Computational Genomics Group
  • Home
  • Research
  • Publications
  • Teaching
  • Blog
  • Group Members
  • News
  • Computational Biology Book
  • Data Analysis with R Book
  • CG2 github
  • Fiction

mens, manus et privilegiis

12/5/2020

0 Comments

 
The story is more or less known.

At some point in 1913, a young Indian named Srinivasa Ramanujan, the son of a clerk and a housewife, wrote a letter to G.H. Hardy of Cambridge. Ramanujan had a certain gift for mathematics but he was largely unaware of his potential, having been grown up as a poor, mostly self-taught, boy with very limited access to books, proper education and tutors. He had only been exposed to the academic micro-environment of the subcontinent, at the time very confined and narrow. Hardy was already the uncontested star of British mathematicians, a member of the Cambridge Apostles, one of the youngest ever lecturers at Trinity College and a reformer of both math education and research, alongside another prodigy, John Littlewood. Littlewood, roughly the same age with Ramanujan, immediately recognized the talent of the young Indian and convinced Hardy to invite him to England. In the brief period of the next seven years, the three of them would work on a variety of problems in number theory with groundbreaking results, before Ramanujan's ailing health deteriorated, forcing him back to India, where he died in 1920.

Besides a large number of important mathematical accomplishments, that even spawned their own scientific journal and a series of mythical anecdotes (the most famous of which led to the concept of "taxicab numbers"), the common story of the three mathematicians is very interesting in the sense that it makes one think about privilege and humility in science and life in general. Or, at least it makes me think about these things.

I remembered this story, of the poor, unknown young man from the colonies who is recognized by his established, highly esteemed peers in the metropolis, while listening to a controversial podcast excerpt by MIT Professor Manolis Kellis. In it, Kellis describes how his becoming an academic, somehow reflects his genetic predisposition for being clever. He then goes on to suggest, that his kids, being similarly endowed genetically, have the additional benefit of finding themselves in the company of other, gifted children of Kellis' University colleagues in the scholarly micro-environment of Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The comment has caused quite a steer in US academic circles with Caltech's Lior Pachter calling out Kellis for promoting eugenics and Berkeley's Mike Eisen following suit. 

Even though Pachter has a long-standing, open feud with (fellow computational biologist) Kellis and Eisen may be somehow sounding echoes of underlying, west-vs-east academic rivalries, it is hard not to see their point. Kellis' comments rank somewhere between incredibly arrogant and downright prejudiced, even when put in the context of an interview with Lex Fridman (himself not exactly the best example of academic -or social- tolerance). The problem is that Kellis is probably neither a bigot nor even -that- arrogant. The way I see it, his comments are more likely the reflection of an increasingly lazy approach by academics (and other privileged individuals) to explain (and sometimes justify) their place in life. 

I have personally met Manolis Kellis a couple of times in scientific meetings (actually meeting dinners). Being both Greeks we were able to casually discuss in our native tongue about his origins from Lesbos, good ouzo, sardines and the fine mediterranean climate compared to the harsh Boston winters. My perception of him is that of a very intelligent individual and yes, perhaps one that is rather aware of the fact, but not of someone who would look down on people who are less smart or educated than he is, even though he may belong to that -ever expanding- group of academics who find themselves in trouble when having to talk or relate to laymen. His "genetically inspired" comments (to put it mildly) are thus less a reflection of a sense superiority and more of naivety and insensitivity. And this is why they are more alarming.

In Kellis' description of Cambridge one finds a worldview containing only Hardys and Littlewoods, those who belong in the academic environments, by virtue of their endowments, be them genetic or other. But Kellis doesn't realize that in this same view of the world, the Ramanujans remain rare oddities. Only a handful will be able to fight their way into scientific institutions, but most will spend their lives in ignorance. There is simply no way, established procedure or even space to ensure that very intelligent people from under-developed countries, (or poor people from developed ones), can get into MIT or Harvard, let alone to allow them to "stick around and become professors" (in Kellis' own words). Those that do make it may indeed carry superior "cognitive systems" (again, his words) but this has much less to do with a genetic predisposition and a lot more with a combination of privilege, geographical and cultural advantage (themselves, let's not forget, linked to centuries of colonialism) and, basically, pure luck.

In this sense, Kellis' arguments are not so disturbing for picturing a world of genetically superior scholars inbreeding in Ivy League campuses. They are more an ominous predicament of the detachment of academics, scholars and university teachers from the rest of society. A world in which clever, gifted people indulge themselves in believing their position to be the result of genetically inherited excellence is a very dark place.
It is exactly from this sort of people that we expect better. Better interpretations of the unequal state of affairs in our universities and other workplaces and a better understanding of the complexity of societal factors in shaping our own worldviews. 
     
We also expect more. More empathy towards the disenfranchised strata of our unequal societies and more radical ideas on the organization of academic institutions than the ones of 19th century biometricians.  

One of the key attributes of a good researcher is to not give in to complacency. To unceasingly challenge his/her own perceptions. I hope, for the sake of us all, that intelligent people like Manolis Kellis rise to this challenge. 


0 Comments

Bias, Prejudice and a simple "litmus test" to detect them

11/23/2018

0 Comments

 
As part of my (quite loaded) teaching schedule I get to give introductory lectures on statistics and experimental planning to undergraduate students (mostly freshmen). One of the concepts I have the greatest difficulty in explaining is that of "bias", which in statistics is the difference between an estimator's value and the actual value of the parameter that is being estimated. As it is understandably hard to explain a complex concept to freshmen, who are increasingly becoming more and more mathematically illiterate, through equally complex concepts such as "estimators" and "expected values", I often have to take less rigorous approaches. One such is to resort to more mundane explanations of the terms. According to wikipedia, bias is "a disproportionate weight in favour of or against a certain person, thing or group against another", a definition that is much easier for students to grasp as it resonates with the more commonplace notion of prejudice. In fact, most of the examples I am using to explain bias, are very "non-statistical" ranging from my old favourite story on how sharks prefer eating men to women to everyday issues such as the reporting of crimes committed by immigrants in mainstream media.

These are, of course, issues not to be taken lightly as biased ways to report, write and discuss about events are becoming ever more frequent. In my brief spell as aspiring reporter (back in the day) I was surprised to realize how easy it is to let prejudice infiltrate your reporting (Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann, devote a whole chapter of their seminal "Manufacturing Consent" on this topic).  In our times, however, of a general return to conservatism and ever expanding bigotry, what is more striking is the way we fail to perceive prejudice and bias in every day life. It seems as if we are becoming blind to even the most outright bias in expressed opinions and this, of course, is not at all helpful for my students (as both students and citizens).
To this end I have been thinking on more straightforward ways to detect bias and I have recently co
me up with some ideas, after exchanging opinions with friends on facebook (yes, it is possible). The examples I am be posting below, were inspired by three very different topics that came up on my facebook timeline on the same day.

The first was brought to my attention by an old school mate and it had to do with a somewhat famous greek actress defending her decision not to have kids after being repeatedly asked why she wouldn't in various interviews. My friend, herself also married and happily childless, was infuriated by the way the actress (Katerina Lechou) had to defend "a woman's right" to not have kids. What immediatelly stroke me was the fact that we were discussing this as a "woman's right" and went on to ask why are men never asked this question. This is a very straightforward way to realize that the question "why won't you have kids?" is only part of the problem as long as it is only addressed to women. My friend and many other women were rightfully offended by the content of the question but failed to realize it was also greatly prejudiced since it implied that having children is either something to be decided by women alone or something that men should not really care about.

The second story had to do with a British food editor being forced to resign after making an admittedly bad joke about vegans in an email. Even though, I respectfully understand that some groups of people may be more sensitive to comments than others, you will have to agree with me that there is absolutely no chance that William Sitwell would have quitted his job, had he asked in his message that "all meat eaters be killed". Here again, we see how easy it is to spot bias simply by substituting the object of the statement with its conceptual counterpart (here "vegans" become "meat eaters"). This is the essence of what I call the "bias touchstone". Invert the argument and see if it makes sense or not. If it still sounds reasonable then bias is not so likely. If, however, it doesn't, prejudice may be implied. In this case, the prejudice is a positive one, aimed at "protecting" the sensitivity of vegans. It remains a prejudice nonetheless.

The last example is a bit more personal, as it has to do with the negative evaluation of a grant application, which I received yesterday. The sole reviewer of my proposal had made an honest effort to read it and had a few plausible arguments for rejecting it, especially given the very low acceptance rate of the call. What was however alarming was his/her blunt statement regarding our work. In the part of his/her assessment, where rejection was being justified, he/she had no reservation in writing that "This is a purely computational biology project". The way it read, made it sound almost offensive to be proposing a computational work in a Life Sciences panel. Besides the fact that I have been working in Biology and Biomedical institutes for my entire adult life, I could not resist applying the "bias touchstone" to the statement. The same reviewer has surely never used a comment like "this is a purely developmental/molecular/cellular biology project" as a justification for rejection. (Even though I can think of other subdisciplines such as structural or evolutionary biology that may have been targeted in a similar manner). A simple substitution of the agent of bias in the statement quickly reveals the bias itself.

As double standards are increasingly becoming the norm in may forms of public discourse, this very simple idea can be easily extended as a first assessment for any sort of statement. In science, it can also serve as a rough evaluation of the originality of a given finding. Take any sentence like "X is found to interact with/regulate/inhibit Y" and form its negation: "
X is found NOT to interact with/regulate/inhibit Y". If it still sounds plausible, then the finding is quite interesting. In what regards X and Y anything could be going on, but now -thanks to this work- we know that it's X that regulates Y. If, however, the negative statement sounds quite improbable then the original finding is suddenly not so original. In this case, the goal is not to spot bias but to confirm an imbalance between two -initially- equivalent possibilities.

​At this point you may have realized that this mental experiment is silently conducted all the time, especially by editors and reviewers of scientific journals when assessing the possible "impact" of a scientific finding. It forms the basis of a rather special kind of bias, called "confirmation bias". 
​But this is a story for another post.  
0 Comments

Μαθηματικός αναλφαβητισμός #1

9/5/2014

0 Comments

 
Ολοένα και συχνότερα βλέπουμε, διαβάζουμε και ακούμε για επιστημονικές (ή τουλάχιστον επιστημονικο-φανείς) μελέτες του τάδε ή του δείνα πανεπιστημίου. Οι μελέτες αυτές, ως επί το πλείστον, αφορούν θέματα γενικού ενδιαφέροντος που εγείρουν όμως και την περιέργεια (φαγητά που αδυνατίζουν ή αποτρέπουν τον καρκίνο, νέα είδη ζώων που ανακαλύπτονται ή παλιά που εξαφανίζονται κλπ). Ακόμα συχνότερα αφορούν οργανισμούς που έχουν με κάποιον τρόπο συνδεθεί με αυτό που λέμε "λαϊκή κουλτούρα" (pop culture) μέσω ταινιών, βιβλίων ή έργων τέχνης. Έτσι στο όχι και τόσο μακρυνό παρελθόν εντυπωσιαστήκαμε με τα "εξωγήινα βακτήρια" της λίμνης Μono που έχουν αρσενικό αντί φωσφόρου στο γενετικό τους υλικο (κάτι που αποδείχτηκε μια μεγαλοπρεπής απάτη), ενώ κατά καιρούς διαβάζουμε με (ελαφρώς ένοχο) ενδιαφέρον άρθρα για τα πιράνχα, τις ανακόντες, τα ψάρια της αβύσσου κ.λ.π.

Δυστυχώς τόσο για τα μέλη της επιστημονικής κοινότητας όσο και για τους αναγνώστες με ένα απλό ενδιαφέρον περι τα επιστημονικά, τα περισσότερα από αυτά τα άρθρα είναι όχι μόνο κακογραμμένα αλλά τις περισσότερες φορές είναι τόσο εκτός πραγματικότητας που κάνουν μεγαλύτερο κακό παρά καλό. Έτσι αντί να "εκπαιδεύσουν" ένα κοινό ώστε να αντιλαμβάνεται καλύτερα κάποια πράγματα, το βομβαρδίζουν με τσιτάτα διαφημιστικού τύπου (σαν τον "υγρό κολλαγόνο" και τα "δύο ενεργά fluoride") με αποτέλεσμα να πληθύνονται ολοένα ανάμεσα μας άνθρωποι που διαβάζουν διαρκώς ανοησίες.

Μια ολόκληρη κατηγορία τέτοιων δημοσιευμάτων είναι αυτά που ονομάζω συλλήβδην "μαθηματικά αναλφάβητα". Αφορούν συνήθως επιδημιολογικές μελέτες ή μελέτες σχετικές με τις επιδράσεις τροφών και ουσιών στην ανθρώπινη υγεία και παρόλο που συνήθως αντλούν υλικό από πραγματικές επιστημονικές εργασίες παρουσιάζουν μια ερμηνεία των αποτελεσμάτων που όχι μόνο είναι αβάσιμη αλλά και πολύ συχνά απολύτως ανερμάτιστη. Ένα χαρακτηριστικό παράδειγμα είναι ένα σημερινό αρθράκι στον ιστότοπο in.gr που μας "ενημερώνει" ότι οι λευκοί καρχαρίες προτιμούν να τρώνε άντρες. Αυτό προκύπτει από μελέτες του αρχείου επιθέσεων μεγάλων λευκών στην Αυστραλία που, σύμφωνα με τον συντάκτη του in.gr, "έδειξαν πως στο 84% των επιθέσεων τα θύματα ήταν άντρες". Το συμπέρασμα "οι καρχαρίες προτιμούν τους άντρες" προκύπτει έτσι μάλλον φυσικά και ο αναγνώστης καλείται να το καταπιεί "αμάσητο" χωρίς να γίνεται καμιά απολύτως αναφορά στην πιο απλή εξήγηση, ότι δηλαδή οι άντρες κολυμπούν περισσότερο, κάνουν περισσότερο σερφ και ανοίγονται σε βαθύτερα νερά πολύ συχνότερα απ' ότι οι γυναίκες. Η απλούστατη αυτή εξήγηση δεν διέφυγε (ευτυχώς) της προσοχής του επιστημονικού υπευθύνου της μελέτης, του καθηγητή Daryl McPhee στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Queensland της Αυστραλίας, ο οποίος απέδωσε τα αποτελέσματα της εργασίας του καθαρά στο γεγονός πως "οι άντρες περνούν στη θάλασσα πολύ περισσότερες ώρες από τις γυναίκες". Το γεγονός αυτό και μόνο αρκεί για να κάνει τις επιθέσεις καρχαριών έναντι αντρών πολύ πιο πιθανές απ' ότι έναντι γυναικών. Κάτω από αυτό το πρίσμα, το να γράφει κανείς πως οι καρχαρίες προτιμούν τους άντρες είναι τόσο ανόητο (και οικτρά λανθασμένο) όσο το να διατείνεται πως "τα λιοντάρια της Σαβάνας αποφεύγουν τους λευκούς".

Ανάμεσα στους διάφορους όρους της στατιστικής υπάρχει ένας με πολύ μεγάλη σημασία. Σε μελέτες συσχέτισης (το Α εξαρτάται από το Β, ή το Γ έχει μια προτίμηση για το Δ) πρέπει κανείς να έχει πάντα στο μυαλό του την λεγόμενη "αρχή της σύγχυσης" (confounding principle). Αυτή αναφέρεται σε μια "κρυφή" μεταβλητή η οποία ευθύνεται για την παρατηρούμενη συσχέτιση και που λαμβάνοντας την υπ' όψιν (και αφαιρώντας την) αρκεί για να εξαφανιστεί κάθε συσχέτιση. Στην περίπτωσή μας, οι ώρες παραμονής στο νερό είναι ακριβώς μια τέτοια μεταβλητή "σύγχυσης". Έτσι αν κανείς διαιρέσει τον αριθμό των επιθέσεων με τις εκτιμώμενες ώρες παραμονής στη θάλασσα για κάθενα από τα δύο φύλα (μια διαδικασία που ονομάζουμε κανονικοποίηση), θα έβλεπε πιθανότατα πως οι καρχαρίες δεν έχουν καμιά ιδιαίτερη προτίμηση. Η ανάλυση αυτή δεν είναι εφικτή καθώς κανείς δεν έχει καταγράψει (ευτυχώς ακόμα) τον χρόνο που περνούν οι λουόμενοι στη θάλασσα, ωστόσο η απλούστατη αυτή εξήγηση, πέρα από το ότι αναφέρεται από τους ίδιους τους συντάκτες της μελέτης, θα έπρεπε να είναι προφανής για οποιονδήποτε έχει μπει ποτέ στον κόπο να θυμηθεί την αριθμητική του γυμνασίου (κεφάλαιο: Αναλογίες).
​
Δυστυχώς ο συντάκτης του μεγαλύτερου σε επισκεψιμότητα ιστοτόπου ειδήσεων στην Ελλάδα δεν είναι ανάμεσα σε αυτούς. Το ακόμα χειρότερο είναι πως "εκπαιδεύει" μια γενιά αναγνωστών στο να του μοιάζει.

0 Comments

    RSS Feed

    It's all about...

    Bioinformatics and computational biology with a focus on chromatin and genome architecture, plus a little bit of football and occasional aspects of  University education.

    Archives

    April 2021
    December 2020
    March 2020
    November 2018
    September 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    February 2016
    May 2015
    November 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    February 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All
    Academic Life
    Bioinformatics
    ChIPSeq
    ChIPSeq Bias
    Cpg Islands
    Data Analysis
    Exons
    Football
    Footballomics
    Gene Regulation
    Genetic Diseases
    Genome Architecture
    Genome Structure
    Inflammation
    Journalism
    Math Illiteracy
    NGS
    Nucleosome Positioning
    Nucleotide Composition
    Nucleotide Skews
    Promoters
    R
    Splicing
    Statistics
    Systems Biology
    Tnf
    Transcriptome
    Variation
    Whole Exome

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.