780 individuals and 20 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize. Since 1901, the Nobel Foundation has been awarding the most prestigious prizes in the world to people who have conferred great benefit to mankind in Peace, Literature, Chemistry, Medicine and Physics. Since 1968, Sweden’s central bank has awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. However, in 1991 a different kind of awards was constituted by the scientific humor magazine, Annals Of Improbable Research, called The Ig Nobel Prizes. (ignoble – ‘Not noble’). Perhaps you have been lucky enough to win one. It is not as improbable as it sounds, many of the 976 cowinners of the 1993 Ig Nobel Literature Prize may still be unaware of their good fortune. It's not clear whether these individuals, who coauthored a paper that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (vol. 329, no. 10), ever exchange information or hellos, or have even heard each others' names spoken. Their paper, by the way, was remarkable for having 100 times as many authors as pages - that is what won them the prize.
These awards are given to discoveries "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced." They honour ten achievements that "first make people laugh, and then make them think." It says nothing as to whether a thing is good or bad, commendable or malicious. The Ig, as it is known, honors the great muddle in which most of us exist much of the time. Life is confusing. Good and bad get all mixed up. Yin can be hard to distinguish from yang. Most people go through life without ever being awarded a great, puffy prize to acknowledge that, yes, they have done something. If you win one, it signifies to one and all that you have done some thing.
Except for 3 awards in 1991 and one in 1994, the Ig Nobels honour genuine achievements in science. For example in Physics in 1991, Thomas Kyle was awarded for discovering Administratium, the heaviest element in the universe. (This was fictional; don’t check your periodic table.)
The formal ceremony takes place at Sander’s Theater in Harvard University. Genuine Nobel Laureates present the prize to the winners. Professor Emeritus (Actor Russel Johnson) from the TV series Gilligans Island also once presented the awards. The Ig Informal Lectures are held at MIT a few days later where the winners get their chance to explain the research and its relevance to the masses. These lectures often become long winded and an eight year old girl Miss Sweety Poo interrupts the proceedings by repeatedly crying out in a high pitched voice, “Please Stop. I’m Bored”.
Throwing Paper planes on the stage was a long standing tradition and the ‘Keeper of The Broom’ physics professor Roy Glauber swept the stage clean. In 2005, he was absent from the ceremony as he was on his way to accept a genuine Nobel Prize in physics.
Art and Science go hand in hand, so at the Ig Nobels, delegates from the Museum of Bad Art display pieces from their collection.
This year’s Ig Nobel winners were awarded in Physics for proof that heaps of hair or string will inevitably tangle, in Peace to the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology and the citizens of Switzerland, for adopting the legal principle that plants have dignity and a team of biologists who ascertained that dog fleas jump farther than cat fleas. Two research teams were jointly awarded the Ig Nobel in Chemistry, one discovering Coke as an effective spermicide and the other for proving it is not. The Ig Nobel for Cognitive Science went for the discovery that slime moulds can solve puzzles. Feeling sick? The Ig Nobel in Medicine went for demonstrating high-priced placebos work better than cheap fake medicine.
Indians haven’t done well in the Nobel prizes but this is not the case here.
The most famous one is of Lal Bihari, of Uttar Pradesh, India, who won the prize for Peace in 2003 for a triple accomplishment: First, for leading an active life even though he has been declared legally dead; Second, for waging a lively posthumous campaign against bureaucratic inertia and greedy relatives; and Third, for creating the Association of Dead People. Lal Bihari overcame the handicap of being dead, and managed to obtain a passport from the Indian government so that he could travel to Harvard to accept his Prize. However, the U.S. government refused to allow him into the country. His friend therefore came to the Ig Nobel Ceremony and accepted the Prize on behalf of Lal Bihari. Several weeks later, the Prize was presented to Lal Bihari himself in a special ceremony in India. [NOTE: Filmmaker Satish Kaushik will be making a film about the life (and death and life) of Lal Bihari.]
L. Mahadevan, an alumnus of IIT Madras was awarded the Ig Nobel 2007 in Physics for studying how sheets become wrinkled.
Gauri Nanda of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, won the Ig Nobel 2005 for Economics for inventing an alarm clock that runs away and hides, repeatedly, thus ensuring that people DO get out of bed, and thus theoretically adding many productive hours to the workday.
Ramesh Balasubramaniam of the University of Ottawa, and Michael Turvey of the University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratory, for exploring and explaining the dynamics of hula-hooping won the Ig Nobel 2004 in Physics.
The Vatican won the Economics prize 2004 for ‘outsourcing’ prayers to India.
The Ig Nobel in Mathematics 2002 went to K.P. Sreekumar and the late G. Nirmalan of Kerala Agricultural University, India, for their analytical report "Estimation of the Total Surface Area in Indian Elephants."
The Ig Nobel 2001 for Public Health went to Chittaranjan Andrade and B.S. Srihari of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India, for their probing medical discovery that nose picking is a common activity among adolescents.
In 1998, the Ig Nobel prize for Peace went to Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan, for their aggressively peaceful explosions of atomic bombs.
The 1998 Ig Nobel for physics went to Deepak Chopra of The Chopra Center for Well Being, La Jolla, California, for his unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness.
Ravi Batra of Southern Methodist University, shrewd economist and best-selling author of "The Great Depression of 1990" ($17.95) and "Surviving the Great Depression of 1990" ($18.95), for selling enough copies of his books to single-handedly prevent worldwide economic collapse won the Ig Nobel in Economics in 1993.
Clearly, Indians are blazing a trail everywhere. Summing up, as the awards ceremony traditionally is:
"If you didn't win a prize — and especially if you did — better luck next year!"
Written for NERD magazine in October 2008. This was published.
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Louse and The Mosquito
One night when Tim went to bed,
As he laid down his head,
A louse jumped down from his hair,
Even though the shampoo had said ‘All Clear’
He hopped down from the pillow
And greeted the bedbugs with a hello
Until one bug begged his pardon
“Sir, why are you heading towards the garden?”
“I’m visiting my cousin you see”,
Said the louse jumping with glee.
Once he reached the window ledge
A voice came out from the garden hedge
“I’m here cousin, come right down”,
Said a mosquito with a big frown
“Why are you so depressed?
You sound as if you are stressed.”
The louse came down to the twig
And saw his cousin’s family ,ever so big.
The two old mosquitas and their mosquities,
On the bed eating old worn cheese
Four little moskits running around
And a fifth one, which had, fell on the ground
The cousin’s wife was standing in front
And told her husband with a grunt
“You and your cousin alore,
If they are coming, tell me before!
You know we’re poor and the blood stocks are flat
Ever since Timmy got that wretched mosquito mat”
“That would explain the frowns on your faces”
said the louse and tightened his laces.
“Come brother mosquito let us go”
The louse jumped ahead and the mosquito flew
They both reached the wall and then they saw
The wall was cracked it had a flaw
The louse had taken a glowworm along
And saw where things had really gone wrong
The vapourizer was under the bed with a switch
T’was the mosquito’s problem the big HITCH
The louse leaped towards the socket
And took out a wire from his pocket
He short-circuited the whole house
He sure was a clever louse
The mat had lost its utility
The mosquito yelled “Fiddle-de-Dee!!”
They both sucked blood out of Tim
And filled their reserves up to the brim
The louse and the mosquito lived happily ever after
In their houses was now bubbly laughter
They both said, “With every drop we suck
We wish the humans some engineering luck!!”
(Silly)Poem written as an assignment in Class 10
As he laid down his head,
A louse jumped down from his hair,
Even though the shampoo had said ‘All Clear’
He hopped down from the pillow
And greeted the bedbugs with a hello
Until one bug begged his pardon
“Sir, why are you heading towards the garden?”
“I’m visiting my cousin you see”,
Said the louse jumping with glee.
Once he reached the window ledge
A voice came out from the garden hedge
“I’m here cousin, come right down”,
Said a mosquito with a big frown
“Why are you so depressed?
You sound as if you are stressed.”
The louse came down to the twig
And saw his cousin’s family ,ever so big.
The two old mosquitas and their mosquities,
On the bed eating old worn cheese
Four little moskits running around
And a fifth one, which had, fell on the ground
The cousin’s wife was standing in front
And told her husband with a grunt
“You and your cousin alore,
If they are coming, tell me before!
You know we’re poor and the blood stocks are flat
Ever since Timmy got that wretched mosquito mat”
“That would explain the frowns on your faces”
said the louse and tightened his laces.
“Come brother mosquito let us go”
The louse jumped ahead and the mosquito flew
They both reached the wall and then they saw
The wall was cracked it had a flaw
The louse had taken a glowworm along
And saw where things had really gone wrong
The vapourizer was under the bed with a switch
T’was the mosquito’s problem the big HITCH
The louse leaped towards the socket
And took out a wire from his pocket
He short-circuited the whole house
He sure was a clever louse
The mat had lost its utility
The mosquito yelled “Fiddle-de-Dee!!”
They both sucked blood out of Tim
And filled their reserves up to the brim
The louse and the mosquito lived happily ever after
In their houses was now bubbly laughter
They both said, “With every drop we suck
We wish the humans some engineering luck!!”
(Silly)Poem written as an assignment in Class 10
SAVING MOTHER NATURE: RELIGION OR SCIENCE
“We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems.” Michael Crichton
"Take nothing for granted. Question every belief of yours". Today, Environmentalism is known to be a scientific discipline and a person is considered to be modern and educated only if he is aware of Environment Issues and does his bit to save Mother Nature. We would like to challenge this widely held opinion. Interpretation of any belief or perception depends on one's philosophy. Everyone responds to the same situation differently. One may believe environmentalism as science or a religion. We are not debating which one is correct. What we say is that one should be aware of different beliefs regarding it, and then make a decision! We now define the important terms.
Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the state of the environment.
A religion is a set of beliefs regarding cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, devotional and ritual observances, and a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Religious knowledge, according to religious practitioners, may be gained from religious leaders, sacred texts (scriptures), and/or personal revelation.
Science, in general is a systematic evidence based technique used to provide explanations for natural phenomena. It aims to provide correct predictions for such things. Science acquires knowledge through the scientific method, which seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. This is done through controlled experiments or analysis of observed data and is used to test hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it becomes part of scientific theory. Any hypothesis is falsifiable at any time, if a counterexample is observed. Scientific theory thus differs from mathematical theory as it is empirical and falsifiable (based on ‘a posteriori’ knowledge). An extremely important principle is that observations must be reproducible in both space and time, coherent and independently verifiable by various researchers. Philosophically, science is materialistic, believing that there are real existing objects, whose properties we can measure directly and quantitatively. Methodological naturalism maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena.
Environmentalism as Science
The various chemical, physical and biological aspects of environment are all explainable and based upon scientific phenomenon and have to be seen as per science. Us take the case of Global Warming.
Scientists, dig down snow cores in Antarctica. When snow falls, it traps CO2 from atmosphere and through isotopes of O2, the temperature can also be estimated. By plotting temperature vs. time and CO2 vs. time, an exact correlation between the two graphs is seen which shows the two are directly related even against a time scale of 650,000 years.
Scientists such as Tim Bell, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, and Fredrick Singer consider Al Gore and others as naive, they claim that from 1940-60 during slow economic growth, temperature increased while CO2 decreased and the vice versa happened in 1960-90.
Also they claim that though the two graphs correlate but it’s quite the reverse and it’s the temperature that determines CO2 content and not the reverse. Another argument is that CO2 lags behind temperature at least 100 years on the graphs on time scale.
It is very disturbing to note as a believer of science, that the results of climate studies are manipulated for political gains, as in the case of Dr. James Hanson, Director, NASA Goddard Institute in an inquiry set against him.
Environmentalism as Religion
Many facets of religion are similar to features found in today's environmentalism. For example, religions claim their holy books to be ultimate sources of knowledge and they debate over the metaphorical or literal meaning of the words contained therein. Similarly, environmentalists have their 'data' as the source and have their own interpretations to explain them. This is humorously unveiled by the parody religious movement of the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' which claims that the increase in global temperatures correlates exactly with the decrease in number of pirates in the world. Religions tend to use fear of hell/cycle of births/apocalypse etc to motivate their followers while similarly environmentalists are constantly propagating scenarios such as global warming, mass flooding, extinctions, ice ages, resource depletion etc (even when they have been wrong before). Rituals play a huge role in religion, and in environmentalism, turning off lights for World Earth Day is no less a ritual. Religions believe in an ideal, for example attaining Heaven, Nirvana etc. Environmentalists believe in a perfect state known as 'Sustainability'. Extreme religious fundamentalism has led to terrorism and so has radical environmentalism led to 'eco-terrorism' where coal power plants, oil rigs have been attacked.
To support the institution of religion, the following argument is often used; “Faith was to supply the beliefs that reason could not supply, beliefs which were vitally needed as the only way to provide an effective sanction backing the moral law and so stabilize society” Similarly, environmentalism is supported by many scientists just because of the fact that it instils 'good' human virtues such as taking care of our surroundings, reducing waste, being frugal or prudent. Hence the utility of environmentalism gives it support of a consensus of scientists, rather than the questionable scientific methods it uses.
To conclude, environmentalism, like religion, is based on the strongest human emotions and not on concrete verifiable facts as a science should be. The climate change debate has been around for quite a while now. In the late 1970's there was speculation of a coming ice age, and that temperatures would drop considerably if people didn’t act fast. That of course didn’t happen and within a matter of five years with rising population and industrialisation this fear was effortlessly and rather conveniently replaced by fears of global warming. The predictions made by environmentalists have failed consistently. The earth is a complex dynamic system and there are bound to be changes, many species have come and gone out of existence, we are just one such species. If there was no life to start off with, then it might as well end up that way. Environmentalism is one of those mock purposes that we have invented for ourselves to keep us busy so that we would not find life utterly meaningless. What business does this species, that has no clue of the meaning of its own existence, have to save the planet? (If it really needs the saving in the first place)
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Book Review: ZOOM
Zoom: The Global Race to fuel the Car of the future by Iain Carson and Vijay V. Vaaitheeswaran is an insight into the Car and Oil Industry. Although this book was written in 2007, several developments in the past year have made this book seem more relevant and increased the importance of the issue many fold.
But that does not make this a must read or a great book. In fact, reading this book has made me become vary of the dangers of spreading false or misleading information.
"Oil is the problem. Cars are the solution." That's what the back cover says. Do not expect a true scientific study and analysis of the energy crisis here or an insightful overview of alternate energy cars.
It is pretty clear from the start that the authors dislike the oil barons of the world deeply. They describe the immense wealth of the Arabs, the share values of the companies and supposedly unethical practices of OPEC etc. Oil is running out. Fast they say. The companies are in trouble and have dug far enough down the ground. And then they mention that Oil was running out fast in the 70s too and experts claimed that it will hardly last the century. And three decades later, we are in the same situation. Just like fusion technology, oil depletion is always only 30 years away. They show criticism against new technologies which could develop fuel from natural gas, coal and tar fields. And show no respect for these oil companies which are funding and pursuing these technologies with enthusiasm. The book mentions that oil prices are rising and will never reach the levels during 90's. They were right in 2008 when oil prices touched $150 a barrel and showed no sign of going down. But only until they went below $40 in December. Economists should by now realize that predictions about the world markets will always be invariably wrong. The book discusses the men that led the Oil Giants in the past years. It shows their commitment and hard work to the cause of their companies. And then demeans it all with the failures. The book spends more time discussing the people than the ideas, clearly being mediocre.
When it comes to the Cars part of the book, this book has failed. It spends a lot of time demonizing Detroit and the Big Three, Ford, GM and Chrysler. They say that these 3 are down and out. And it seems all right too today considering the big loans deft out by governments to save the auto mobile industry. The book glorifies the Asian companies like Honda and is full of immense praise of Toyota. It shows the misguided path of cars running on oil followed by the American Giants. What's wrong with the claims, is the simple fact that Toyota and Honda today are in as much soup as the rest of the companies. The book pinpoints the weaknesses in the history of the Car giants but in Toyota and Honda's case, puts down failures as their stepping stones. It claims that these companies are great because of their involvement into alternative energy. The only car on alternate energy they have discussed with significant detail is the Toyota Prius. They have also mentioned the Tata Nano. The book claims a lot of future in ethanol fuels and cites the example of Brazil. What it fails to mention is how the sugar cane for ethanol is grown in huge plantations, destroying the rainforest. Sugar cane is an intensive crop and very quickly depletes the soil of nutrients. It is destroying the food economy of nations. Is that the answer?
But that does not make this a must read or a great book. In fact, reading this book has made me become vary of the dangers of spreading false or misleading information.
"Oil is the problem. Cars are the solution." That's what the back cover says. Do not expect a true scientific study and analysis of the energy crisis here or an insightful overview of alternate energy cars.
It is pretty clear from the start that the authors dislike the oil barons of the world deeply. They describe the immense wealth of the Arabs, the share values of the companies and supposedly unethical practices of OPEC etc. Oil is running out. Fast they say. The companies are in trouble and have dug far enough down the ground. And then they mention that Oil was running out fast in the 70s too and experts claimed that it will hardly last the century. And three decades later, we are in the same situation. Just like fusion technology, oil depletion is always only 30 years away. They show criticism against new technologies which could develop fuel from natural gas, coal and tar fields. And show no respect for these oil companies which are funding and pursuing these technologies with enthusiasm. The book mentions that oil prices are rising and will never reach the levels during 90's. They were right in 2008 when oil prices touched $150 a barrel and showed no sign of going down. But only until they went below $40 in December. Economists should by now realize that predictions about the world markets will always be invariably wrong. The book discusses the men that led the Oil Giants in the past years. It shows their commitment and hard work to the cause of their companies. And then demeans it all with the failures. The book spends more time discussing the people than the ideas, clearly being mediocre.
When it comes to the Cars part of the book, this book has failed. It spends a lot of time demonizing Detroit and the Big Three, Ford, GM and Chrysler. They say that these 3 are down and out. And it seems all right too today considering the big loans deft out by governments to save the auto mobile industry. The book glorifies the Asian companies like Honda and is full of immense praise of Toyota. It shows the misguided path of cars running on oil followed by the American Giants. What's wrong with the claims, is the simple fact that Toyota and Honda today are in as much soup as the rest of the companies. The book pinpoints the weaknesses in the history of the Car giants but in Toyota and Honda's case, puts down failures as their stepping stones. It claims that these companies are great because of their involvement into alternative energy. The only car on alternate energy they have discussed with significant detail is the Toyota Prius. They have also mentioned the Tata Nano. The book claims a lot of future in ethanol fuels and cites the example of Brazil. What it fails to mention is how the sugar cane for ethanol is grown in huge plantations, destroying the rainforest. Sugar cane is an intensive crop and very quickly depletes the soil of nutrients. It is destroying the food economy of nations. Is that the answer?
They praise China for intensifying technology development and creating strict controls in their road traffic. Forgetting that the Beijing Olympics were almost called off by athletes complaining about the air pollution. Forgetting their blasphemous economisation of technology by compromising safety. Remember the lead in children's toys?
Their writing style is not suitable to discuss a topic of such great value. Throughout the book they describe in great detail palatial homes, conference halls and board rooms. Maybe it is to show off their own high contacts and visits or maybe it is just their correspondent style. The use of clichés, original and not so original, has been overused obscenely. "Can Dinosaurs Dance", "Big Oil" and many more burst out ever so often in each line. They show great faith in the Green Revolutionaries creating the new cars while slightly mentioning of the failed prototypes built. But count out the models under research by the actual Auto mobile Industrialists.
In the end, this book has not lived up to its name. By carelessly tossing out terms like Global Warming, Oil Economy, Pollution, alternative fuels etc.. the authors are trying to lose their credibility. Books like these tend to gather a lot of popularity on their government/industry bashing approach. But in the hands of the aware reader, it is bound to reveal its true nature.
Written in January 2009 for NERD Magazine. With such a critical attitude, it was bound not to be published
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)