Customer Reviews

Ig Nobel Prizes

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book brings together two areas of human endeavor that don't normally go together: science and humor. The Ig Nobel Awards (actually held every year at Harvard University) honor those achievements which "cannot or should not be reproduced."

Did you know that elevator music may help prevent the common cold? Companies like Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco, Waste Management and WorldCom shared an award for adapting the mathematical concept of imaginary numbers for use in the business world. A man from Lithuania created an amusement park called Stalin World. To save money, the British Royal Navy has barred trainees at its top gunnery school from firing live shells and ordered them to shout "bang." It has been determined that, biochemically, romantic love may be indistinguishable from severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. A college professor from Pennsylvania fed prozac to clams (at the cellular level, clams and humans show remarkable nervous system similarities), resulting in a whole lot of reproducing going on. A man from France is the only winner of two Ig Nobels, for demonstrating that water has a memory, and that the information can be transmitted over the phone and the Internet.

Then there are the "classics," like the scientific investigation of why toast often falls on the buttered side; an Australian man who patented the wheel, and the Australian Patent Office who granted it; a man from Arizona who invented software that detcts when a cat is walking across your keyboard; the Southern Baptist Church of Alabama for their county-by-county estimate of how many Alabama citizens will go to hell if they don't repent; the sociology of Canadian donut shops, and the optimal way to dunk a biscuit. Last but not least, a solution has been found to the age-old problem of how to quickly start a barbecue. It can be done in less than four seconds with charcoal - and liquid oxygen.

This book is hilarious. It's humor of a slightly more highbrow variety, designed to make people laugh, then think. It's highly recommended for everyone, even those who think that they hate science.

Virtually all of the topics treated are a hoot to read, though this sometimes owes more to the comedic skill of the writers than the to the nature of each subject itself.

Case in point: Because of the tall coconut tree in our backyard in Kahuku, Hawaii, the first topic I read was the study of the physics of falling coconuts, finding it humorously presented while still of serious importance. Most people, not living near coconut trees, and even some natives in the tropics, seem not to take falling coconuts seriously, but one fell from our tree, rolled down one of the long leaves, carrying it far enough from the tree to leave an 8" diameter hole in the roof of a sturdy gazebo, which could just as easily have been our neighbor's shed (or head).

To me, one of the more interesting accounts was of Dr. Cecil Jacobsen, a noted fertility researcher with whom I attended church for years in northern Virginia, who had decided to use his own sperm to impregnate many dozens of women, while telling them the semen was from other anonymous donors. The IgNobel Prize given to Dr. Jacobsen may not have seemed humorous to Cecil or his unwitting sperm recipients.

You'll find a treasure trove of wacky and fascinating matters wittily presented in this collection, and you'll probably find yourself reading it aloud to your friends and watching them crack up (or maybe just watching their jaws drop). Some of the material is appropriate for all ages. (My 10-year-old grandson loved the study of Nosepicking Among Adolescents.)

This book is full of really great, really funny (mostly) scientific studies--but not all the way through. At times, it's quirky and hilarious; at others, it's just kind of there.

Most of the stories are interesting, but the writing's not that great and gets in the way of it all sometimes. It's loaded with clumsy epimone, erratic spacing, and a rampant glazing over of facts.

Then there's the appendix that lists all of the winners of past Ig Nobel Prize ceremonies, most of which were funnier-sounding than many of the ones that the book explored more fully.

I'm glad I read this, but I don't think it's a five-star book--or even a four-star one.

The worlds of Academia,Military ,Politics,Arts and Science provide much greatness for mankind and are often recognized with with Nobel prizes.These same worlds have often produced unimaginable blunders which can only be rewarded with disgust which is so well deserved. Then ,there are those accomplishments,which we can read about in this book,which deserve their own special kind of recognition;namely the Ig Nobel Prize.

The world of Academia seems to have a virtual stranglehold on this sort of thing and it is not surprising that it is people from that world who have come to recognize and reward it.

In most cases ,no harm is done to the public.The people who produce these accomplishments never become discouraged.Rather,they continue to search for and are encouraged to obtain grants in order to produce even more and greater things,unfortunately even more deservingly of Ig Nobel Prizes. Therefore; it would seem to be likely that AIR will never run short of material. There were a couple of awards that I particularly enjoyed.

Including Dan Quale under Education may be an anamoly;but what other category could include his likes.Whatever you call the pronouncements he makes;you've got to agree they are colossal and seem to be effortless on his part. Even Yogi Berra would have trouble competing with him.I'm sure he has uttered enough to fill a book.

How can you dispute a well conceived thought process that produces a statement that will survive the ages;

"If we do not succeed,we run the risk of failure."

Or ,if you still have doubts,how about this?

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and

democracy,but that could change."

Then again,he must have done a lot of research to come up with this;

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the

polls."

Canadians often come up short in things like this and probably because they have the lack of vision coupled with the tendancy to turn to the government for creative thinking.However in this case AIM certainly went to the right place to find "The Sociology of Canadian Donut Shops".Where better than York University,that has been honored with this motto;"If you can use a fork,you can graduate York".

A great summertime read, unless you belong to Academia;then it is a source of profound inspiration.

While the criteria for receiving an Ig Nobel prize:

*) An achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced.

*) An achievement must first make you laugh and then make you think.

seems to render them fodder for the silly bin, there is a very serious side. Many of the major scientific achievements down through history could have been considered candidates for an Ig Nobel prize. Examples include:

*) The claim that stones fell from the sky, which was ridiculed by Thomas Jefferson.

*) The claim that the Earth revolved around the sun which was considered an unarguable fact for centuries.

*) The weighing of the air still considered a joke by many.

Most of the research described in this book is clearly absurd and will always remain that way. However, there are a few of the Ig Nobel prizes that may be the first step towards significant results. My favorite is the conclusion reached by Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan Business School and Wojiech Kopczuk of the University of British Columbia. It is summed up in the simple statement:

There is abundant evidence that some people will themselves to survive in order to live through a momentous event. Evidence from estate tax returns suggests that some people will themselves to survive a bit longer if it will enrich their heirs."

The idea that you can will yourself to live longer is certainly significant in the study of life prolongation techniques.

I am in complete agreement with the awarding of the prizes, I found the research leading to the awards amusing. However, after I thought about it a bit, it was clear that it was not so easy to dismiss some of it as good for nothing more than a laugh.

I have kept up with the 'Annals of Improbable Research' for several years, and must say that this book reflects the best of the highbrow, yet offbeat sense of humor found in 'AIR'.

For those unfamiliar, the Ig Nobel prizes are awarded every year for "achievements that cannot or should not be reproduced" in an elaborate spectacle of a ceremony at Harvard University. Among the participants are many genuine Nobel Prize winners, proving beyond doubt that scientists do have a sense of humor.

There is something for everyone in this book, even for those who hate science; in fact especially for those who hate science. The subjects coast gracefully from the bizarre ("Elevator Music Prevents the Common Cold") to the absolute fringe of science ("The Effects of Ale, Garlic, and Soured Cream on the Appetites of Leeches"; the sour cream was the biggest appetite stimulant, by the way). There are subjects you would have never thought of (unless you are a scientist with way too much time and Federal grant money on your hands) from levitating frogs to "Chicken Plucking as Measure of Tornado Wind Speed". The subject matter is dizzying and amusing.

I eventually settled on a four star rating for a couple of reasons. First, in a majority of cases, these studies are supported through tax dollars, and I generally resent the glorification of wasted money, which this book surely is in great, if unintentional, part (only a small percentage of these studies have genuine follow on benefits; most were clearly done for square-filling publication in the 'publish or perish' world of academia). Second, the politically motivated selection of some recipients, notably Edward Teller, is an undeserved slap at scientists who did and do work on defense projects (where a huge number of genuine scientific advances actually occur) by what is an obviously smug class of academics, who clearly seek to advance their own political agenda. I find that to have tarnished what would have otherwise been a superior work of science reporting and humor.

Despite my reservations, I overall recommend the book, as it does generally meet its stated goals of making a person laugh and think.

Coming to me after my admiration for The Journal of Irreproducible Results, and Annals of Improbable Research, Ig Nobel Prizes had a willing audience. The criteria for inclusion included a scientific (or as it turned out pseudoscientific) work that made one laugh and then think. The writing, most of the subjects, and the few photos were mostly very funny, and the book can be recommended for that. Several topics were scatological, but OK. Some of the research project titles make one laugh on their own: Booming Voices of Britain, Nose Picking in Adolescents, the Good Lloyd's Shepherds Insure Disaster, Injuries Due to Falling Coconuts, Filter-Equipped Underwear, The Father of Junk E-mail and many more.

Sadly, a little sophomoric arrogance crept in. On p67, in Father of the Bomb, Edward Teller is said to have the biggest contributor to the origin of the atomic bomb. This will be news to PBS, because their series showed Teller as contributing almost nothing, while pushing for the H-bomb before the A-bomb was first built. Teller was assigned to calculate whether the atmosphere would ignite from an A-bomb, and got the correct answer, which had a 50% probability. It is probably as well that the USA obtained an H-bomb, since the USSR had begun before we did. No one could have said in the 1950-1970s whether mutually assured destruction would prevent nuclear war, but it somehow did, saving the USA and others from the cost of a huge standing army to oppose the USSR. Later Teller realized, with advances in technology, that an effective defense system would remove the need for nuclear bombs. Our failure to build one did not stop the Russian Republic from beginning one. His 1986 or so book "Better a Shield than a Sword" gives the rationale and also the best description of the Chernobyl disaster I ever saw.

On p70 Jaques Chirac of France is castigated for carrying out nuclear tests in the Pacific in 1995. As we normally think of France as democratic and responsible, I do not see how there can be an objection. There were no reports of radiation damage to anyone.

Jacques Benveniste was pilloried for research showing that water has a memory. The book erred in claiming that all homeopathic concoctions contained no molecules of supposedly active material. Also, Marc Abrahams was ignorant of a successful repetition of Benveniste's work, and of placebo-controlled trials where homeopathy actually worked (British Medical Journal, 1991;302:316-323;

and my book review: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/bookreviews/v17n2.php

Memory was found in high dilutions (10 E-30 g/mL) of lithium chloride in D20 using thermoluminescence (<http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jep?id=ns99993817>

On p161 Marc Abrahams attributed the worst of the persistent odor of flatus to hydrogen sulfide. I think it is skatole (3-methylindole).

So parts of Ig Nobel Prizes were not funny at all, but most of it was.