Improbable Research

Britain gave the world many things. Among those are deadpan delivery,  Heath Robinson, and a fascination for detailed methods of brewing tea.

Those three gifts are combined in the “revolutionary approach to the gentle art of making tea” announced recently by a firm called Cambridge Consultants. Behold their demonstrative video:

(Thanks to investigator Robinj for bringing this to our attention.)

BONUS: The British fascination for tea has also produced several Ig Nobel Prizes.

Odd bits of concoction occasionally find their way into otherwise somber research journals. Here’s one example:

“Stuperspace,” V. Gates, Empty Kangaroo, M. Roachcock, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 15, nos. 1–2, February 1985, pp. 289–293. The abstract says:

“We prove, once and for all, that people who don’t use superspace are really out of it. This includes QCDers, who always either wave their hands or gamble with lettuce (Monte Zuma calculations). Besides, all nonsupersymmetric theories have divergences which lead to problems with things like renormalons, instantons, anomalons, and other phenomenons. Also, they can’t hide from gravity forever.”

BONUS: By the same authors: “Super G-String Field Theory“, and many more.

Salt and pepper noise – Image from Wikimedia Commons

Salt and pepper can refer to many things other than the condiments — such as films, an album, a musical group, noise, etc. (Here is a relatively comprehensive list of things salt n’ pepper.) Some of those things are medical.

The eye is not an uncommon target for those who think about food while they work. Here is salt and pepper in the eye.

BONUS: Oranges, pizza, cherries in the eye.

BONUS: (thanks to investigator Kurt Verkest) A photo of cherries in the eye.

My column this week in The Guardian, looking back at medical reports about the epidemic of penile amputations in Thailand, inspired this letter from a reader, which the newspaper published on November 23:

I’m afraid your Improbable research piece (An epidemic of penile amputation, explained, 20 November) brought back to me something I foolishly read in the 1973 Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, while working at the HK Lewis medical library. It featured a man who had severed the head of his penis while hoovering iron filings from his underpants (don’t ask). He obviously got patched up OK, and I hoped the story wasn’t going to accompany me to the grave, but clearly it is.
—Tim Grollman, London

I have tried to find the article Mr. Grollman refers to. I believe that the article was published not in the Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, but rather in a different journal:

“Laceration of penis from hand vacuum cleaner,” Robert Zufall, Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA), vol. 224, no. 5, 1973, pp. 630.

I have been unable to obtain a copy of that report by Dr. Zufall — it seems to be missing from the JAMA web site — and would be grateful if someone could find and send me a copy. There may be medically significant details that ought be brought to the public’s attention.

I did find two letters that JAMA published in response to Dr. Zufall’s letter:

“Penile Laceration,” Rodney A. Mannion, JAMA, vol. 224, no. 13, 1973, p. 1763. Dr. Mannion writes: “I have had a patient with this injury who admits to this practice, and a number of urologists also have had similar cases as we discovered at a meeting of the New England Section of the American Urologists Association in October 1972. Many of the urologists present knew of this injury. I would paraphrase Zufall’s letter, ‘So beware! It is more common than you think.’”

“Vacuum Cleaner and Penis,” Ian Kennedy, JAMA, vol. 225, no. 10, 1973, pp. 1250-1250. Dr. Kennedy writes: “Dr. Zufall’s letter about the vacuum cleaner reminds me of a similar case I had, supposedly due to a dog bite! Privacy and the look of incredulity on my face brought the confession that the vacuum cleaner was being used as a novel way of masturbating, with alarming results.”

(Thanks to investigator Annette Smith for bringing the Grollman letter to my attention.)

One of Diederik Stapel‘s many scholarly studies that have been retracted was, apparently,  the only published scholarly study that included the phrase “compared to being primed with a dwarf.” The study itself is now one of the few scholarly studies to both (a) fixate on Santa Claus’s attributes and (b) be retracted.

The Retraction Watch blog has been covering the Stapel story with spirit and diligence. This is how Retraction Watch describes the Santa-Claus-attributes-/-dwarf paper retraction:

Diederik Stapel notches retractions 29, 30, and 31

… The following article from the European Journal of Social Psychology, “Staff, miter, book, share: how attributes of Saint Nicholas induce normative behavior” by Janneke F. Joly and Diederik A. Stapel, published online on 14 January 2008 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the co-author, the journal Editor in Chief, Tom Postmes, and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed upon following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel (https://www.commissielevelt.nl/). The Levelt Committee has determined that this article contained data that were fabricated by Diederik A. Stapel. His co-author was unaware of his actions and not in any way involved.

A copy of the Santa Claus / dwarf paper is available elsewhere online (or was, anyway, at the moment this blog item — the one you are reading — was being published).