Featured post

Brett Kavanaugh: Scapegoating returned…and my friends applauded or looked away…

This week scapegoating returned…and my friends applauded or looked away…

I understand that many women (and men) are frustrated that Western justice systems allow some rapists to go free when I would be happy for them to be castrated or killed. I understand that the vast majority of rape claims are not proven to be false. I understand that there is also a clear problem with how our authorities treat and process rape claims. Women often feel scared, “on trial” or disbelieved and unable to come forward. I am not unfeeling, wicked or denying these problems. I know I can never understand how hopeless, lost and broken those that have suffered sexual assault or rape must feel.

We need to co-operate across the aisle to come up with practical solutions to improve these issues, while accepting that we will never have a 100% perfect solution. Such utopias do not exist and certainly cannot be found by ripping out the core concepts of western justice root and branch and embracing the poisoned chalice of identity politics and social justice.

I had thought that the tremendously important and laudable goal of the #metoo movement was to empower women to call out their attackers and not suffer in silence. As a person who has friends and family members that are survivors of sexual assault and rape, I applauded that sentiment. I still applaud that sentiment. This is very hard to talk about and hits very close to home.

However, this week democratic senators, members of the media and dozens on social media have weaponised the #metoo movement against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh for political gain and the signalling of personal virtue and in so doing, betrayed and sullied all that is good and progressive about it.

This week, the world has watched as a man’s reputation; life’s work and his very life itself are destroyed in public without a shred of empirical evidence ever being offered or, in many cases, even asked for.  All that has been required is hearsay, emotion, bravery and the indignation that other “white privileged males” have mistreated women in the past.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 14.58.34Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 15.02.10.pngScreen Shot 2018-10-01 at 14.55.17

Of course, it’s become par for the course to expect partisan hackery from not just democrats, but elected officials of all stripes; grasping, power-hungry politicians who must leave the power devolving founders of the United States spinning in their freedom loving graves. But, this week, as cross-party cooperation circles the drain and as our political polarisation reaches its tragic zenith, a group of democratic senators proved that they have no regard for the sovereignty of the individual and no boundaries to what they are willing to do. All that matters is power. All that matters is the world view. They re-instigated scapegoating and traditional and social media applauded or looked away.

When no evidence was presented, it didn’t matter to the folks on Twitter. This was no longer a rape trial, it was now a trial of character. This man had reacted angrily and must be guilty. When no evidence was presented, it didn’t matter to the folks on Facebook, Brett Kavanaugh was a “privileged, white man” that had it coming. When no evidence was presented, justice, a concept that understands that you are a sovereign individual responsible for your actions, didn’t matter to my friends in the highest echelons of the science community, only the posthumous, vicarious social justice for “survivors”. It’s sad that so many people seem to have missed the entire point of the enlightenment and the freedoms that it brought, probably because they’ve never had to live without them.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 15.04.06Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 15.07.59Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 15.08.11

Of course, in many instances, the denizens of social media are simply hiding their blatant political partisanship behind a veneer of altruism, but many have been whipped into line or at least silenced by the incessant screeching and moral bullying of the “true believers” of social justice both online and in the media. It’s the shy conservative in over-drive. If you speak up, you will be destroyed. Just look at Brett Kavanaugh. We will do whatever it takes. You have been warned.

But why is this happening? Why are people so quick to destroy a man without any evidence?

But why is this happening? Why are people so quick to destroy a man without any evidence?

I think there are some clear parallels to be drawn with historic instances, such as the Spanish inquisition or the Salem witch trials, when religiously motivated group think was whipped up to the point of frenzy, left all reason behind and ran rough shod over the rights of the individual in favour of collectivist ways of thinking. Its merely a conjecture, but could it be that the public expressions of disapproval and disgust for Kavanaugh, for his anger and his drinking as a youth are signs of a displaced impulse towards religious moral puritanism?


In the past, in order to show virtue and piety to your society, you went to church on Sunday. Now, you post a “woke” meme on Facebook or attend a black lives matter rally and tell everyone about it. Is it just a coincidence that the decline of religion in the West has coincided with people throwing themselves publicly behind various forms of radical social activism and online rhetoric? Religion may be on its way out (I’m an atheist by the way), but it seems that people still need a transcendent cause to rally behind, and be seen supporting. A cause that demands their unquestioning devotion above evidence and logic. A cause that makes life simple, straightforward and black and white. A cause that allows them to demonstrate that their life has virtue, value and direction.

Nietsche once wrote that “God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown”. I guess we may still be deeper in that cave than I had hoped….

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.40.25

Whatever the reason for the overwhelming online reaction to the Kavanaugh case that I have seen, as a scientist and critical thinker, someone who deeply values evidence and enlightenment rights, it has turned my stomach. But, that doesn’t mean I am unsympathetic and I resent the moral bullying that says anything but absolute condemnation of Kavanaugh is moral bankruptcy and a “slap in the face to victims”. It simply is not. No-one supports, accepts or supports sexual violence.

Competing concerns

Again, I understand that Western justice systems allow some rapists to go free. Is that horrific? Yes. Do I hate it. Yes. Do I want to stop it? Yes!!! But fixing contemporary rape reporting and investigating is a delicate balance of competing concerns.

justice seesaw

We have to ensure that victims are comfortable coming forward with claims and are encouraged to do so when they believe a serious sexual crime has been committed. We also have to ensure that victims understand that their claims will be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. We want as many rapists behind bars as possible. To that end, I’m glad there is now an FBI investigation into Kavanaugh and that this has been kicked out of the field of political football.

However, on the flip side, we have to maintain the presumption of innocence to stop society descending into the Crucible, McCarthyism and a world controlled by the most unscrupulous among us, those who would happily use slander and false claims to further their own ends. A penchant for which politicians, media pundits and the denizens of social media have demonstrated in spades this week. We want as few false claims as possible, because these claims not only smear and destroy people in our modern, social media entranced world, but hurt real victims the most.


How Western justice deals with criminal accusations – The careful trade-off

Those that demand Kavanaugh and others be destroyed by accusations alone are conducting a one-dimensional analysis that sees more evil predators behind bars but ignores collateral damage. I do not ascribe evil motives to any but a very few of these people. They mean well! But, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In contemporary western justice, the bar of evidence required to convict someone of a crime balances the competing concerns outlined above.

The bar is set at a level commensurate with the severity of the crime and hence its associated punishment. Stealing a loaf of bread requires a low bar of evidence, simple eye witness testimony may be sufficient, but the punishment is correspondingly low, perhaps a caution or short stint of community service. In contrast, murder or rape, the worst crimes humans can commit require a high bar of evidence: multiple independent witnesses, CCTV footage and forensics, because the punishment is incredibly high (as it should be): long jail terms, destruction of reputation and in the case of the US, potentially death.

The bar is also set at a level above zero so that false claims are discouraged.


Western justice is under assault

But, this very structure is under assault in the modern day. Many see it as out-of-date, a relic of a bygone era, a tool of the white, male, cis-gender, straight “patriarchy” that needs to be destroyed. Many others, seem to simply not understand the reasons it exists at all, and are swept along by a tide of apparent virtue. The fundamental rights afforded to the accused are blocking “true justice” and selling women short. The evidentiary standard should be lowered while keeping the punishment just as, if not more, severe.

Lowering the evidentiary bar (and punishment) is, of course, a discussion we can and should have. It’s a method that was supported by the previous democrat administration which advanced legislation supporting the necessity for publicly funded universities to “self-police” and report sexual assault using the lower evidentiary bar of a “preponderance of evidence”.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 15.41.12Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 15.41.06

However, such a lowering of the evidentiary bar proved highly problematic in high profile cases like Duke Lacrosse, “Mattress girl” etc. Such standards have also been taken advantage of by academics writing online smear lists, to dispense vigilante justice on academics that have been sanctioned by deeply flawed university disciplinary procedures which they can pressurise and guide – in effect lowering the evidentiary standard while ensuring that the punishment of reputation destruction remains maximal. Ironically, such actions demonstrate even more starkly why the high evidentiary bar is essential and contributed to the current administration rescinding the policy guidance to protect the rights of the accused.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 15.48.25.png

The pure distillation of this insistence that the appropriate way to tackle the issue of rapists not being punished is to lower the evidentiary standard while maintaining severe punishment is perfectly encapsulated in the simple phrase that has swamped our media and social media feeds this week: “All victims should be believed”.

we believe

The phrase seems altruistic, empathetic and compelling. But, it’s a linguistic trick. It assumes victimhood before any has been proven. It should read “all accusers deserve to be believed”, an idea that would insist upon the evidentiary bar being reduced to zero in all cases. Pros: more predators are caught. Cons: more people are falsely accused and punished. Again, in a twist of irony, the actions of vigilante “shit-list” writers to insist on maximal online smearing scupper fruitful discussion of adjusting evidentiary standards, severely up-weighting punishments regardless of the evidentiary standards in play.

Again, I ascribe no nefarious motives to the vast majority of these people. They simply want to help the most vulnerable among us, as we all do. However, they are failing to consider the other side of the coin and the reasons Western justice is set up as it is. They are effectively saying, usually inadvertently but not always, that it doesn’t matter how many people are falsely accused, all that matters are the numbers of convictions.


This is social justice encapsulated – all that matters are the numbers that come out of the back for the historically oppressed group. It’s collectivist evil of the worst kind backed up by emotional and moral bullying and fake statistics that permeate to the highest halls of power (such as that which says 1 in 5 of college women are raped). It must be called out at every turn.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.04.09

How this plays out in the Kavanaugh case

In the Kavanaugh case specifically, we see the structure of Western justice being thrown under the bus.

Again, we can certainly discuss the evidentiary bar appropriate in a hearing that is not a criminal trial and does not carry the threat of jail, but the accusers of Brett Kavanaugh are offering no empirical evidence. I hasten to add that that isn’t to say that their testimony is necessarily untrue, I don’t know, none of us do, but if emotion, empathy and political posturing are to be admitted as evidence, how can anyone ever defend themselves? Such charges could be weaponised and levelled against anyone. If Kavanaugh is found guilty by the FBI investigation, he should have the book, the entire library, thrown at him. Until then, he remains innocent.

Given this malleability and the broadening of the alleged Kavanaugh crimes to those of the identity group of “white, straight, privileged men” at large, commentary on this matter has become a disgusting exercise in calculating the a priori probability of a man being guilty based on collective statistics: the fact that the vast majority of rape claims are not proven to be false; the fact that the accuser sounds credible; the fact he has used immature phrases and drunk heavily in the past (it’s called college!) and most sickeningly, the fact that other offenders of his intersectional identity group have escaped justice.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.07.02

The problem being that the average distributions say nothing about the merits of an individual case, only the evidence does. Kavanaugh is not 90% guilty if 90% of historical rape claims have not been proven to be false. The Kavanaugh case is also far from typical. Here we have a man running for one of the most prestigious positions in the land, in an era of rabid political polarisation, against the backdrop of being nominated by an incredibly divisive president and after being painted as a monster coming for Roe vs Wade from the instant his nomination was confirmed. He is the very definition of atypical and collective statistics hold no merit.


This is why social justice is so evil

Herein lies the essence of why social justice, identity politics and the currently baseless reaction to Kavanaugh are so evil.

Justice requires that you are held responsible for your autonomous, personal actions. It respects the sovereignty of the individual. From here, the scientific method, fundamental rights and freedom flow.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.11.00

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.10.55

Social justice on the other hand says that regardless of your individual actions, your fate will be decided based upon your membership of certain intersecting identity groups. In this case, based upon the actions of other men and whether the numbers of men that have been convicted overlaps with the “correct” numbers, as defined by social justice advocates.

It’s the antithesis of justice, because it destroys personal autonomy and responsibility. You are a pawn in someone else’s game. It’s dehumanising and disgraceful. Equality of outcomes laid bare for all to see.

social j

We see the ugly social justice mask slipping in the Kavanaugh case. Initially, he was being charged with a serious crime and this was about justice. When the level of evidence presented didn’t cut it, he was to be castigated for being a “drunk”, “an emotional bully” and someone that “didn’t respect a woman’s pain”, social justice identifiers of the “entitled white man”.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.18.51

In an apparent instant the hearing ceased to be about justice for the accuser, who has been used in a disgusting fashion, and became a demonstration of why character flaws such as reacting angrily to serious accusations and being drunk as a college student render you incapable of serving as a judge in the highest court. How is someone supposed to react in such circumstances? With a smile and a song? No doubt if he’d been calm and stoic he’d have been dubbed a robotic sociopath. This partisan social justice witch hunt has been nothing but an updated version of the trials of antiquity: if he floats he’s guilty. If he drowns, he’s dead. It’s also telling that we are told we must believe his accusers, but the scores of women rallying around Brett Kavanaugh and testifying to his good name are apparently irrelevant. The gradient of oppression only runs one way.


I’ve been incredibly shocked by the vitriol that Kavanaugh has received, but I can’t say I’m surprised. Given the way he has been painted as the devil coming for Roe vs Wade, I think this social justice centric reaction was inevitable. The tactics used to destroy Kavanaugh: shifting evidentiary standards, moral bullying and shaming are in perfect alignment with how progressives see the supreme court, as an authoritarian super-legislator and a council of wise-elders there to interpret law like poetry and further the “correct” political agenda.

Brett Kavanaugh is a white, male, right leaning scapegoat and stopping his ascendance is appropriate. If that requires a malleable, subjective, moving standard of justice – a concept those that advocate social justice constantly rail against in other arenas – so be it.

How can we improve rape reporting?

I hate being angry about a situation without offering potential solutions. I’m not John Oliver. So, what are the potential solutions that do not destroy the high evidentiary bar but which would encourage women to come forward and share their accusations in safety? I really want this discussion to occur so that I and others can support such measures.

Some highly suspect options have been tabled in the UK such as banning counter claims against rape accusers and the MET police invoking a standard that all accusers are to be believed in the first instance (since revoked).

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.27.15.png

Having spoken to several female friends and family members about the issue (including several that are victims), this is a tricky one, but we’d all like to see less of accusers being interrogated or shamed about their sexual proclivities, dress, drinking habits and other incidental matters. Dr Ford should also not be castigated, smeared or attacked for coming forward. It is imperative that justice be served and be seen to be served.

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 16.24.17


The FBI investigation is the right way forward, but I’m worried about what the circus of the last week says about where we are going and how little half of politicians and the public value evidence and due process. Identity politics and social justice have elevated confirmation bias and emotion to virtue. Doing “whatever it takes” is now your “civic duty”, regardless of the consequences. It feels like the social victories of the 1960s and the civil rights movement have left a long shadow. “By any means necessary” seems like a fitting motto for many of those commenting on this case in the press and on social media.


There does come a point at which we must stand up for our culture’s principles, and I think that we may have arrived at this point when people surreptitiously, or on occasion openly, suggest that dispensing with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a price worth paying. For me, this is the line in the sand which I cannot cross. It would cause our society to crumble at its foundations. The price is far too high.

Assuming that Kavanaugh passes the current FBI investigation, the democrats’ actions over the last wiek have essentially forced the Kavanaugh conformation vote to be a referendum on Western justice. I sincerely hope it survives the day.





The “fake news” fighting MacMillan “Digital cancer nurse”: my initial thoughts…



Today, I want to look at the story that the MacMillan cancer charity has felt it necessary to employ a nurse, Ellen McPake, to fight fake cancer information online and interact with cancer patients. A link to the video I will be commenting on can be found here:


Please watch the short video before reading on! 🙂

This post will be followed up with an associated YouTube video tomorrow when my internet connectivity is fully restored (I will place a link below)! So, this post acts as a quick reaction/discussion of the main points raised in the video (written on the screen as the video progresses)

As someone that has had a relative suffer and die from cancer, this story really jumped out at me. So, I wanted to take a look at the video above, give my initial thoughts and open things up for discussion with you guys!

I haven’t had time to research these topics in depth, so I’m happy to be proved wrong or educated in certain areas.

So, to the video…

Do cancer sufferers look to the internet to find information about their illness?

I was shocked to see it quoted that only 2/5 of patients took to the internet to find information about their condition and look at potential treatments and therapies. I’d have thought this number would be much closer to 100%!

When I snapped my achilles tendon, a much less serious condition, I remember spending hours on the internet looking at surgical papers, potential treatments, recovery metrics etc. I remember this picture really spoke to me:



Perhaps, these numbers are slightly skewed by the fact that more older and less tech-savvy people suffer from cancer on average (?) and that means that the number of people turning to the internet for medical advice will only increase in the future.


One nurse is fighting against fake health news online

Frankly, I think it’s amazing that we’ve got to a point where information is so readily accessible and free-flowing that this measure is needed.

However, the internet is weakly policed and doesn’t display the same rigour as a medical trial or scientific study. I regularly hear friends and relatives saying things like “X treatment/drug worked for Uncle Jim” and the like. But often, people are simply falling into the traps of correlation not meaning causation. It’s only natural, we are pattern seeking animals.

Of course, some unscrupulous people undoubtedly post known false information online to make money or achieve notoriety, but I’m sure most just want to help those that are suffering. As someone that has watched a loved one suffer and die or cancer, I can appreciate that.

The problem is that, when potentially false information is posted online, it can lead people to panic and potentially turn away from conventional, proven treatments. It’s great that the “digital nurse” could potentially reduce such occurrences.

Now, will this nurse be plugged into the latest breakthroughs in cancer research? And will she be free to discuss and review treatments that are outside those specifically favoured by the NHS? That’s not clear at the moment.

The NHS isn’t perfect, and I can certainly understand patients wanting to try less rigorously trialled and tested therapies when they have no other recourse. In fact, I’d completely support them having greater autonomy in this area.


Sodium bicarbonate cures cancer

I mean, wouldn’t this be one of the cover-ups of the century? If something you can buy a kilo of for less than a fiver in Wilko’s could cure cancer?

I’ve heard all the conspiracy theories that “big pharma” doesn’t want to cure cancer, but things like this seem a little far-fetched.


There are trust-worthy and untrustworthy sites for getting cancer information


I think that overall, what Macmillan is doing is a really positive step, but this nurse needs to be plugged into the latest advances in cancer treatment and therapy and not just be tied to the party line of MacMillan or the NHS.

Medical trials are the gold-standard for cancer treatments, but some therapies/drugs/treatments espoused by none NHS affiliated sites may show promise, and potentially be worth turning to, at least in a patients view, when there are no other options. I’m actually going to step away from scientific rigour for a moment and say that I can understand people wanting to try out of the box and less medically trialled treatments when they have no other options. Could such therapies be made more accessible on the NHS, perhaps if the patient wishes to cover the cost? It certainly warrants further discussion.

One thing the nurse could certainly help with is explaining the NHS’s scientific rationale regarding new wonder drugs or treatments that a patient may have seen. If a patient has seen that someone in the US is trialling an experimental therapy, it might be quite crushing that many in the UK cannot access the same therapy.



The NHS and cancer charities are not all knowing, but, on the whole, I think what MacMillan is doing is a positive move.

I know most people on the internet want to help those that are suffering, but you have to be very careful when you are posting information that will be seen by people at their most vulnerable. It could have the opposite effect to what you intend.

The scientific process in memes: Science meme sites please take note…

Box lid

As mentioned in my previous post, “I f*cking love science”  (and similar websites) does an awful lot right.  It uses its highly effective hooks to: inform subscribers about breakthroughs in science they may otherwise overlook, provide links to online scientific seminars and help to break down some of the negative stereotypes surrounding scientists. However, it also gets a few things wrong e.g. It uses worn out memes that contain inaccurate science and which misrepresent the scientific methodology.

There is no problem with using memes, flowery quotes and pretty pictures per se. But, if you are going to continue using them, then please at least do something useful, mildly innovative, and teach the scientific methodology. Require people to engage their critical faculties and understand some of the issues in modern science and society. I had a go when I was bored. Please click the link below and let me know your thoughts! (some zooming required)

Science game

Science is hard. It requires skill, hard work and dedication. You regularly feel over worked, under paid and under valued. But, you do it because you love it! Please play the game. 🙂

S x


I F*cking Love Science: A gleaming hook, a questionable fishing rod

Last time:

Why Brian Cox is a dirty cheat 😉[1].

Science communicators need “hooks” that pervade mainstream culture to draw new audiences to high level science. I explained how, today’s science communicators often outsource these hooks (specifically comedy) to experts outside of science, and how this outsourcing does nothing to help the damaging stereotypes of the scientist.

This time:

I f*cking love science: A gleaming hook, a questionable fishing rod

               Millions of people fish worldwide. For many it is simply a way to relax, unwind and clear their heads. They will throw back the fish once they have caught and catalogued them. For others, it is an essential means of survival. The catch will provide basic sustenance. However, all these fishermen have two things in common. They know they will do something worthwhile with the fish once they catch them, and they appreciate the need to use the appropriate bait and hook for the job.


Just like those fishermen, we science communicators need shiny hooks to attract new audiences to engage with, enjoy and become excited by high level science[2]. These hooks can be comedy, music, poetry or anything else that pervades mainstream culture. But, what’s the point of hooking new audiences if what you do with them afterwards isn’t entirely worthwhile?

The webpage “I f*cking love science” has become such a questionable fisherman. You only need to look at Facebook to see the whale of a fan base Elise Andrew’s site has reeled in. The hook of motivational language and quotes, memes and high resolution images works so well that it endangers fish stocks!

The website does a fantastic amount right. It uses its highly effective hooks to: inform subscribers about breakthroughs in science they may otherwise overlook, provide links to online scientific seminars and help to break down some of the negative stereotypes surrounding scientists.  However, it also gets a few things wrong. So, where can it be improved?


Well, the real problem is simply the site’s name. While the website may claim that “that’s funny” is “the most exciting phrase to hear in science”, one of the most laughable features of the site itself is often its interpretation of science.

Below are a few examples of what the website classifies as science:

Dendrite Oven Michio

The content includes: pretty images, memes and flowery, inspirational quotes from famous science communicators including Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku.

This isn’t science. Even Elise herself admits, “I’m just telling people things I think are cool.[3]” There is certainly nothing wrong with liking any of these things. Indeed, I am a fan of each of these three genres, and have regularly shared IFLS content. But, it isn’t science. Science is people, and the scientific method is a collective human endeavour, in which people make theories, test them based on observation and refine these theories when the tests disagree with them[4]. If you want a perfect and incredibly simple explanation of what science is look here[5]. The following plots illustrate clearly how – on average – IFLS’s subscribers laud amusing, beautiful or otherwise emotionally stimulating images far and above solid science.

skeletons Seminar

Part of this imbalance is, of course, due to the proclivities of the subscribers themselves and is beyond the control of the website. That said, IFLS’s methods are not entirely blameless. IFLS is a fantastic hook to draw people to science; it is clear that making 400+ people aware of a scientific seminar as opposed to zero is a massive step in the right direction. However, sadly, the site’s content often doesn’t chime well with, or teach its followers much about, the scientific method when they do flop onto the bank.

Why does this matter?

If the site were purely recreational and didn’t advertise scientific seminars and the like, it wouldn’t matter. We all like pretty pictures. I have an image of the Hubble Telescope Deep Field as my desktop background right now. But, while the site continues to do this, and/or followers continue to view it as a “science site”, it does matter.

One important aspect of the scientific process is that all work is scrutinised, checked and repeated. This process ensures accuracy and the dissemination of a consistent message.


All work is peer reviewed. This is not the case with the content of IFLS, which Elise describes as, “the inside of her brain”, not a fact checked stream of verified information, but a personal brain dump. This leads to IFLS content that is regularly wrong or misleads followers regarding the scientific methodology. This is irresponsible, particularly when dealing with such a large and scientifically curious consumer base. Consider the following post (which is far from the only example of its type, and probably isn’t the best):


There are 8 planets in the solar system. This is not debateable. It is a fact based upon the agreed scientific definition of a planet we use[6]. It may only change if the agreed scientific convention changes. However, the number of planets does not change based on the fact you can name more than 8 rocks orbiting the Sun (wrong), and it definitely doesn’t change based on your personal choices or feelings regarding the matter (misrepresents the scientific method).

IFLS regularly blurs an important line. It suggests that the scientific method is personally pliable and that the most important aspect of science is the personal satisfaction and hit you can draw from it. This is a problem that pervades modern science, and its communication, and has been recently discussed in relation to the famous TED platform[7].

There is no doubt that science can be amazingly fun and emotionally satisfying. But, this isn’t its purpose. IFLS dangerously merges the positive personal reaction people have to the hook designed to draw them to science and the science itself. This is a subtle, but important distinction.

I’m not saying this to be controversial, undermine I f*ucking love science or to have a go at Elise Andrew. I’m just a fan of IFLS, and I genuinely f*cking love everything positive it has achieved. It’s just that, like all the CERN analysis code I have ever written, it needs some bugs ironing out. Merging science and entertainment is extremely difficult. I know this better than most! The two often tug in different directions. The essence of science is ‘it is what it is’ – whether we like it or not. The audience’s ‘feelings’ are irrelevant. In order to be scientific, they are supposed to suspend their beliefs and engage their critical faculties. The essence of entertainment is ‘it is what it feels like’.  It’s not surprising that some tweaking of IFLS’s content is necessary. It is a pioneer in an emerging field.

I just don’t want IFLS to be yet another symptom of the “buzzfeed” culture of modern media, where well informed, well researched and fact checked content is readily replaced by content that may lack these qualities, but generates the maximum number of likes and shares from an insatiable consumer base[8]. It’s too important for that, and it can be far better than that.


I also don’t think it should continue to dominate the online alternative science outreach space in its current, slightly flawed format. Where, despite the holes in its scientific message, it dominates the “hook” marketplace of alternative science outreach. Why would you listen to X when IFLS, despite its faults, seems to have everything wrapped up so nicely in your Facebook newsfeed already?

Like Ahab, IFLS has harpooned a whale of public support, and I don’t want to see it dragged down in its continued pursuit of it.