More mores from science

by Vidya Jonnalagadda

  

Science does more than explain the “Why” and “How” of nature, it makes humans more just and, well, “moral”, if moral is defined as being compassionate towards other humans. This is the surprising finding of Ma-Kellams and Blascovich [1], who questioned college students to see how repugnant date rape was to 81 students, how many pro-social activities 32 students were planning, and how equitably 43 students would share 5 dollars.

They found that students of science-related subjects were more likely to rate (on a scale of 1-10) date rape as ‘wrong’ (p = 0.01); surprisingly, there are no correlation with religiosity (p > 0.46). Further, students who solved a jumble puzzle of words related to science just before rating the ‘wrong-ness’ of date rape also showed a higher degree of condemnation compared to students who had solved jumbles of words not related to science (p < 0.001).

In addition, more students said their plans for the upcoming month included prosocial activities (such as volunteering and donating money or blood) if they had just solved the science-related jumble (p = 0.024). Solving the science-words jumble also made students more likely to share a part of a hypothetical amount of 5 dollars with an unknown person (p = 0.046).

While one might take issue with the small sample size, there is no doubt that the study challenges us to view science as something more than the basis of technology or a key to high-paying jobs. Incorporating science into our thought processes may make us a more than just a bit more just!

 [1] Ma-Kellams C, Blascovich J (2013) Does “Science” Make You Moral? The Effects of Priming Science on Moral Judgments and Behavior. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057989

Goading the Goats: Tourists trigger tension

(This is a review of a paper on animal behavior. I wrote this review for a Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) course on Animal Behavior (which, by the way, is an excellent course -- I recommend without reservation that everyone take it!). I hope you like my review).

Vidya Jonnalagadda

Goading the Goats: Tourists trigger tension

Humans like watching wildlife, be it photographs, videos, or live animals.  With growing numbers of takers for wildlife tourism—observing animals in their natural settings—the question is who gains what from this activity.

Doubtless, the National Park or Wildlife Reserve gets revenue, and tourists get edutainment, but what do the animals get?

Stress, seems to be the simple one-word answer, judging by a study of Nubian ibex (desert goats) in Ein Avdat National Park in Israel.

We may believe that the goats simply munch away till they are full. But in reality, vigilance wins over victuals; time spent grazing on any spot is determined by actual abundance of food and perceived risk of predator attack.

Tadesse and Kotler [1] scored “giving up density” (GUD)— measure of food remaining in a patch after the ibex move on to another spot—to gauge the goats’ perception of risk of attack while grazing. They placed feeding trays at various locations of the Park: sites classified as cliff faces, plateaus, and garden habitats. Each tray contained a known amount of edible matter (100 g) hidden in a vast excess of nonedible plastic tubing (1.3 kg); the ibex had to dig through the mesh covering of the tray to get to the food. GUD was the amount of edible matter remaining in the trays after the ibex moved away.

The researchers noted that the food eaten from the trays was dictated by the density and distance of tourists. More tourists meant less time feeding, particularly if the tourists were on slopes above the feeding trays.

This means two things: 1. though the ibex appear habituated to humans trekking through their habitat, they are still wary of possible attacks by tourists, and 2. humans "lurking" at certain vantage points are more stressful to these goats. People moving on slopes above the ibex generate extra stress presumably because the ibex sense that their “escape routes” are cut off.

For some animals, vigilance is a function of herd size (number of animals in the herd): as expected, more the total number of eyes in a herd, less the time each individual animal spends scanning the surroundings for predators (and taking breaks from grazing). But larger herd size did not correlate with lower vigilance for these goats; showing that one may not extrapolate what is good for the goose as also good for the gander.

This point is driven home by the observation that male ibex never fed from the trays (the reason is not yet known!). Among the females feeding from the trays, adults showed the highest degree of vigilance.

While the reason for this behavioral dichotomy is not known, it opens up the possibility that the tourist-generated stress affects other aspects of caprine [2] life, such as reproductive behavior. If being watched makes a goat less likely to feed, might it also make it less likely to mate? After all, these animals are not willing participants of a reality TV show!

Tadesse and Kotler show how a simple, low-tech, easily scalable, and non-invasive method can reveal key factors governing behavior of animals in their natural habitat. Given that behavior of animals is the only indication we get regarding their mental well-being, studies such as this can provide very important guidelines to design tourism and conservation programs that minimize tourist-induced stress to wildlife.

[1] S. A. Tadesse, B. P. Kotler. (2012) Impact of tourism on Nubian Ibex (Capra nubiana) revealed through assessment of behavioral indicators. Behavioral Ecology 23:6, 1257-1262. 

 [2]relating to goats.

Bollywood Bumper Banners

By Mrunal Savkar

Seen on a truck in Mumbai:

Buri nazar wale tera muh kaala

Rakhi teri biwi aur Salman tera saala

Neeyat ho achchhi to khule kismat ka taala

Nek dilwale ko hi milegi Madhubala!

Worse than worthless!

by Vidya Jonnalagadda

Can any activity be worse than zero? Can something be so inane, silly, absurd, ridiculous, ludicrous, bizarre, childish, immature, meaningless, pointless, and futile that it merits a negative score on a scale for utilitarian value?

Sadly, the answer is yes. And one perfect triple example of worthless activity is INSEAD winning a top award for launching black toilet paper! The report at  http://mba-periodical.blogspot.in/2012/02/insead-knowledge-news-alert-insead-wins.html notes “The INSEAD case study documented how Renova, a privately-held European paper products company headquartered outside of Lisbon, Portugal, managed to differentiate itself from its international competitors, transform white toilet paper from a commodity into a premium product, and then enter new business sectors through innovative marketing. The result was “Renova Black,” the world’s first black toilet paper, which rapidly shifted from a novelty item to a luxury fashion item. Equally rapidly, the company moved from supermarket aisles into boutique hotels, fashion shows and the headlines.”

Well, toilet paper has value, but to me, its value does not lie in the designer colors and prints; what matters is that it meets certain service requirements. So, to me, creating designer toilet paper is the first waste-of-time activity. Researching and documenting this instead of following other ventures that produce something of real value is the second waste-of-time activity. And finally, recognizing this documentation as the best management study is the third waste-of-time activity.

Having read about this award, do you also, like me, have questions like: Is making profit the only criterion for judging the “value” of a business? Does success in marketing lie in convincing people that they are someone special if they use designer toiletries? In fact there is one company that tells us to use their products because "you are worth it!" Is there no interest in seeking and studying cases where a company introduced improved utilization of resources or addressed a long-standing social problem such as unemployment? Do most or all MBA students have to study such case studies as ‘model’ business practices? And, like in a recent TV advertisement claiming that responsible parents provide a color printer for their children as the sure shot route to academic advancement, is slick presentation all that is required to garner recognition of merit? Does the social relevance or significance of the content of a presentation have no worth?

Hindi serials

by Vidya Jonnalagadda

Every weekend, I want to watch a movie – see some interesting story. You would think that given the multitude of multiplexes and countless cable channels, I would have a hard time deciding what to watch. I do have a hard time indeed, but in finding something decent to watch on TV, and not just because of the ever-intruding advertisements. It appears that I have already watched everything worth watching on cable! Whatever is left is all too violent, too offensively stupid, or mind-numbingly boring. And in the theaters there is nothing each week that is attractive enough to compensate for the hassle of traffic, parking, and overpriced snacks. If we are lucky, we make it to a theater once every couple of months!

On weeknights, I watch some Hindi serial, much to the mirth and annoyance of several of my family members. How, they ask, can an intelligent person watch episodes where the ‘villainous’ bahu gets the ‘model’ bahu in trouble by switching the containers of oil and ghee in the kitchen, and the model bahu gets scolded for making, in her ‘innocence’, the bhog ka halwa in oil instead of ghee? Granted the serials are very silly indeed, but after a day of work at home and outside, it is somewhat comforting in the evening to escape to the world where such simple household intrigues are the height of treachery and corruption. A welcome change from the empty-speak of anchors, “experts”, and politicians on the news channels – all alleging or denying the latest multicrore ghotala, and claiming in their defense that the other political party did worse things during their tenure. At least the serials do not claim to be meaningful! 

Evaluate your life !

By Vidya Jonnalagadda

Well, we are constantly doing that – evaluating our life – in terms of health, wealth, and familial/social relationships. But have you assigned marks to it? Last year, my life scored 72.8/100 but the year before it was 69.3/100.

Does this sound preposterous? But this is where we are headed in terms of assigning numerical values, or marks - to put it simply, to all activities that our children are doing. If a certain news channel and celebrity endorsements that it has garnered become successful in changing the education policy (now why a news channel should seek to shape policy instead of reporting events and analyzing their implications is another matter), soon students will be awarded marks for games and sports.

How will this work? A child running 100 meters under 20 seconds will get 10 points and those running it between 20 and 30 seconds get 8 points? Score 2 goals in an inter-house football match and capture another 10 points? Play in an inter-school tournament and get 20 points? Will playing in a team event fetch more points than participating in an individual event? And what if a child “fails” in sports – will it affect their promotion/admission to the next class? Will we see the emergence of ‘sports tuition centers’ and ‘guess papers’ and ‘study guides’ to ensure success in the sports Units Tests and Final Exams?

I am not just questioning how marks will be awarded in a fair and transparent manner – I am disturbed by the very thought of awarding marks for everything a child does. Most of the teachers I meet are distressed about the marks-centric mindset of students (one of my students asked “What is biodiversity for 8 marks?”), parents (one teacher told me that a parent threatened to move her child to another school - “Arre, I am paying you so much and my child got only 79%? I should move him back to his old school where he used to get 80%!”), and management (one of my friends filling in for a KG teacher was told “Teach only 4 names of colors, then all students will get 100%. Their parents are paying our high fees, so they expect their children to score at least 90% (for a related story, please see previous blog ‘When is a vegetable not a ‘real’ vegetable?”)). The marks-centric approach has converted school textbooks into Units for 2 marks or 5 marks (in some cases, even fractional marks like 0.5 marks). Fortunes have been made by private bodies (I can’t call them ‘educational institutions’ since their only activity is getting students to repeatedly answer ‘model’ questions) catering to the quest for marks. I see in my college that students do not put in any effort to understand important subjects like ‘Science and Civilization’, ‘Indian History and Culture’, and ‘Environmental Studies’ since marks for these subjects are not ‘counted’ in calculating the final grade for their B.Sc. degree.

Have we reached the day where children will refuse to play (or paint or sing or dance) unless they get marks for their efforts? And, as adults, will they evaluate their lives on a numerical scale?

Education for what?

By Vidya Jonnalagadda

What is the purpose of education? Today, most students (and their parents), expect that following the yellow brick road of the ‘3 R’s will lead them to the magical Emerald City of the ‘3E’s. In other words, Reading + Writing + Arithmetic = Excellent Education Ò Easy Employment Ò Enormous (or at least enough) Earnings!

Recently I read in the news that fewer than 20% of our fresh engineering graduates are employable! If a technical course holds such bleak job prospects, what can basic science promise? As a teacher of basic science, my colleagues and I often ponder on how what we teach can be translated into employability for our students, because one main reason cited for the falling enrollment in science courses is the lack of career opportunities. 

A couple of years ago, our college held an annual function for the MBA students. As I could not attend the Inaugural Session, I asked my father’s friend, a distinguished retired officer of the IAF (Indian Air Force) and a guest at that function, about what the speakers said. He told me that he was shell shocked by what he had heard – (paraphrasing here): “When I was a student, I was told that the purpose of education was to lead a refined life – to appreciate good science, powerful literature, and beautiful Fine Arts. Jobs were just for keeping together body and soul. Today, speaker after speaker told the students how education (degree) is a weapon to bludgeon one’s peers (read competition) into oblivion and soar to success (read corporate positions).”

So, what is right? Do we learn to earn (and lead a lavish lifestyle)? Do we read to breed greed? Or do we study to clear from our minds the muddy mess of ignorance, arrogance, and intolerance? Learn to turn into gentle, considerate, and creative beings? 

I like best the 'definition' of education given many years ago by my friend, Dr. Mokshay Madiman (now at Yale) – “Education should make us good citizens”. Which means law-abiding, responsible builders of strong communities (good parents and good neighbors), and of course, tax-paying (good employers and employees) people who also know and exercise their civic rights.

So, is it possible to design syllabi for high school and college science courses which not only impart strong subject knowledge, but also inculcate skills to convert this knowledge into employment or entrepreneurship?