Scientist, Programmer and Prostitute

The year was 2003.

PhD student Brooke Magnanti was living a double life. In the midst of making corrections to her thesis, she was unable to find a job in science and running out of money to pay rent.

So she became a part-time computer programmer... and prostitute.

For 14 months she worked as a high-class call girl in a London escort agency. She wrote about her sex work experiences as an anonymous blogger in the "Belle de Jour" blog, which led to a series of successful books and even spun off a TV show.

Today, she is a research scientist in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology at St Michael's Hospital in Bristol.

Until two days ago, practically no one knew of the true identity of Belle de Jour.


Why is Fresh Brainz interested in this story?

Apparently she was also an experienced science blogger before she turned to prostitution. So boys and girls, what did we learn today?

1. Science blogging is not enough to pay rent.

2. Part-time computer programming is not enough to pay rent.

3. Sex work is enough to pay rent.

4. Science blogging + Sex work = Sex blogging

Crystal clear.


Would you like to know more?
- Belle de Jour: Diary of a London Call Girl
- British scientist unmasked as call girl Belle de Jour (Reuters)
- Belle de Jour blogger unmasks herself as 'big mouth ex-boyfriend' looms (Guardian)

Business Vs Science: A Dash Of Gold

Lab results are usually boring documents of jargon and numbers that only experts can appreciate.

So when would business people and investors be "excited" about scientists and their lab results?

When the scientist is a geologist, and the lab results are about the amount of gold deposits at a site.

**********

In 1993, geologist Michael de Guzman, project manager of Bre-X Minerals Ltd, discovered some gold near Busang River in Kalimantan, Indonesia.

Estimates of the gold deposits gradually rose from 2 million ounces to a massive 70 million ounces (~1984 tonnes), and consequentially Bre-X expanded from a penny stock into a 6-billion-Canadian-dollar company with a peak stock price of CAD $286.50 (over 10,000% increase in two years!)

Then, in 1997, the company collapsed. Bre-X filed for bankruptcy and billions of dollars of investor funds went up in smoke.

And the term "Bre-X" became synonymous with one of the biggest mining frauds in history.

Check out this documentary for a quick (and slightly over-dramatized) overview of the entire affair:



Masterminds - Fool's Gold Part 2 of 3

Masterminds - Fool's Gold Part 3 of 3


To me, two segments from the documentary are especially interesting -

1. Andrew Willis: "There was always some science backing up this fraud."

2. Narrator :"For years, de Guzman struggles for recognition in an industry dominated by large American mining companies."

Andrew Willis: "Mike de Guzman knew he was smart, he had fabulous marks, he had an engineering degree, but he never got a great job, he never got a crack at a great job. It's very difficult for the Filipinos, even with extremely good engineering training, to get senior jobs with the big mining companies."

Narrator: "While exploring the jungles of Borneo, de Guzman devises a plan to make himself rich. Unable to get the support he needs to find a gold mine, he decides to invent one."


Here's another interesting exerpt from an article entitled "The mystery of Michael de Guzman" -

3. By 1993, de Guzman was heading up the site for Walsh's Bre-X Minerals as the company's exploration manager in Indonesia.

At one point, it appeared as though the Canadians were preparing to pull the plug on the expensive -- and fruitless -- exploration.

De Guzman pleaded with Felderhof for more time and soon, Busang's drilling results turned up stunning levels of gold.

"We almost closed the property," de Guzman told Fortune Magazine in 1997, before the scandal erupted.

"In December 1993, John said, 'Close the property,' and then we made the hit."

**********

When business collides with science, when one person's ambition is repeatedly met with denied opportunities and rejection, when desperation coincides with brilliance and creativity...

Who can predict what happens next?


Would you like to know more?

About the Bre-X scandal:
- The mystery of Michael de Guzman (Canada.com)
- Stranger than Fiction: The Bre-X Gold Scandal (CBC Digital Archives)

About other cases of fraud:
- Scientists Who Cheat

War Between Business And Science

Have you ever wondered why billionaire talkshow diva Oprah Winfrey is so well respected by business professionals but almost universally disliked by scientific professionals?




















Check out what a Harvard Business School Professor has to say about her:

""Still, when Professor Nancy Koehn introduced her guest on the last day of class this past spring, "everyone did a double take," Koehn recalls. Oprah Winfrey was in the house.

How the icon of daytime television and chief executive of a major media empire came to HBS after three years of effort is a story in itself. And what she told students brought them a unique perspective about leaders and leadership in the twenty-first century. "I think she's a great bellwether for the future of business," Koehn says. "Maybe she and her organization are on a path that a lot of leaders and organizations are going to be on.""

Compare and contrast that appraisal with this view from medical doctor David Gorski:

"Personally, I have no problem with Oprah’s level of success. Clearly, she is a very talented and savvy TV host and businesswoman.

Unfortunately, in marked contrast, Oprah has about as close to no critical thinking skills when it comes to science and medicine as I’ve ever seen, and she uses the vast power and influence her TV show and media empire give her in order to subject the world to her special brand of mystical New Age thinking and belief in various forms of what can only be characterized as dubious medical therapies at best and quackery at worst. Arguably there is no single person in the world with more influence pushing woo than Oprah."

Do you know why Oprah seems to be so intent on supporting dubious medical therapies?

Here at Fresh Brainz, I've had the misfortune of being trained in BOTH science and business, so let me give you my own analysis of what is going on...

**********

When you hear the word "science" or "evidence-based medicine" what does it mean to YOU?

Maybe you associate those words with a method of discovering facts and building theories by making observations, doing experiments/testing treatments, interpreting results and checking for biological significance/inherent biases/alternative explanations etc.

In other words, a careful method of learning about reality.

Or maybe you associate these words with large bureaucratic organizations/corporations, expensive machines, committees of powerful old men, obsession over meaningless details, close-mindedness and arrogance.

In other words, "wasting" tonnes of money to investigate the details of Nature that nobody else cares about, or a giant corporate machine that creates an incredibly high entry barrier so that only it alone can rake in the big bucks.

The reality is that modern scientific research is very expensive.

The days of the lone microscopist making a significant finding are numbered (though probably not true for the lone amateur astronomer). You can recycle fashion trends every two decades, but you can only make a scientific discovery once.

The "cheap" science, the "small" science; they have already been done by people in the past.

To do big science today, you need more than fancy degrees from a brand name school.

You also need big money.

That represents a very high entry barrier. You want to map the human transcriptome? Perform a large-scale clinical trial? Only governments and multinational corporations have that kind of money.

Moreover, from a purely business perspective, scientific research represents a weak return on investment.

Practically all curiosity-driven basic research has no chance of making money directly, while only a small proportion of biomed/biotech research will ever reach profitability. Even if you can come up with a technology or treatment with promising biological effectiveness, it will still have to face years of regulatory hurdles, as well as market pressures, before it can start raking in the dollars.

Clinical research is obviously nearer to practical applications, but only big companies have the resources to conduct large-scale trials. If you intend to invest money in a big, well-established pharma company, you can't expect to make much more than an incremental gain of around 10% yearly.

That is because most of the company's growth is already over, during its infancy - but that was also the riskiest stage of its development.

So what do you do if you are an ambitious young person who wants to build a successful business, preferably within your own lifetime?

Here's one way of doing it:

You take a fucking chance.

Governments and Big Pharma don't talk to nobodies. So you talk to much smaller players - obscure new outfits, individual inventors, alternative medicine practitioners, motivational gurus, unknown book authors...

It doesn't matter what they do, as long as you can identify the potential for a powerful social impact.

You have to understand the needs and desires of regular people, work closely with those who claim to have just the solution that the people need, and then promote their special solution confidently to the world.

The highest growth potential comes from untested small players, thus you should try to seek them out and grow with them. Remember that when blue chips rise by a few dollars it's only a percentage gain, but when a penny stock rises by a few dollars, it has increased its value by a FEW FOLD. The returns on investment can be tremendous.

However, penny stocks are very risky. Similarly, if you constantly align yourself with mystics and alternative healers, you might open the doors not only to harmless crackpots, but deliberate frauds and pranksters as well. This can have a negative effect, both on your bottomline and on your reputation.

Fortunately, if you were NOT trained in science, you don't have to dwell on it. Just disassociate yourself from any negative incidents, and move on. Your target audience won't know the difference anyway and won't expect you to be scientifically accurate. Academics may protest but you can always appeal to the anti-establishment sentiments of your supporters!

It's more important to get the timing right and seize an opportunity quickly, than to be factually correct or even conceptually consistent.

Remember that your goal is commerce, not science. More human than human should be your motto - it's about selling a hyperreality to the masses. Nobody will give you a single cent more for being too truthful or too careful.

In fact, in Oprah's case, she often seems to act first and check later!

This can be clearly seen from the site "Top 12 Oprah Mistakes, Lies and Embarrassments". The writer concluded that (emphasis mine) :

"In a long and extraordinarily successful career, Oprah Winfrey has often been wrong, but she rarely, if ever, conveys uncertainty. She’s admitted to having used cocaine in her 20s, under the influence of her then-boyfriend. She’s made questionable diet and health choices and presented each one to the world as a wonderful new discovery, only to change programs, beliefs and approaches. She’s invited at least two blatant frauds to share their stories with the world on her show, and has encouraged us to buy books full of lies and health products with no proven benefits. She is, in short, wrong quite a lot. And that’s okay. Most of us are. Most of us, though, don’t have millions of people accepting our every word as gospel. That should inspire a person to choose her words with a bit more care."

Note that uncertainty and persistence is the bread and butter of scientific research, whereas unshakeable confidence and flexibility is an indispensible aspect of business enterprise.

Also, Dr. Gorski may wonder why Oprah is successful despite her apparent lack of critical thinking, but in contrast, I find it hard to see how Oprah could have succeeded if she was saddled with critical thought!

**********

"Science" means something different from an academic or business perspective. It is both a method and an industry; an endeavour of individual effort and organizational strategy.

To make money directly from science is a difficult challenge because there are many contradictory skillsets between business professionals and scientific professionals.

But ultimately, in any organization somebody has to be the one to make the big decisions.

What if you spent your entire life training to become a scientist, only to realize that somebody who is neither interested in your research nor even appreciates its significance actually has more power over your research direction, your lab and your whole career than you yourself?

Conversely, what if you were a business-trained manager who was told that science was just another area of business, only to realize that research routinely spends far more money than it can ever generate, and because of the increasing pressure to achieve a better return on investment, you now have to convince over 1,000 disgruntled PhDs that all big science decisions have to be made by you yourself?

Those are interesting, academic questions.

Perhaps not academic for long.

Looking Inside The Human Body At SGH

I received this information from an old friend regarding a science.09 event at the Singapore General Hospital. If you are free this coming Saturday, why not bring your family along and check it out?

**********













Division of Surgery presents

"Looking inside the Human Body - Science Fair @ SGH"

"Looking Inside the Human Body" is a Science fair organised by Singapore
General Hospital's Division of Surgery in conjunction Singapore Science
Centre's annual science festival, science.09. The fair will feature
hands-on activities showing the inner workings of the hospital and
demonstrating key surgical principles, and will promise hours of fun for
you & your family!

Experience how our surgeons train in keyhole surgeries! Be involved in
saving a heart attack patient! Pick out your favouriate hearing aid and
cosmetic implants! And fill your goodie bags with souvenirs and prizes!!

No registration required.

Please help to disseminate this to your staff who have no access to email.

See you at the Fair!

**********

Let the kids have some hands-on fun - who knows, one of them may grow up to become a doctor... or even an angry doc!


Would like to know more?

A previous science.09 event:
- Exclusive Interview With Dr. Bunhead

Was It The Publication Record?

I must say that I find Dr. Cai Mingjie's blog "A Singapore Taxi Driver's Diary" an interesting and engaging read.

It is a brutally honest account of a new taxi driver trying to make a living on the roads of Singapore.

But after reading his posts, most readers would undoubtedly ponder the question:

What happened?

How did an Associate Professor become a taxi driver?

Prominent blogger AcidFlask has a hunch; he examined Dr. Cai's publication record and found that Dr. Cai published a total of 16 papers (14, plus two more discovered by his commenters) in 16 years.

He felt that:

"With that in mind, it becomes a damning fact that Dr. Cai only has 14 publications to his name since joining the IMCB 16 years ago. Going only by that criterion of quantity, publishing less than one paper a year makes for a truly unimpressive publication record. But just about every practicing scientist knows that despite the current pressure to publish or perish, science and research isn’t (entirely) about churning out more and more papers, and the number of papers that can attributed to one’s name is not necessarily a good measure of a scientist’s productivity."

While AcidFlask acknowledges that there could be many other plausible factors leading to Dr. Cai's contract termination, one of his commenters is much, much less charitable...

#4 by i am not that great at August 19th, 2009:

"i don’t think it is that worth defending him per se. in the current competitive research environment, his publication record in 16 years probably only speaks of one thing – he is working in a very sheltered environment in which he does not have to fight for funding, and he is very comfortable in it.

i didn’t go that in depth into digging up his past papers, but my impression from his pubmed-searchable papers is that – his lab didn’t actually grow that much in the 16 years, and he does not have collaborators.

if he had worked in the states, and if he had been so comfortable with himself, he wouldn’t have survived the assistant professor stage. he probably is indeed a good scientist, but the environment spolit him. and when imcb’s culture changed, he didn’t realise it and he didn’t change, and he got killed.

hence, regardless of what measure a*star uses to judge the performance of its employees, he would still have been killed. face it, even in the US, if you are a young professor, you will have to work for money. if you apply for funding from ACS, you ought to package your work around cancer. it is a fact of life. if you work in a*star, you will have to make those guys that give you money happy. it is a different story if you are tenured, but obviously that guy is not…!"

**********

So, was it his publication record that ended Dr. Cai's appointment?

Here at Fresh Brainz, we are outsiders to this issue.

Moreover any single case is always a "unique" case.

However, Dr. Cai was not the only Principal Investigator who was affected.

When there is more than one case, an opportunity to learn more about the truth surfaces.

In Dr. Cai's blog a commenter by the name of Xinmin (most likely A/Prof. Cao Xinmin) left this comment:

Xinmin said...

"I read your article with tears. At the beginning, I was very sad, but at the end, I was so proud of you. I admire your courage and spirit. With these, nothing can beat you. As your former colleague, another PI in IMCB, we share a similar fate. I graduated from University of Chicago, working in IMCB for 19 years, publishing >50 papers (including 7 in 2008), trained many PhD, university, and polytechnic students. All the years of hard work and teaching don’t seem to count for anything. My lab will be closed down soon. You are not the first, and I won't be the last. We have made Singapore our home, and our children have gone or will go to National Service. More importantly, we have made our contributions to put Singapore on the world’s scientific map! Isn't it ironic that when the government is putting in considerable efforts to develop life science in Singapore, we lost or will lose our jobs? I may not have the qualification to become a taxi driver, but I will do my best in my life after IMCB, whatever that will be and to be like you. Even as a taxi driver, you live in a brilliant and wonderful way. I wish you all the best!

August 18, 2009 1:00 PM"

Was the publication record a major factor?














I'll let the readers decide.

Taxi Driver, Associate Professor

In a bizarre turn of affairs, Stanford-trained former Principal Investigator and Adjunct Associate Professor Cai Mingjie is now a taxi driver.

He writes the blog "A Singapore Taxi Driver's Diary".

It's a great read, please check it out.

Here's an exerpt:

"On my way home, I thought about what “man goes higher” means. In most people’s dictionary, it means higher pay, higher education, higher social status, etc. A higher position on the social food chain. That’s the norm of the society. From a professor to a taxi driver could only be seen by most people as a classical example of the exact opposite of “man goes higher”. But, I look at it differently. Yes, the bigfoots sitting high on the food chain can force me into a jobless situation. What it has done to me, however, is only to push me to a “new high”, a new boundary where their powers to set the rules, to twist the rules, to do whatever at will, do not apply, where I don’t have to survive by playing their games.

This is all that matters to me. Low or high, I can take it either way. In fact, I feel happier now as a taxi driver than before in my last two years as a professor, when I often had to feel sorry for myself for having to work in that environment."

**********

Still think that research is about the love of science (or pouring liquids from one tube into another)?

That's not the whole story, my friends.

*Update (19 Aug 2009)

Dr. Cai has been interviewed by Amresh Gunasingham from the Straits Times.

Online edition: PhD holder now a cabby

Print edition (scanned): cabby PhD holder now a taxi driver

Exclusive Interview With Dr. Bunhead

Just visited the X-periment! 2009 venue this afternoon and it was a blast!

I caught Dr. Bunhead's 2:30pm performance and managed to grab a hold of him after the show for some totally impertinent questions.

The sort of questions YOU would ask him!

But first, a quick overview of the whole exhibition:



















Compared to last year's event, this time round there are even more activities for audience participation at the booths.

Here are some visitors assembling electronic parts...



















... learning about instant snow...















... learning how to constructing model molecules...



















... making model molecules with lots of soapy films (which seems to be a hit among the kids) ...















... creating rainbow-coloured layers of sugary stuff...















... or playing a virtual version of "Human Tetris".















And it's not just the kids who are curious about the exhibits!



















Our old friend the non-Newtonian fluid is back, this time as a glob of green-dyed cornstarch on top of a subwoofer speaker.

If you set the conditions right it can appear like a disgusting clump of teeming worms, but this glob here doesn't look that wormy.

Not sure if that is a good or bad thing.















In addition to the booths from various research institutes, this year there are booths set up by other organizations as well.

One of them is the Science Centre, which brought over some of their exhibits. Here, a girl and her mother play with a device that creates moving pictures.















A volunteer amuses a couple of visitors with a set of classic visual illusions.















The Singapore General Hospital has set up a booth too. This young lady is practicing laparoscopic surgery using a surgical trainer.

Oh NOES! Which hapless furry animal is at the sharp end of her merciless tools?















Whew... she is only trying to manipulate a furry wire through a series of metal loops.

She might have a future in suture!



















And now - time for Dr. Bunhead's show!

He actually has a different show for a different timeslot, and some members of the audience have followed all of them.

"How many of you have seen four of my shows?"

A number of hands went up.















For this show, Dr. Bunhead introduces the audience to... LIQUID NITROGEN!

Uri Abusikov would have been proud.

Очень хорошо!















"Its temperature is -196 degrees, which is so cold that it's hard to imagine how cold it is. Does anyone want to touch it?"

Any brave volunteers?















When the cup of liquid nitrogen is lightly touched, it boils at a faster rate.

"Let me put it nearer my microphone so that you can hear it."

*fizz... pop pop... fizz...*















When you blow carefully into a container of liquid nitrogen, the water vapour in the breath condenses into a mist of water droplets.

"Look, her face is in a cloud!"















Next, Dr. Bunhead blows a long orange balloon and asks: "What would happen if I dip this into liquid nitrogen?"

Kids: "I KNOW! I KNOW!"

Will it become hard? Will it explode?















Let's see...

*squeek squeek*

Hmm, it didn't explode.















Let's squeeze it in there for a little while longer.

*squeek squeek SQUEEK!*















Oh my... it shrank!















Whoa, it's starting to expand again...



















Next, what would happen if we put this piece of cut rubber tubing into liquid nitrogen?



















It becomes hard enough to drive into a plank of wood!

*THUNK THUNK THUNK*















"It looks hard now, but it's not a good idea to make nails out of rubber. Unless you can keep the entire room in a very cold environment."

Which means that you CAN make nails out of rubber... on Pluto.

NASA never tried this!















Ho ho, is that a banana?

Dr. Bunhead actually gave the banana a name, but I forgot what it is so I'll call it "Mr. Banana".

I think I can see what's coming...

"I need a volunteer to check if Mr. Banana is firm and muscular."















"Mr. Banana is a very grumpy banana. You must approach him carefully, like you would approach a tiger."

Slowly... slowly...















*GROWL!*

Rabid banana on the attack!



















"And now it's time for Mr. Banana to go bungee jumping into the container of liquid nitrogen!"

"Are you ready Mr. Banana?"















*fizz...*

Sounds painful.



















Mr. Banana is now hard enough to drive a metal nail into wood.

*THUNK THUNK THUNK... plop*

Oh NO! Mr. Banana's head has fallen off!















Dr. Bunhead picks it up with a pair of tongs.















When liquid nitrogen turns into gas, it expands about 700 times in volume.

"This bottle contains about 100 ml of liquid, which will expand into 70,000 ml or 70 litres of gas, which is a much bigger volume. Normally this is difficult to see, but we can see this by attaching a balloon to the bottle."















The balloon starts to fill up...















... getting bigger...















"Maybe I should stand over here instead..."

*POP!*

"Did that balloon pop scare anyone? Good, because I am going to try something bigger!"















"How many lumps should we put inside this bottle?"

Strange that Dr. Bunhead says "lumps" instead of "cups".

"... and one more lump - just to scare me."

Nice.



















"Hey, the balloon is not expanding. What's going on?"

The kids in the audience are all pointing to the liquid nitrogen container.

Kids: "IT'S STILL INSIDE! STILL INSIDE!"

"Will it work if I take the bottle out?"















Wow it is really expanding!

In fact it's expanding a bit too quickly.

"Should I be holding this?"

Kids: "NO! NO!"

"All right then. Do you want to hold it for me?"

Kids: "NO!!! AHHH!"

Children retreat anxiously as Dr. Bunhead scouts unsuccessfully for a volunteer.















Maybe cooling it in this pail of water will slow the expansion...

"YIKES! It's expanding even more quickly! What should I do? What should I do?"















*GASP*















*BOOM!*

*foooosh...*















"And now for the finale I will attempt to make the biggest cloud in the shopping mall!"















*FOOOOOOM!*

"Thank you everyone!"

With that, the show is over and it's time for the kids and their parents to pose with Dr. Bunhead for photos.

And time for me to ask Dr. Bunhead some questions!

Here goes:

1. Can you tell us a bit about your experience as a grad student?

Dr. Bunhead: "I applied to work with someone whose research I really liked, but he had no money. So I had to go to another supervisor, but I hated the project. We were fighting right from the beginning. The research work was repetitive and very precise, such that a small mistake could ruin three months of work. I found it very boring, very tough and very lonely."















2. How did you first get the idea to perform as a stunt scientist?

"During my PhD I was invited by a friend to do a chemistry show at a local school. It was just to help him out really, but they liked it and the school headmaster invited me back. Gradually, I did more and more shows, and less and less research. At first I was doing the shows for free. Then one day I met someone who was explaining some difficult physics concepts to an audience. I was impressed by his explanation. He gave me his namecard - 'Adam Selinger, Science Communicator'. Up till that time I had no idea that such a career existed; I was 30 years old and didn't know what to do. That was my Eureka moment."

3. Of the other Brainiac presenters, who do you like the most - Richard Hammond, Jon Tickle or Vic Reeves?

"Richard Hammond is my favourite. I think that Brainiac is most suited to him. He enjoys doing it and brings a cheeky enthusiasm to the show. I try to learn from him; when he speaks, his delivery is compelling, like David Attenborough. I feel that they are two of the most compelling science presenters in the UK."

4. How does the Brainiac production team manage to find so many sexy women for the show?

"I'd like to know that myself, actually *laughs*. And why they always get assigned to Jon Tickle. I am more handsome than he is!"















5. On the Brainiac show you are always unsuccessful when you try to use science to get a date. Were the women on the set really unimpressed or did you manage to work your charms on some of them?

"Actually, in real life about half the women responded positively. I was shown to be unsuccessful to make the comedy work. When we were making 'Pub Science with Dr. Bunhead', there was this lady who said that, yeah, she would go on a date with me after the show. But the production team wanted her to say no, and she protested 'why should I say no?'. In fact, this incident later became the inspiration for the "Dr. Bunhead on the Pull" segment. So, it does work in real life. I mean, how many men will walk up to you with a fire tornado?"



















So there you have it. All your questions about the big mysteries that beset mankind, answered right here on Fresh Brainz.

OK, that's not really true, but you can still send your other questions about the Universe by tweeting them to @ProfWhy.

Don't miss your chance to win an Apple 16GB iPod Touch!


Would you like to know more?

Last year's event: X-periment! 2008

Other fun science shows:
- Kids Science Fest!
- Science in the Gardens