Only the lazy does not laugh at the scientific research of researchers from England. As soon as we hear this phrase - "British scientists" - and we already understand: now we are talking about some absurd discoveries, experiments, conclusions, obvious to everyone, and even pseudoscientific results. But is it really that bad?
British scientists have proven …
The expression “British scientists is already an Internet meme, a synonym for insane research, thanks to which scientific results and hypotheses that no one need are born. As the saying goes, "British scientists have proven that people are incapable of taking seriously anything that is discovered by British scientists." And yes, indeed, no matter what discovery you take from Foggy Albion, it's entirely an anecdote. Well, at least the desire of English scientists to develop a chewing gum that would not stick to anything. They obviously have nothing to do in this England! (By the way, this exclamation: “They have nothing to do!” - can be left as a comment under almost any news about the discoveries of British researchers.) But this is only at first glance. Now go outside and just look under your feet: you will see the asphalt covered with gum. The same picture is in the subway. Public utilities spend a lot of money to clean this sticky substance from all kinds of surfaces, spending the notorious taxpayers' money, that is, our hard-earned money. Agree, now the idea of non-sticky gum doesn't seem so stupid anymore?
The benefits of picking your nose
Once upon a time there was a certain English scientist who researched everything that came to hand. And somehow he decided to examine his own snot under a microscope. Thoroughly blew his nose into a Petri dish, and wanted to see how the snot interact with microbes, but then his wife called him somewhere. Let's say you drink tea. They, the British, have nothing else to do. Well, after tea, the same restless Mrs. dragged her hubby on vacation. Let's say water. In a word, when he returned to his laboratory, his snot in the Petri dish had grown moldy long ago. Another would be normal - a person would just wash the dishes, and this one began to examine the resulting disgusting matter through a microscope.
Agree, it is difficult to imagine a more stupid study. Any decent housewife would already have started scribbling accusatory comments under such news if she happened to read it on the Internet.
Promotional video:
And I would have sat in a puddle, because this eccentric Briton was called Alexander Fleming. Thanks to "picking his nose" and uncleanliness, he discovered nothing other than penicillin! The first antibiotic that has become an integral part of any method of treating bacterial infections. Contemporaries appreciated Fleming's discovery. In 1945 he received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. And public opinion was that "Fleming made more whole divisions to defeat fascism." And you say - a strange study! But, you see, it is worthwhile to conduct a thousand such "stupid" research, if only in the end to get an antibiotic that will save millions of human lives.
And if you look at the news about British scientists from this angle, then they immediately cease to seem idiotic.
Big booty is a sign of intelligence
Want to laugh already? Well, don't hold back. However, remember: the one who laughs last laughs well. Therefore, with the most serious face on our face, we will continue.
Not so long ago, experts from Oxford decided to find out: why the statistical majority of men like ladies with big priests? Yes, scientists have spent a lot of money and time, but they have definitely established that the point here is, shall we say, not only in aesthetics. It turns out that all the fault is the clever male subconscious, prompting them: your offspring will be much smarter if a lady with wide hips gives birth to it.
But in order to find out what the male subconscious was already aware of, scientists subjected 16,000 women of all ages to a comprehensive "survey".
We learned a lot of interesting things, even if they sound provocative.
So, fat-ass women (the statistical majority (!), That is, we are not talking about individuals), as a rule, have a higher level of intelligence than their skinny rivals. And the owners of impressive hips have lower cholesterol levels, their body processes sugar faster and generally boasts a high-speed metabolism. Together, this reduces their chances of getting diabetes or heart problems, and at the same time - paradoxically - and being overweight (excluding accumulations in the area of the fifth point, of course). In addition, they are less likely to get colds and generally live longer.
A very seductive portrait of a lady emerges. Everything is with her: beauty, intelligence, and health. And also - a lot of productive power: the body of a fat ass woman produces and stores much more Omega-3 fatty acids than the body of a skinny woman. So what? Yes, the fact that this acid is a real catalyst for brain development. And the higher its content in the body, the smarter the lady herself, and - ta-dam! - smarter than her children. Because the inexhaustible reserves of Omega-3 nourish babies in the womb, and then enter the growing organisms along with breast milk.
Investors are to blame
But let's be honest, not every dubious discovery by British scientists has a second - attractive - side. After all, probably, the search for the perfect way to make toast with jam should not be carried out in a scientific laboratory. However, for some reason, experts at the Manchester Food Research Center figured out that the ideal toast is a 9 mm thick slice of white (and only white!) Bread, spread with 7.1 g of butter and 11.2 g of jam.
But what is even more surprising: after all, before receiving money for their research, scientists announced it to investors. And they decided that it was very important and necessary, since they allocated funds for it. How could this happen?
Dr. Andrew Higginson and Professor Marcus Munafo decided to investigate this issue. Being scientists themselves, they understood that their brother, like all other people, was motivated not least by material interests. Scientists also want their own toast with jam, albeit imperfect. And the easiest way to make money on it is to get a research grant. There are a number of grant committees in Britain. So Higginson and Munafo decided to figure out what they were willing to fork out for. Which application will be successful and which will not?
The researchers created a computer model in which a virtual career scientist put forward all sorts of ideas in order to get money from sponsors. And what? It turned out that the easiest way to get funds for small projects, but in new directions and as "sounding" and "resonant" as possible. That is, in fact, investors are much more interested in high citation indices in the media than in solving really important problems. At the same time, grant committees are very reluctant to respond to the support of projects whose purpose is to double-check the data already obtained, and with even greater creak give money for obviously long and large-scale research.
A paradoxical picture is emerging: scientists are not encouraged to do in-depth research and thorough study of the topic, they are expected to make new discoveries, new effects and patterns. And where to get them for a young purposeful graduate of Oxford, who has almost run out of jam in a jar? Fleming's nose? As a result, we have what we have. The whole world laughs at another revelation from British scientists: 90% of ladybirds have sexually transmitted diseases. What? This is a completely new study. And highly quoted. As they say, what they fought for …
What do you call the boat
Every housewife knows: it's not enough to cook a dish, it is important to serve it correctly. The same rule applies in the journalistic kitchen. Objectively, there is a lot of scientific information in England: even the tabloids The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph allow themselves to publish scientific news on the front pages. But how do you submit laboratory reports to the daily newspaper? If you do not want the entire circulation (and subsequent ones) to end up in the trash, boring data will have to be simplified as much as possible, something unusual and memorable should be brought to the fore and come up with a loud headline. And it would be nice, of course, that the news itself would not be distorted, not taken on a different angle. Alas, practice shows that this is what happens all the time. And often we, not realizing it, laugh not at the next discovery of the British, but to us how the media presented it to us.
Here's a good example: "British scientists have proven that scouts and pioneers have a stronger psyche." They have nothing to do! - this is the first reaction of the reader. However, later it turns out that in fact the study is about people of mature age who were in the scout units or were listed as pioneers in childhood. Their psyche is indeed much more stable than that of their peers, who once neglected public organizations. The situation is clearing up a little, but the notorious - "they have nothing to do" - has not disappeared anywhere. However, everything falls into place when the project leader, Professor Rich Mitchell of the University of Glasgow, explains: “The findings suggest that in community organizations, children gain stress tolerance skills, curiosity, persistence, conscientiousness and other qualities that help them in an adult life ". Which meansthat it makes sense for us, parents, to enroll our children in such organizations. Moreover, this meaning has been scientifically proven!
By the way, the inhabitants of England themselves are aware of the fact that the media deliberately make sensations out of scientific discoveries. 71% of the British, who were interviewed by the same British scientists, are sure of this.
Hindsight error
Do you know what it is? The phenomenon, which in Russian is called “I knew it from the very beginning”, or simply “I knew it!”. In psychology, this is called "the tendency to perceive events that have already occurred, or facts that have already been established, as obvious and predictable, despite the lack of sufficient initial information to predict them." You've probably experienced this while reading a detective story or taking some kind of test. When the denouement is clear, you exclaim: “I knew it! Everything was obvious. " But no: no forecast can be 100% true, that's why it is a forecast. This is such a psychological trick. So with the results of scientific articles, the same thing happens. Scientists are looking for scientific confirmation of some phenomenon, they find it, and we, sitting in front of computers and sipping coffee, irritably remark: “They have nothing to do!Everything was obvious without them! " But this is not the case. Two hundred years ago, it was obvious that people get fever from rotten air. Only scientists who doubted this indisputable fact were able to prove that viruses and bacteria are to blame for diseases. No one can tell which research is needed and which is not, which will be useful and which will be a waste of time and money. In the end, even if the experiment only brings a smile, it's already good: scientists around the world have long proven that positive emotions prolong life.and what would be a waste of time and money. In the end, even if the experiment only brings a smile, it's already good: scientists around the world have long proven that positive emotions prolong life.and what would be a waste of time and money. In the end, even if the experiment only brings a smile, it's already good: scientists around the world have long proven that positive emotions prolong life.
Max Maslin
