Editor's pick: Treatment must not depend on giving data
You quote Pedro Domingos saying that if someone won't allow their medical data to be used in training artificially intelligent systems, “they shouldn't have access to the better treatments that result” (15 July, p 36). If someone has never donated blood, would we refuse them a life-saving transfusion? People object to their medical data being centralised for many reasons – such as a justified fear that it will be given to a corporation that will profit from it directly or sell it on. The deal to share patient data between The Royal Free London NHS Trust and DeepMind was recently found to have “failed to comply with data protection law”, yet no action has been taken (8 July, p 4). Without punishment, no organisation has an incentive to stick to the law.
Editor's pick: Treatment must not depend on giving data
It is the mark of an advanced, civilised society that it confers rights and benefits that are egalitarian, universal and unconditional. Some nations, such as the one in which Domingos works, even use such words as “inalienable”.
What does it mean for DNA to be 'junk'?
Dan Graur argues that, since most of our DNA can mutate without causing harm, it must be non-functional junk (22 July, p 6). But cells seem to need a fairly constant ratio between the size of their nucleus and the cytoplasm it sits in. Salamanders, for example, have genomes up to 35 times as large as ours, proportionately larger cells, and a much slower metabolism and development. Fast creatures such as hummingbirds would benefit from much smaller cells and genomes than ours.
You have previously reported a suggestion that the sheer bulk of DNA can be important to cell function (1 April 2000, p 38). It affects the size of nuclei and hence of cells, as well as the rate of diffusion of gene products into the cell, and the rate of nuclear division. These effects are independent of the DNA's sequence – and seem to have been overlooked by some who focus on DNA sequences.
What does it mean for DNA to be 'junk'?
Michael Le Page writes that if most of our DNA is functional, “most mutations would fall in important sequences and be bad for us. But if most of our DNA is junk, the majority of mutations would have no effect.” This is true, but sounds close to saying that a low functional proportion of the genome is, in itself, protection against harmful mutations.
The number of mutations per generation in any stretch of DNA depends on its absolute size. If all junk DNA vanished overnight, the total number of mutations in the functional part of the genome, per generation, would remain the same in absolute terms, which is what matters.
First class post
Unfortunately, ungenerous, unethical people don't voluntarily choose to watch those
Carlata to reports that people watching a nature video eliciting awe were more ethical and more generous (29 July, p 32)
It's time to stop labelling plants as invasive aliens
Andy Coghlan seems disturbed that plants can migrate higher up mountains to avoid warming, but invasive species are beating them to it (15 July, p 14). Surely migrating “native” plants are themselves becoming “invasive”? I think it is time to abandon the emotive terminology of “invasive aliens” or “non-native weeds”.
If the spread of some species endangers others or damages ecosystems, we should study and respond to this on a case-by-case basis, without making any prejudgement.
Bringing up baby robots will be a responsibility
You have speculated on whether in future machines will nurse babies and the elderly (3 June, p 46), replace psychotherapists (15 July, p 36) or teach children (17 May 2014, p 20). So far, our machines “learn” to use language and perform other tasks without consciousness or understanding.
If we one day invent AIs that are genuinely conscious, presumably their behaviour and world view will develop through a long “childhood”, as ours does. In that case, bringing up an AI will itself be as great a responsibility as bringing up a human child. Worse, robots who develop antisocial behaviour from inadequate nurturing may need therapists.
Tabloid papers often apply the word “Frankenstein” to any science they don't understand. But in Mary Shelley's the so-called “monster” becomes dangerous not because he is originally aggressive, but because he is traumatised by the way that his creator, and every subsequent human he attempts to befriend, react to him.
Flocking behaviour in stars and galaxies
Kate Ravilious notes that, at low densities, tiny copper rods move around on a gently vibrating plate in a random fashion (1 July, p 32). At higher densities they move in a more organised manner.
This shows that “motile but non-sentient things can produce flocking characteristics”. In your picture of agitated copper rods flocking in patches I see a resemblance to the map of the cosmic microwave background. Might stars and galaxies and clusters of galaxies also show similar flocking? Could their present distribution be an emergent property of the density of matter at a given stage? This could be tested in a model with varying initial densities.
If density of matter turns out to be a partial predictor of the behaviour of large bodies such as galaxies, how does it connect with the contributions of dark energy and dark matter?
Charity shops are far friendlier than recycling
Your article about recycling doesn't mention reuse (22 July, p 39). When you give to charity shops or buy there, things get reused as they are. No complicated processes are involved, and there is hardly any waste.
Charity shops are also a local asset. Their customers socialise more than, say, those in a supermarket. Charity shops give lonely people somewhere to hang out. They offer easy part-time voluntary jobs for those, often older, who can do with them.
To get to sleep, pretend to turn language off
Leopold Faltin suggests one way to stop your mind wandering is to ask yourself “What will be my next thought?” (Letters, 8 July). I shall try it. My own method is inspired by my scepticism that any thoughts more complicated than simple sense impressions can occur without language.
When trying to get back to sleep after getting up in the night, I pretend I have a simple switch that turns off language with a click, allowing only impressions. Very soon, of course, I find that the brain has stubbornly switched it on again, but with persistence it seems to get tired of the game and lets me fall asleep.
Is hunting plainly odious or foxes' hidden friend?
Jim Barrington of the Countryside Alliance writes that “quoting public opinion polls on the subject of hunting, especially when most people have little or no first-hand experience of the activity… can hardly be regarded as scientific” (Letters, 15 July). You don't need science, or to have any experience of practices such as hunting foxes with hounds, bear-baiting, hare coursing or putting small boys up chimneys, to understand that these are anachronistic and odious.
Is hunting plainly odious or foxes' hidden friend?
The essential arguments over fox hunting are between those who think it is cruel – who may be right in terms of the death itself – and those who enjoy riding to hounds and watching them work and who, in doing so, paradoxically happen to maintain fox populations.
Is hunting plainly odious or foxes' hidden friend?
Stephen Harris mentions that the ban on fox hunting hasn't made any difference to fox numbers (1 July, p 24). Fox hunting has, of course, never been about pest control. Rather the reverse – those who hunt are always careful to maintain a good relationship with gamekeepers of country estates, purely to ensure that a good supply of foxes is available. In the absence of hunting, gamekeepers prefer to keep numbers of foxes and other predators down to protect their stock of pheasant and grouse.
Communicating emotion not an unmixed blessing
Rosalind Picard says “giving people the power to communicate their emotion in an objective way to elected officials offers an opportunity to influence them in a powerful way” (22 July, p 44). I am sure she means the power of the people to influence officials –- but this could equally refer to influencing the people.
We have recently had some notable instances of politicians appealing to electors' emotions rather than reason, and this isn't new. I don't like the idea of a technology that could make doing so even more effective.
Might movies make us more malevolent?
Clare Wilson writes that “studies show that the more teenagers see smoking on screen, the more likely they are to take it up” (22 July, p 22).
Is it possible that studies might show that the same could be the case for depictions of murder, rape, blackmail, bullying, vandalism, dangerous driving, arson and burglary?
If so, should there also be a target to remove these from movies and other media?
For the record
• Hear this! Hearing aids need to locate where sounds are coming from to work well (29 July, p 12).
• If, hypothetically, Michael Phelps kept up his for freestyle swimming 200 metres – four lengths of an – for two months, he would complete over 200,000 lengths (29 July, p 8).
• For every kilogram of organic waste that anaerobic bacteria consume, they emit methane with a climate change impact equivalent to 2 kilograms of carbon dioxide (22 July, p 39).