The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7157 p102
July 21, 2001

Acronym madness
Rhythm and moos
Science and risk

Acronym madness

The word “acronym” is so common nowadays that we would be tempted to allot it respectable antiquity. Far from being really classical, however, it was, I learn from my Oxford dictionary, invented as late as 1943 in the United States. Since then it has denoted a pest of alarming dimensions. Its Greek derivation from akros, a point, and onuma, a name, lends the term spurious respectability.

An acronym is defined as “an abbreviation formed from the first letters of a series of words and pronounced as one word”. Sometimes capitals are retained, as in NATO, or lower case letters may take over, as in radar and Asda. The advent during the past few decades of numerous charities with complex titles that have to be abbreviated for easy reference has added to the forest of new words. We now take UNESCO and UNICEF in our stride, and almost every medical disability has created a new acronym to denote its supporting organisation. Politics and bureaucracy take an increasing toll of our patience, for every time a new committee or co-ordinating body is set up by Big Brother and his henchmen it has to create an acronym. Perhaps the most sinister of all is “quango”, covering a multitude of sins.

In our professional reading we now have to contend with a mass of acronyms, and it is sometimes irritating to have to keep referring back to their meaning in the course of reading a journal. One of the most recent is NICE. What prompted this diatribe against acronymic madness was an editorial in Science for June 15 by John Lawton of Imperial College, referring to the proposed new scientific discipline of Earth System Science (ESS, of course) which challenges researchers to consider in detail the future of planet Earth and its inhabitants. ESS attempts to provide a picture of the last half-million years of earth history and consider atmosphere, oceans, fresh water, rocks, soils and biosphere and the major patterns and dynamic interactions between these components. Oceanography, atmospheric physics and ecology are three important studies, but need to be examined as interacting components and not in isolation from one another. A new academic discipline is called for, and it is, in short, ESS.

ESS embodies the concept advanced by James Lovelock under the name Gaia, that a planet supporting abundant life must have an atmosphere in extreme thermodynamic disequilibrium, and that our earth is habitable only because of complex linkages and feedbacks between oceans, atmosphere, land and biosphere. “How do we link models of geophysical processes to those describing human socioeconomic activities?” asks Dr Lawton. And he asserts that the new discipline is challenged to provide prescriptions that will reverse current human abuse of the planet, and make possible a sustainable future. At present we lack the organisations to nurture the new discipline. It is no good appealing to politicians: they lack the brain power and perception, and their minds are addled. Even though it lands us with yet another acronym, I welcome the advent of ESS.

Back to Top

Rhythm and moos

It has been recognised for ages that music of a certain calibre will prevent stress and induce tranquillity in all manner of animals, from birds to humans. From this we may draw the further conclusion that animals may grow and develop better when exposed to music of a calming calibre. Music piped into hen coops has been used to increase egg production. Some enthusiasts even maintain that plants benefit from exposure to music, growing more quickly and more prolifically than their fellow left in silent neglect.

Research at the University of Leicester has shown that playing light music to cows in the milking stable is capable of improving milk production, according to recent media reports. In a herd of Holstein Friesians a sound system like that often used today in shopping precincts, operated for 12 hours daily, increased each animal’s lactation by an average of 0.73 litre daily. It is not clear how long a cow actually listened, since it could not continue to be milked for 12 hours at a stretch without great discomfort to both cow and milker. When slow rhythms, defined as 100 beats per minute, were used, total daily milk production per animal was roughly 25.1 litres, compared with 23.9 litres without music. With rapid music, of 120 beats per minute, the yield fell to about 23.4 litres.

It is concluded that, just as happens in humans, music of a soothing type reduced bovine stress and encouraged contemplation. If music can increase profit for the farmer while entertaining the milker, it will no doubt become a feature of dairy farming.

Back to Top

Science and risk

In discussing the uncertainty that surrounds the frontiers of science, which tends to be disguised by exponents of scientific advances when they address the public, the president of the Royal Society, writing in Nature for June 21, makes some important observations. Robert May states that: “The science we encounter at school deals mainly with crisp certainties, such as Newtonian predictions of planetary orbits or the underlying reasons for arranging elements in the periodic table.” These are smugly packed with lists of names of chemicals, plants and animals. Unfortunately, the implied equation of science with certainty does not in fact exist, and to assert that it does is to mislead the uninitiated public.

The underlying laws of nature present themselves in so complicated a way that statements made concerning them must remain probabilities, not certainties, argues May. The problem that arises is that ordinary people expect scientists to give them clear and unambiguous advice when any situation gives rise to anxiety. They are not happy when the scientists say they do not know but can offer a reasonable guess. The position is made worse by the occasional fanatics in the ranks of science who make arrogant assertions that they alone are right.

Medical advances have, in addition to lengthening life expectancy so that people claim three score years and ten as an inalienable right, to be claimed by legal means if necessary, resulted in more worries about relatively minor risks. People who happily accept risk when they hold the illusion of control, as in driving motor vehicles, do not accept such notions as the risk of radiation or chemotherapy measures. Worry is increased by the use of emotionally coloured language. Public concern has increased since some advances in science, made with the best of intentions, have produced unintended adverse consequences such as loss of biological diversity and climate change. Risk is almost impossible to assess unambiguously, however advanced scientific knowledge.

Pharmacists will be uneasily aware of the difficulty of discussing a possible unwanted effect of medication with a patient who is undergoing treatment. When asked whether a reaction might or might not be due to an idiosyncrasy or an interaction with food or drugs, it is almost always impossible to give an unambiguous answer. And any attempt to hedge when offering advice will only add to a patient’s dissatisfaction.

Moreover, to make a confident statement and to discover later that you were wrong in some detail can be disastrous for confidence on both sides of the counter. Unhappily, no aspect of science enables its practitioners to make confident assertions with impunity. Nature has an uncomfortable habit of producing exceptions to the best of rules.

Back to Top