Category Archives: TV Review

Mar 11

Haribo Starmix – ‘Just Too Good’ Advert

Catie Lichten reviews the new advert for Haribo Starmix.

Science is used to sell products all the time, with the use of sciency sounding ingredients and behind-the-scenes consumer psychology. But since I saw the latest Haribo advert (above) last week, I’ve been wondering: could I have witnessed the first time that an advertisement spoofs a science experiment?

The 40-second TV spot shows adorable little kids faced with a single Haribo Starmix sweet and told that if they can resist eating it, they will receive a second one. Child after child tries it. They resort to all sorts of tactics including sniffing and licking the candy but cannot resist eating it, leading the methodical girl in oversized glasses and a white lab coat to conclude, “Haribo is just too good.”

The advert is based on the famous Marshmallow Experiment carried out at Stanford University in the early 70s where hundreds of 4-6 year-old subjects were each asked to sit alone at a table in front of a single marshmallow (or Oreo or pretzel). They were also told that if they could resist their temptation to eat it for fifteen minutes, they would be rewarded with two.

Just like in the ad, the kids struggled like crazy to resist the marshmallow’s allure (you can find cute re-enactments on YouTube like the one below). Only about one third managed to hold out until the time was up.

But the coolest part of the marshmallow experiment is actually missing from the advert. It’s the follow-up and it got the study into the headlines a few years ago (there’s a great article here).

As the original subjects got older, the psychologist who devised the study, Walter Mischel, got curious about how they were doing. He tracked them down and found that the kids who resisted eating the marshmallow (those who could ‘delay gratification’) scored better on standardised tests, were healthier, and had better jobs and more successful relationships.

I suppose the punch line of the science, which is in fact still ongoing, is best left out of the ad. Reminders about self-control probably do not sell candy. Yet, I do find myself tempted to go buy a bag– only to practice sitting alone with them without eating any of course.

For other excellent accounts of Mischel’s experiment, listen to Radiolab’s episode on it here or BBC radio 4’s coverage.

Catie is a PhD student based in Edinburgh. She likes writing about science in the moments when she’s not thinking about yeast and sugar (a yeast might pass the marshmallow test, but only because it’s about 5,000 times smaller than a marshmallow) and contributes regularly to eu:sci magazine (www.eusci.org.uk) and Jumpstart (http://www.jumpstartuk.co.uk/randd-news-and-events/).

Feb 9

How Sex Works

Emma Stoye reviews BBC Three’s recent documentary series, ‘How Sex Works’.

‘How Sex Works’ was part of the BBC’s sex season, a collection of programs which aimed to inform and entertain viewers about the ins and outs of sex (no pun intended!)

The documentary used state of the art computer graphics to travel inside the body and explain what goes on underneath our skin during those magical moments. Emotional and sociological issues were also explored by following different people, all of whom had their own story to tell.

Each of the three episodes documented a different stage in a person’s sexual journey: the first was about first-time sex, the second about playing the field and the third about long term relationships.

After watching the first episode I have to admit I was fairly disappointed. I found myself wondering who this program was aimed at. Those old enough to understand the birds and the bees (myself included) were doubtless getting a little bored learning about the mechanics of it all.

For the younger crowd I’m sure it’s informative, but not nearly as fun as things like Channel 4’s ‘the sex education show’ whose naked models undoubtedly make it infinitely more appealing to 15-year-olds than the cold, characterless computer graphics, which were often cringe-inducing and, in some parts, downright creepy.

Having said that, the second and third episodes were a lot better, as they contained more original content. I got the feeling, however, that in some places the program couldn’t work out whether it was about science or sociology – it’d jump from giving a rigorously scientific account of how orgasms work to exploring the history of female sexuality without any kind of smooth link.

Another thing I found a bit annoying was that the science itself, although accurate, seemed to be limited to the basics, and was a bit repetitive – they explained how an erection worked, and returned to the aforementioned cringe-inducing graphics, in every episode, which was somewhat gilding the lily in my opinion.

What I would have really liked to see is a bit more detail on the scientific or evolutionary basis for different aspects of sexual behaviour – they certainly touched on some interesting topics like asexuality and early menopause that just aren’t covered in other programmes – but the most interesting stuff often only included an interview element rather than really delving into the science. Even though scientists aren’t sure what causes a lot of these things, it still would have been worth mentioning this to highlight the need for better understanding.

In my opinion the strongest parts of the program were interviews with real scientists talking about cutting edge research, like the scientists who were able to pinpoint the signs of romantic love using brain scans. Another definite highlight was the ‘sperm race’ carried out by scientists at Birmingham University, where a bunch of male students nervously looked on as their sperm were pitched against each other in a simulated ‘race to the egg’ situation!

So if you’re after pure, undiluted science, ‘How Sex Works’ will be a bit of a let down, but overall I think it’s worth watching if you’d like to learn about some of the basic science behind sex. There’s some good information in there, but it’s interspersed with an awful lot of padding, not to mention two glowing, faceless, multi-coloured computer generated people getting in on. Repeatedly.  Every couple of minutes. You have been warned!

Emma is a science writer and communicator based in Cambridge. She writes for Asia Research News and BPoD, and has produced and presented bits and pieces for BBC Radio’s The Naked Scientists. Twitter: @emmastoye

Nov 7

Louis Theroux – America’s Most Dangerous Pets

Joe Bathelt gives his two pence on an issue raised by Louis Theroux’s America’s Most Dangerous Pets. 

This post is a little bit different and for once it has nothing to do with neuroscience. I don’t claim to know anything about it, but I wanted to raise some questions, because these issues have been on my mind for some time. I watched the programme ‘Louis Theroux – America’s Most Dangerous Pets’ yesterday. For those of you who haven’t seen the programme, it should still be available on iPlayer. Here is a short summary: in the style of typical British entertainment, a smart-arse (no offence) journalist is sent to take a look at ridiculous lower class practices on the other side of the big pond. He visits several private wildlife parks, in which dangerous animal enthusiasts (aka idiots) keep big exotic animals like tigers, lions, bears, chimps etc.

Their practices are of course completely ridiculous and sometimes downright stupid like the guy holding a fully grown tiger on a lead apparently think that he has the tiger under control. Sometimes, it’s even involuntarily funny like when the rangers claim that they are creating a saber tooth tiger by cross-breeding a lion and a tiger. Apparently, you don’t need any expertise to do experiments like this (“A PhD is jest a docoomnt on th’ wall”). Or the part where the owner of the park explains that a bear and a tiger are raised together in the same cage to show that everyone can learn how to get along no matter how different they are (at least until they rip each other into pieces when they get in a playful mood).

The interesting bit is how Louis Theroux (the journalist) raises ethical questions and how they the owners of the dangerous pets defend their practices. In one instance, an enclosure for bears is shown. It is fairly large for an enclosure, but the bears show clear signs of hospitalism by pacing up and down the fences. The question is whether it is right to keep animals in enclosures or if they belong in the wild. The keeper argues that they don’t roam through square miles of territory because they want to, but because they have to in order to find resources. In his view, they are just as happy with the confined space and being fed.

For me and a lot of other people that see animals in captivity walk up and down along a fence repeatedly, it seems obvious that keeping animals in these conditions is ethically wrong. But how do you argue this position? Most people emphasise that this is not the natural state of the animal, but this is inconclusive and in the end a circular argument: arguing like that is falling for the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. Something is the natural state therefore it should be the state, consequently it is the natural state, because it should be so. That occurs a lot when people talk about vegetarianism in my experience. Carnivores often argue that eating meat is ‘natural’ and therefore should be done, but one cannot derive a normative argument from a given state. That is circular thinking.

However, it is problematic to assess what animals want. They don’t communicate with us in a way that allows unambiguous judgment of their desires and wishes. Additionally, we tend to anthropomorphise them. The owners of the dangerous pets think that their animals love them and have a good time being imprisoned. So, one pragmatic concession that I would make is to argue that we can only judge what animals want by their natural state. We have to assume that animals in the wild are happiest, because we have no indication that they are happier in a cage. This is a relative argument that allows to be re-evaluated once the evidence changes. For example, it could be that animals in captivity are better off, when most of their natural habitat is lost or degraded.

I would be very interested to hear what other people think about this. So, please leave your comments!

Joe Bathelt is a neuroscientist currently working on his PhD at the Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience Unit at the Institute of Child Health, University College London. He graduated in Biology from the University of Tübingen, South Germany, and also holds a Master’s degree in Neuroscience from UCL. His interests are in the neuroscience of human social interactions, emotions and philosophy of mind. He’s on Facebook here.

Oct 24

Planet Dinosaur

Samantha Price reviews the BBC series Planet Dinosaur.

I first saw the trailer for the BBC’s Planet Dinosaur back in the New Year. (You know? In the advert where the BBC shows off its amazing documentaries and dramas for the coming year?) Well, I’ve been looking forward to this documentary since then. I was expecting great things. Like Walking with Dinosaurs but more updated.

Unfortunately my great excitement turned to disappointment after watching the very first episode.

There are a number of downfalls. Clearly the BBC has spent more money on Doctor Who, instead of trying to create something as successful as the 1999 documentary. Walking with Dinosaurs got me interested in dinosaurs and the science behind them at such a young age, it’s such a shame that Planet Dinosaur is unlikely to have the same effect (let alone be repeated).

And it’s not just me…

On the BBC website, @edyong209: “How do you recreate a dinosaur?” asks BBC. Anyone who has seen Planet Dinosaur knows the answer is “unconvincingly”

My mum: It’s a bit boring, the narrator, the science…

I’m not having a go at the BBC. Wonders of the Universe and Walking with Dinosaurs were excellent documentaries. I just feel Planet Dinosaur could have been so much better. Walking with Dinosaurs worked so well because it was a story about these amazing creatures and how they used their adaptations to survive. Also the computer graphics were a hundred times better in Walking with Dinosaurs, along with animatronics and puppets (clearly in 12 years this hasn’t improved much if Planet Dinosaur is anything to go by).

I also feel, for the non-science individual, the facts and science behind the fossils seemed to disrupt the ‘story’ (if there was one?) and left the likes of my mum falling asleep. Personally I found the fossil evidence and facts incredibly interesting, however I feel that the majority of the general public was not quite enthralled by it (my mum for example). What the BBC should have done is what they did with Walking with Dinosaurs. Six half an hour episodes followed by a final episode on the fossil evidence, making the dinosaurs and general behind the scenes information for the ‘dino science geek’ who likes the fossil facts.

I can’t fault the science. The detail and information regarding the sites and structure of the fossils was brilliant. The explanations for dinosaur behaviour (cannibalism etc.) and even feathers were backed up with a lot of fossil and scientific evidence.

Like I said, the main fault was how the science was presented. If the ‘dino science geek’ is happy, that’s all good… However if the rest of the general public (who we as scientists WANT to be interested in our work) are snoozing away, then clearly something’s gone wrong.

A little fact: The ‘Walking with Dinosaurs’ TV series was the most expensive documentary series, per minute, ever made according to the Guinness Book of World Records (I doubt ‘Planet Dinosaur’ can be put in the same category of expenditure).

Coming soon: Walking with Dinosaurs 3D! Apparently the BBC and 20th Century Fox are working on a film adaptation of the TV series. Due for release October 2013. Let’s hope this does what the TV series did to me. Get children interested in Dinosaurs and Science!

Samantha Price is doing a PhD in Applied Microbiology at De Montfort University, and is also a registered biomedical scientist who has a passion for communicating science to the public. She’s on Twitter here.

Oct 19

The Origins of Us – Bones

Lili Tcheang  reviews The Origins of Us – Bones, a new scientific documentary on BBC2.

blank

Ever wondered why modern humans are naked compared to other apes? Then if so, this documentary might just be for you. The Origins of Us – Bones, presented by Dr Alice Roberts uses prehistoric anatomy combined with modern scientific techniques to illustrate how the modern human skeleton came about and how evolution led to our current position. Whilst packed with a number of facts to satisfy your average science geek, the fully justified on-location presentation format in exotic far flung places, plus chimps and babies behaving cutely in the only way that they can, appeals to the other end of the target audience, with your average QI follower sitting somewhere in-between. For those of you who want the QI synopsis, here are some quick-fire facts to satisfy your short bursts of curiosity. Modern humans learned to walk about 6 million years ago, as a result of receding forest and encroaching savannah. We are informed that evolution took advantage of the changing environment with an explosion of other new species as well as six from apes.

The program uses a number of clues from our physical anatomy in arguing for our niche in this new environment. It turns out, incredible as it seems in today’s epidemic of obesity, that modern humans have evolved to run. And not just any type of running but most specifically that slow and painfully drawn out long distance running of the type required to run down prey. Although not entirely unheard of in the modern world, I understand there are still tribes in Africa who use this form of hunting, I always thought of it as a rather inefficient way to hunt down prey. However I am given to understand that evolution isn’t about efficiency; it’s about getting the job done and filling an evolutionary niche.

There are a number of interesting facets from our bodies to back this up. Did you know that out of the apes, we have comparatively long waists required to stabilise runners’ bodies. Furthermore a certain muscle absent in other apes connects the back of our skull to the head, stabilising the skull from pitching forward as we run. Last but not least, concerns the largest muscle in our body is our bum, hence the aptly named gluteus maximus. Using electrodes attached to Alice Robert’s own bum, we are given a demonstration of how when running, the firing activity in the organ amplifies, showing how crucial this muscle is in giving us the ability to run compared to other apes. Whilst the demonstration was entertaining, it was also interesting to get a glimpse of how far palaeontology has come along and Alice’s own have-a-go attitude can only be described as commendable. Nevertheless, not to downplay conventional anatomy techniques, one of the most fascinating lessons concerned bones and how you could tell how an animal walked just from the shape of the bottom of its shin bone.

A few bones to pick though, I thought bonobos were our closest relatives not chimps. Any authority out there, who can help us on this? And the other one, in answer to my opening question regarding sweating. We are informed that we are naked and we sweat, as the most efficient way of cooling ourselves down whilst enabling us to outrun our overheating prey. Surely we would lose a lot of water using this method that would need to be replenished mid-run. Where does that water come from in the savannah? Understandably the program has a lot to pack in within an hour so such musing was probably too complicated to detail. It would have been great if an accompanying website could have been set-up for those of us with the nagging questions in the backs of our minds.

Alice Roberts has a great way of presenting facts in a conversational manner just as if you were all down the pub with your mates wondering how stuff works and her West Country accents only adds to her personable nature. Although she doesn’t have a beard or wear glasses, her genuine enthusiasm for science and her subject only adds to the pleasure of the program and really does make for the kind of science that appeals to the masses. I look forward to next week’s episode (9pm Mondays on BBC 2).

Lili Tcheang is a cognitive neuroscientist from London currently working at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London. Her UCL website is here.

Oct 3

The Great British Bake Off

Ellie Grimes reveals the science behind cooking in her review of The Big British Bake Off – the chemistry lesson everyone wants to get involved in!

Every Tuesday night for the last seven weeks contestants have been whittled down from 12 to the final three in what must be the most light hearted of the TV cookery challenges. With Sue Perkins and Mel Giedroyc taking the helm as presenters and master baker Paul Hollywood and famous home cook and baker Mary Berry acting as the critical judges, the show has become compulsive viewing. Paul and Mary are both perfectionists with their art, and there’s no hiding the “soggy bottom” of your flan or tart! Yet unlike other cooking competitions such as Masterchef, there’s a sense of joy that comes across with this program that is so often missing.

Yet where is the science I hear you say? Well whilst most cooking (or at least my cooking), is rather imprecise and not very scientific in nature, the art of baking uses many scientific principles to create the perfect patisserie.

Take for example the ingredients flour, butter, egg and sugar. If these are combined in one ratio perfect fairy cakes can be achieved, yet get this ratio wrong and you’ll be left with a biscuit, and the same can be true in a chemistry lab, you add too much of one thing and your ketone becomes an alcohol.

Just like in a chemistry lab temperature must be carefully controlled, if not your beautiful white powder can turn in an instant to a sticky black crud that is completely worthless. This was seen most clearly during the baking of the croquembouche in the showstopper round of the quarter final, with the bakers trying and occasionally failing to create the caramel required to stick the choux buns together. Get the temperature wrong (the perfect temperature is 130°C), and all that will be achieved is a bitter mess in the bottom of the pan, a mistake that led to the elimination of one of the contestants.

To switch to biology briefly, the bread based episode was a masterclass in bacteria culture. Too much salt in your dough and the yeast will die and the bread won’t rise, if left in an area to cool, the yeast will work too slowly and the baker will run out of time. To produce the perfect loaf of bread the yeast must be kept in optimum conditions, else the crumb of the bread will either be too dense, or so light it can collapse on itself.

Whilst I don’t deny that baking is still an art form, after all it takes an artist’s eye to produce such a beautiful array of treats, yet it also takes the scientist in you to produce a bake that not only looks good, but tastes fantastic as well.

Ellie Grimes is a final year PhD student at the University of Nottingham studying Medicinal Chemistry.

Sep 30

The Big Bang Theory Season 4 Episode 3 – The Zazzy Substitution

Gemma Sharp reviews her favourite episode of The Big Bang Theory.

When I first saw a trailer for The Big Bang Theory a few years ago, I thought it looked terrible. A pretty but dumb woman moves nextdoor to a group of stereotypically geeky male scientists. Cue dangerously dull consequences.

I thought the last thing science needed was a CBS comedy reinforcing the stereotype that scientists are geeky sexually-immature men. But through a combination of a particularly pathetic Freeview box that could only pick up E4, and said-channel’s schedule of endless repeats, I did end up catching an episode.

It wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be. In fact, it was pretty good. As socially-awkward as the scientists in the program are, only one of them wears glasses! Not half as offensive as I was expecting. I have to admit that even as a scientist, I was instantly hooked.

For the scientists among you who might still need some convincing, here’s an example – my favourite episode, ‘The Zazzy Substitution’ from season four.

As a cat lover (see title of blog, see tedious tweets about my cat, see odd collection of cat encyclopaedias under my coffee table) and an admirer of the show’s breakaway character, Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons), I think the writers might have written this episode specifically for me (too narcissistic?).

The episode revolves around theoretical physicist Sheldon splitting up with his “friend that’s a girl, but not a girlfriend” neurobiologist Amy Farrah Fowler (Mayim Bialik… aka Blossom!). The breakup itself is probably the most controlled, articulate TV breakup ever – a debate between the couple about the respective importance of theoretical physics and neurobiology, ending with the realisation that they have reached an impasse and the relationship should be “terminated immediately”.

Sheldon claims to be unaffected by the break up, but then proceeds to buy 25 cats, explaining that they “don’t argue or question my intellectual authority”. He names them all after physicists (including Weisskopf, Panofsky, Oppenheimer, Frisch, Teller, Feynman and Fermi) apart from one, which he was going to call Herman von Helmhotz but opted instead for ‘Zazzles’ – “because he’s so zazzy!”.

Sheldon’s behaviour worries his experimental physicist roommate Leonard (Johnny Galecki), who calls Sheldon’s Texan mother (Laurie Metcalf) and asks her to visit him at the California Institute of Technology straight away. On arrival, Sheldon’s mother uses reverse psychology to rekindle Sheldon and Amy’s friendship, and in the final scene the two are seen sitting above a sign saying “Cats $20″ handing Sheldon’s cats and $20 notes to a queue of children.

As amusing as the plot is, I think the show’s main attribute is Sheldon Cooper. I’ve already mentioned I’m an admirer. Or more accurately, I’m an admirer of Jim Parsons’s portrayal of Sheldon Cooper (and, let’s face it, Jim Parsons himself… here). So this episode was pretty special because not only is it very Sheldon-heavy, but we also see him showing a rarely-seen illogical emotional side. Just look at him smiling in the picture below. And of course he’s smiling! Look at all those cats! The man is living my dream.

I may be getting a little carried away.

Anyway, my point is that The Big Bang Theory is witty and certainly original. OK, so it portrays scientists as socially awkward geeks, but at least the characters are likeable and the science in the program is well-researched. It’s the only comedy I can think of about scientists (I’m not counting Lab Rats as comedy), and certainly the only one that includes so many obscure references to science. In a way (alright, at a push) it could be considered an example of very successful science communication – just look at the ratings.

Gemma Sharp is a reproductive biology PhD student from (near) Bristol. She currently works at the University of Edinburgh MRC Centre for Reproductive Health and puts together this very blog that you’re reading right now. She’s on Twitter @ammegandchips.