is surprising is the charmingly naïve conclusion reached in the wine glass study.

The scientists suggest that avoiding the use of larger wine glasses could reduce the amount drunk, and that maximum glass sizes could be specified as part of alcohol licensing requirements. Meanwhile, back in the real world, news of the discovery has reached the licensed trade – and every pub chain and wine bar in the country is placing orders for jumbo glasses in order to boost their sales.

Scientific discovery: there’s more to it than you might think.

Russ Swan