< Back to Issue 2 Man-Made Science: On the Origins of the Gender Gap Scientific practice remains doused in centuries of unreasoned and illogical discrimination against women. But what is the best way to unravel the complexities of such an intricate web of injustice, intellectual theft and suffering? by Mia Horsfall 10 December 2021 Edited by Natalie Cierpisz & Ruby Dempsey Illustrated by Janna Dingle Alice Ball was born in Seattle on July 24, 1892. She would grow up in Washington, achieving top marks in school before studying Chemistry at the University of Washington. She would have her article "Benzoylations in Ether Solution" published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. Ball then pursued a Masters of Chemistry at the University of Hawaii, where she would study chaulmoogra oil and its treatment of leprosy. Ball revolutionised the application of the oil, discovering its water solubility in its ester ethyl form, enabling it to be dissolved within the bloodstream. At the time, this revolutionary treatment was the best available for leprosy, having resoundingly positive impacts on more than 8000 people. Ball would die at the age of 24, and Arthur L. Dean, the future President of the University of Hawaii, would publish her findings, the treatment coming to be known as the “Dean Method”. It was not until 2000 that Alice Ball was formally recognised as having pioneered the method. Ball is not a rarity in the history of recognition of women in science. Women have been rendered oblique in the fabric of scientific contribution, pushed into corners by their male counterparts. You are not a scientist, they say. You are a worker, a contributor to a broader scientific framework that lies beyond the tips of your fingers. Your worth does not extend past your utility, your body and brain useful insofar as we dictate. Make no mistake, your work is not yours to own. These women, these scientists, these thinkers are perpetually framed in this lens, their stories framed in the contexts they were stolen from. Throughout history, women have been slotted in around men, in the world, in language, crammed in, letting femininity compress and fold over herself. The notion of feminist and masculinist lenses of science is not inherently divisive despite the dichotomised nature of their terminology. Rather, examining the feminist lenses of science contributes to a richer understanding of the epistemic value of science itself. The dangers of not examining said lenses are not only very real, they are tragic. Historically, women have occupied lesser paid, more arduous, and more dangerous positions within STEM industries, the most famous instance being the large number of women who contracted radiation poisoning from painting watch-faces with self-luminous paint. However, there is no unified definition of a “feminist lens of science”. Various feminist philosophers and critics have taken hugely diversified approaches to exploring the hierarchal structure of scientific industries. A more limited feminist approach looks purely at the consequential issues of exclusion, examining issues of employment and discrimination and attempting to rectify these after they have occurred. This is a relatively contained approach to gender disparities within STEM, in contrast to more encompassing ideologies of socialist or existentialist feminism that examines the reason women are excluded in the primary instance, and how their exclusion permeates scientific practice. Existentialist feminism upholds that sex-based discrimination occurs not as a result of biological differences, but due to the social valuation of those biological differences. It is, as Sue Rosser points out, “man’s conception of woman as Other” that leads to ostracisation. In a similar vein, socialist feminism defines knowledge as a product of human investigation rather than an innate property of scientific practice. As a consequence, knowledge is inevitably influenced by social values and indeed, cannot exist without bias. As Rosser points out, this has a very tangible impact at industry level, where “the social shaping of technology has often been conceptualised in terms of men, excluding women at all levels”. So long as the notion of conventional masculinity saturates scientific practice, the proportion of women who not only pursue science but who are recognised for their work will remain diminished. It is no coincidence that of professionals working across STEM industries, only 28 per cent are women. Sexism is not merely a product of academic culture, it is ingrained within the practice of science itself. The study of evolutionary biology is a prime example, where Darwin posited in 1859 “the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of women”. A decade later, Antoinette Brown Blackwell proved this to be an illogical conclusion, much of the research conducted was conducted with this in mind. As a result, foundational assumptions about the makeup of “human nature” were built upon these misguided foundations. It was not until much later that this groundwork was actively revised in mainstream science. Primatologists Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Biruté Galdikas demonstrated that there was very little, if anything, biologically different in the “moral and intellectual” capacities of men and women by investigating the evolutionary significance of female primates. Despite this, science, particularly in the life sciences, remains endowed with sexism that has arisen as a consequence of systemic inequality. One ramification of the surplus of male bioscientists that has been historically upheld is the stigmatisation and mystification of female anatomy and the differences of treatment for various diseases. That is, the predominance of male scientists results in lack of female subjects in medical experiments, leading to “under-diagnosis, inappropriate treatment and higher death rates for cardiovascular and other disease in women”, as Rosser points out. Such a lack of research not only directly results in higher suffering in women, but it is also indicative of a broader culture of apathy and negligence in the treatment of women. Much of these issues arise as a consequence of what is known as the “gender data gap”, a term coined by feminist journalist Caroline Criado Perez. Essentially, our default human is male and our data disproportionately accounts for them. This impacts every area of life, from women being 50 per cent more likely to be misdiagnosed after a heart attack (heart-fail experiment subjects are primarily male) to being 17 per cent more likely to die in a car crash (crash-test dummies are designed with masculine anatomy). These implications are severe, particularly in the realms of psychology, where diagnoses and psychological science has been used as a weapon to marginalise and obscure the autonomy of women. The etymology of the word “hysteria” has its roots from the Latin word for “uterus”, the construction of the word sexist from its conception. Since then, women who have advocated for change have consistently been deemed mentally unfit to serve within social spheres. This notion has bled into psychological practice and shapes much of the diagnostic procedure we see today, however subliminally. Further, the conduct of psychological studies is perhaps inescapably plagued by bias and assumption. This exists within every area of science but is particularly poignant in psychology, where successful post-publication replication is at its lowest. Whilst the reasons for why replication is so low within this field is contested, it undoubtedly means that psychological studies are subject to greater subjectivity in regards to their theoretical frameworks. This, in turn, enables researchers’ own biases and assumptions to saturate the work they conduct. Psychological studies examining sexism often treat it as a distinct social phenomenon that occurs in particular settings rather than a pervasive behaviour ingrained within institutions and scientific practice. One study examines the British Psychological Society’s guidelines surrounding ethical scientific practice, but particularly in regard to the prevention of sexism. The primary issue found here is that the guidelines preventing sexism are concerned more with the wellbeing of the subjects than the epistemic frameworks of the studies themselves. This results in a relatively poor understanding of the way androcentrism has permeated science’s theoretical framework, not merely its applications. When we look at the impact of sexism in psychological and medical sciences in tandem, it becomes evident the way sexist institutions have bled not only into the repercussions of scientific research, but in the very frameworks we use to conduct research. The systemic issues ingrained within the practice of science become tangibly visible in the gender disparities that exist within the sciences. In the US, women earn half of total science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, but only 39 per cent of postdoctoral fellowships and 18 per cent of professorships. Female academics from around the world are pioneering solutions to the persistent gender-discrimination problems facing the scientific community. Liisa Husu suggests that the key to tackling gendered scientific practice is by examining the “non-events”, the things that seemingly do not occur. These include a lack of referencing for female colleagues in publication, lack of recognition or attribution for work (both contemporary and historic). The lack of attendance of female professors and academics at conferences is another contributing factor, as such events not only enable cross-collaboration and open practice to occur without impediment, but facilitate connections to be formed within the academic world. The establishment of ethics committees that oversee scientific publications are also hugely influential. For example, in the US, the National Institutes of Health Funding implemented a regulation that women must be encompassed in “human studies”. These regulations need to be enforced and upheld with rigour and commitment. They cannot be perceived as extraneous or superfluous to the research conducted. This can be aided by requiring pre-publication replication or at the very least, evaluation by researchers independent of the original study. Our standard human is not a white, 70 kg man in his 30s. Our people are bold and bright and diverse and our science has no choice but to reflect that. The face of the scientific community has for too long been dominated by a voice that has been ignorant and apathetic to the suffering it has inflicted. To accept and enable these inbuilt systemic biases to persist is a gross injustice to the communities that have suffered as a result of silence. You are a scientist, we say. You are a beating, breathing, vibrant contributor to our collective pursuit of knowledge. Your voice is vital and worthy of being heard. And heard it will be. References: Arnhart, L., 1992. Feminism, Primatology, and Ethical Naturalism. Politics and the Life Sciences, 11(2), pp.157-170. Australian Government. 2021. Second national data report on girls and women in STEM. [online] Colwell, R., 2020. Women Scientists Have the Evidence About Sexism. [online] The Atlantic Condor, S., 1991. Sexism in Psychological Research: A Brief Note. Feminism & Psychology, 1(3), pp.430-434. England, C., 2016. One in five men have erectile dysfunction. 90% of women experience PMS. Guess which one researchers study more?. Espach, A., 2017. What It Really Means When You Call a Woman “Hysterical”. [online] Vogue. Ferro, S., 2013. Science Is Institutionally Sexist. Here Are 4 Ways To Help Fix It. [online] Popular Science. Plato.stanford.edu. 2020. Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Rosser, S., 2005. Through the Lenses of Feminist Theory: Focus on Women and Information Technology. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 26(1), pp.1-23. Samuel, S., 2019. Women suffer needless pain because almost everything is designed for men. [online] Vox. Slawson, N., 2019. 'Women have been woefully neglected': does medical science have a gender problem?. [online] the Guardian. Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

< Back to Issue 2 Postdoc Possibilities Thinking about postgraduate research? This column has some advice for you, courtesy of a recent PhD graduate. by Renee Papaluca 10 December 2021 Edited by Ruby Dempsey and Breana Galea Illustrated by Casey Boswell The idea of (dis)order is apparent in many scientific fields. One example of this is artificial light at night, which can disrupt our ecosystems. I caught up with Marty Lockett, a recent PhD graduate in this field, to learn more about the research pathway and their experience studying science at the University of Melbourne. Marty Lockett. Image included with permission. Marty recently completed his PhD in the Urban Light Lab, School of Biosciences. In his spare time, Marty enjoys birdwatching, Lego and science fiction. What was the ‘light-bulb moment’ that prompted you to study science? “I have always enjoyed the outdoors. For example, bushwalking, snorkelling, birdwatching — all that sort of stuff. I am more of a latecomer to science. About 10 years ago, I took long-service leave from my job. I used to be a lawyer. I ended up spending a lot of time doing volunteer work for conservation and restoration organisations… and I was exposed for the first time to the world of science and ecology. The work involved things like cleaning up rubbish, tree planting, weed removal, and banding and recapturing birds with researchers. It was really eye-opening! I realised I could do this for a job… I had never studied science, apart from chemistry at school. I had never been exposed to ecology or really considered it as a potential career option. Having that opportunity to immerse myself in nature in a more constructive and helpful way, rather than being a passive observer, really got me thinking.” Why did you choose to complete a research pathway? “So, I came into this not having an undergraduate degree in science. I completed a Masters of Environment to begin with. My thinking there was to try and get into environmental management, conservation or restoration management. As part of that masters, I completed a couple of third-year animal behaviour subjects. I found this really interesting as I hadn’t studied much about the behaviour of wildlife. Off the back of that, I decided to focus on this area for my research capstone subject. I met Dr Therésa Jones [current supervisor] and … did a mini research project on artificial light at night which is her area of specialization. From there, I got hooked on research… I wanted to find out more and, from there, decided to complete a PhD… There’s so much to learn about the world. Being in the position where the world now knows something that it once didn’t because of your work is really powerful.” What was the focus of your PhD research? Why did you choose this area? “My main project was looking at the effects of artificial light at night on an important food chain in Eucalyptus woodlands.” “There's a lot of research on the effects of artificial light at night on individual organisms… There's less but increasing research on interactions between species. As you spread out wider, there's [even] less research on more complex communities and on the wider cascading ecological effects of artificial light at night. I wanted to look into the effects of artificial light on a system that was underexplored and really important here in Australia.” “I chose a specific Eucalyptus woodland food chain consisting of river red gum trees, lerp psyllids, and birds that eat them. Lerps are the white bumps you sometimes see on Eucalyptus leaves. These are made by the nymphs [juveniles] of insects called lerp psyllids. Psyllids feed on leaf sap. Since eucalyptus sap is very rich in carbohydrates, they secrete the excess carbohydrates and use it to build little white domes over themselves. This takes a resource which is completely indigestible by most animals [Eucalyptus sap] and it turns it into something that is highly digestible by a whole range of animals… like birds, other insects, possums [and] bats. So lerps are a really key food resource in Eucalyptus woodlands. At the next level of the food chain, I chose a bird that was particularly dependent on lerps known as bell miners. I wanted to see the effect of artificial light at night at each level of this food chain. This is because all three organisms were vulnerable to… [the] effects of artificial light at night in different ways, and impacts at one level of the food chain might have cascading effects on other levels.” What did your day-to-day life as a PhD researcher look like? “It's really varied. In my case, I broke it down into three main work categories. So first up, you've got reading and writing. In the early days, before you start doing any experiments, you've got to learn a lot about your area, find out what's known, what's unknown, form hypotheses and figure out ways of testing them…” “In the middle, there is much more time spent on fieldwork and lab work. The extent of this will vary depending on the project… In my case, it was probably 50/50… An amazing amount of research involves what we refer to as ‘art and crafts’ where, after you design an experiment, you've got to then figure out a way to test that experiment on a tight budget. For example, building insect traps; you have to think about how you will make it work logistically. You need something that can be easily broken down and transported, but is rigid enough to stand up in a street, doesn't blow over in the wind and all those kinds of things. Fieldwork involved rigging up electric lights in a paddock, finding ways to stop parrots eating sound recorders; all kinds of weird stuff I never thought I'd be doing. Then there’s the actual fieldwork itself — catching bugs, measuring trees — whatever it is you need to do to gather data.” “The third main activity is statistical analysis and coding, which often go hand in hand. Most of [my] analysis was done in R [programming language], which was another thing that I hadn't done before… I hadn't really appreciated, as an outsider, just how much time scientists spend on statistics and coding. Coding governs a whole lot of things [in research], not just statistics. So you'll use coding to measure the number and diversity of vocalisations in birdsong recordings. You also may use it for physical mapping of study sites. In stats, there is obviously coding involved in statistical analysis, but also for creating the plots for your papers. It's all coding!” “At the end, you come back to reading and writing. You've gathered all your data, you've written up your results and then you've got to put them in context for your reader.” What advice would you give to students considering this research pathway? “There's two aspects to a PhD. On one hand, you are researching something that is of interest to you. This might be a particular organism, process or scientific question… That's a really important element of the PhD. But the other element is about you upskilling. Basically, a PhD is like a research apprenticeship and it's mostly self-driven… Your supervisor is there to guide you but you've got to come up with all the questions yourself, and figure out how to test them. I feel like it's really important to make the most of both these aspects; you want to do a great research project and find out something interesting that the world didn't know before. But you also want to make sure you're making the most of this time to meet people, take on skills, try things out and get outside your comfort zone. This is really important in making yourself as attractive as possible to future employers and a well-rounded researcher.” What are your future plans following your PhD? “I would like to take these skills and apply them in an in-house ecologist or research position. I’d like to do work where there's a chance to both conduct research and apply what we know to achieve better outcomes for wildlife. So, for example, working on the practical application of artificial light, working with people who make decisions about installing artificial light fixtures and helping them to find better ways to balance the needs of humans and the needs of wildlife.” Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

< Back to Issue 4 Real Life Replicants by Elijah McEvoy 1 July 2023 Edited by Yasmin Potts and Megane Boucherat Illustrated by Jolin See Hal, Ultron and (of course) the Terminator. Comparisons between these fictional, world-destroying, artificial intelligence systems and those in our current age of AI are seemingly never-ending. As a child born with a lightsaber in hand, I find these sensationalist remarks endlessly entertaining. Not only because it baffles me to see concepts once relegated to the realm of science fiction be discussed as serious news topics, but also because they’ve got their references all mixed up. The current challenge posed by the new wave of generative artificial intelligence doesn’t come in the form of a ruthless, gun-toting Arnie. It comes in the form of replicants. Just like these uncannily human androids from Ridley Scott’s cult classic Blade Runner, the rapidly increasing capacity of AI to talk, look and create like humans is beginning to blur the line between what is authentically human and what is the product of an algorithm. From the posh C3P0 to the snarky Cortana, having a friendly AI sidekick has always been a childhood dream of mine. This dream has now become a reality with the rise in AI chat-bots. At the forefront of these is Replika, an app that enables users to talk to their own personalized AI via the use of text-like messages. For its two million users (1), Replika provides a variety of functions. For some, Replika acts as a friend in times of loneliness; a feature that contributed to its spike in users during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (2). For others, as founder Eugenia Kuyda suggests, it provides a space for users to “open up” about personal or mental health issues and “feel accepted” by a human-like figure (1). For many though, Replika is a digital romantic partner. While it is easy to snicker at the concept of an AI girlfriend, those with past relationship trauma or those living in environments that may be hostile towards their sexuality have used Replika as an outlet to explore genuine feelings of love in a safe setting (3). However, with such attachment comes the chance for exploitation. As stated by Nir Eisikovits, Director of the Applied Ethics Centre at the University of Massachusetts, his concern is “not whether machines are sentient” but rather our own tendency “to imagine that they are” (4). Like the holographic billboards for the AI “JOI” in Blade Runner 2049, suggestive advertisements and aggressive flirting by the AI itself have all been employed by Replika to encourage users to stay on the app and pay a premium subscription for explicit content (5). While Replika has since removed sexual material, the large backlash from users at this decision (6) highlights the unethically coercive power such mimicry of human personality could have on consumers. For years, we’ve been warned of the danger of manipulative TV advertisements encouraging excessive junk food consumption and gambling. Imagine what could be done when that ad is no longer a 30 second video but instead an anthropomorphized AI tailored exactly to you, your interests and your vulnerabilities. Not only is AI replicating the way we talk, but also how we look. From videos of an animated Tom Cruise to convincing photos of a Balenciaga-wearing Pope (7), advanced deepfake videos and prompt-generated images from AI systems like DALL-E are becoming easier to create by the day (8). While the most prominent use of this technology is currently in the form of harmless memes, it can and has been used for more sinister means. Women across the world have had their faces used in non-consensual deepfake pornography, often as a form of revenge or blackmail (9). Furthermore, a fabricated video of Volodymyr Zelensky surrendering to Vladimir Putin that spread on social media last year proves AI’s unsettling potential in political disinformation (8). While fakes like that of Zelensky may have been taken down quickly due to easily identifiable tells, in many cases the damage has already been done the moment people see these videos or images. Mistrust in the news is heightened and real evidence can be accused of being AI generated, a strategy already implemented by Donald Trump to dismiss evidence of his misogyny (8). Although the current usage of this technology is concerning enough, the degradation of truth within society will only worsen as these replicants become increasingly accurate and faster to produce (8). Still, it is the ability for AI to complete jobs once thought to be uniquely human that will result in the largest change to the current status quo. Latest estimates from Goldman Sachs state that close to 300 million jobs globally could be automated by the current AI wave (10). The threat of job losses due to automation is far from new, stretching all the way back to 1811 with the infamous Luddites protesting factory machines (11). However, generative AI is placing a greater variety of jobs in jeopardy due to its ability to exude human creativity, giving rise to what Stanford Professor Victor R. Lee entitles an “authenticity crisis” (12). One of those jobs is that of writers. A common phrase amongst movie reviewers today is “this could have been written by an AI”. While usually used as a jab against the latest Marvel movie, large language models like Chat GPT that are capable of identifying and mimicking patterns in writing make it more than just a joke. Amongst calls for better conditions for screenwriters, a key demand from the Writers Guild of America in this year's Los Angeles writers’ strike was that AI will not be used to write or rewrite scripts (13). When you combine the growing authenticity of these AI with the greedy desires of major studios, it is not a far cry to suggest that producers may use AI to quickly generate scripts for generic soap operas and cash grab Netflix movies, leaving the human creatives to simply ‘clean-up’ these stories at a cut pay rate. Despite all these concerns, generative AI does have the ability to immeasurably improve society. The capacity of this technology to increase workplace efficiency (10), accelerate scientific progress (14) and constantly amuse us with clips of a rapping Joe Biden is undeniable. With the cat out of the bag, innovation in these areas cannot nor should not be halted completely. However, if sci-fi movies have taught me anything useful, it’s that we should not be blinded by the potential of scientific progress. Whether it be through governmental action to regulate the use of AI in industry or the scientific development of better deepfake-spotting technology to help stifle disinformation, implementing safeguards around AI is crucial in avoiding its “ethical debt” (15). Whilst looking to the world of science fiction as an indication of our future may be a bit far-fetched, it may also be a needed reminder of the world scientists should try not to replicate. References Tong A. AI company restores erotic role play after backlash from users ‘married’ to their bots [Internet]. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/ai-company-restores-erotic-roleplay-after-backlash-from-users-married-to-their-bots-20230326-p5cvao.html Clarke L. ‘I learned to love the bot’: meet the chatbots that want to be your best friend. The Observer [Internet]. 2023 Mar 19 [cited 2023 May 14]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/19/i-learned-to-love-the-bot-meet-the-chatbots-that-want-to-be-your-best-friend The rise and fall of replika [Internet]. [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WSKKolgL2U Eisikovits N. AI isn’t close to becoming sentient – the real danger lies in how easily we’re prone to anthropomorphize it [Internet]. The Conversation. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: http://theconversation.com/ai-isnt-close-to-becoming-sentient-the-real-danger-lies-in-how-easily-were-prone-to-anthropomorphize-it-200525 Cole S. ‘My ai is sexually harassing me’: replika users say the chatbot has gotten way too horny [Internet]. Vice. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.vice.com/en/article/z34d43/my-ai-is-sexually-harassing-me-replika-chatbot-nudes ‘My wife is dead’: How a software update ‘lobotomised’ these online lovers. ABC News [Internet]. 2023 Feb 28 [cited 2023 May 14]; Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-03-01/replika-users-fell-in-love-with-their-ai-chatbot-companion/102028196 How to spot an ai-generated image like the ‘balenciaga pope’ [Internet]. Time. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://time.com/6266606/how-to-spot-deepfake-pope/ Wong M. We haven’t seen the worst of fake news [Internet]. The Atlantic. 2022 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/deepfake-synthetic-media-technology-rise-disinformation/672519/ Atillah IE. AI could make deepfake porn an even bigger threat for women [Internet]. euronews. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/22/a-lifelong-sentence-the-women-trapped-in-a-deepfake-porn-hell Toh M. 300 million jobs could be affected by latest wave of AI, says Goldman Sachs | CNN Business [Internet]. CNN. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/chatgpt-ai-automation-jobs-impact-intl-hnk/index.html McClelland C. The impact of artificial intelligence - widespread job losses [Internet]. IoT For All. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.iotforall.com/impact-of-artificial-intelligence-job-losses Hollywood writers are on strike over an AI threat that some are warning is coming for you next. ABC News [Internet]. 2023 May 5 [cited 2023 May 14]; Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-06/hollywood-writer-s-strike-over-pay-and-artificial-intelligence/102296704 Lee VR. Generative AI is forcing people to rethink what it means to be authentic [Internet]. The Conversation. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: http://theconversation.com/generative-ai-is-forcing-people-to-rethink-what-it-means-to-be-authentic-204347 The AI revolution in science [Internet]. [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-revolution-science Fiesler C. AI has social consequences, but who pays the price? Tech companies’ problem with ‘ethical debt’ [Internet]. The Conversation. 2023 [cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: http://theconversation.com/ai-has-social-consequences-but-who-pays-the-price-tech-companies-problem-with-ethical-debt-203375 Previous article Next article back to MIRAGE

< Back to Issue 9 Time Perception – The Chaos Binding Your World Together by Furqan Mohsin 28 October 2025 Illustrated by Noah Chen Edited by Arwen Nguyen-Ngo Take a moment to clap your hands together. Do you hear the sound of the clap right as your hands come into contact? This does appear to occur at the same time. Yet the sound of the clap travels much slower than the light from your hands, and your brain differs in the time taken to process sound and light. So how does the clap appear to be in sync? Our ability to measure time is the glue that holds our perception of the world together. It ties our senses, our memories and the events of our lives into a coherent narrative. Yet this system is rarely thought about, and, in many ways, peculiarly disconnected from reality. For instance, time tends to flow faster when we feel excited (1), slow down when we move slowly (2) and even seems to flow differently when we look at the colour red (3). Our window of time tends to expand when we’re taking in a high density of important information (4) and contracts when we are in a state of flow (5). Overall, our subjective experience of time is malleable, ebbing in and out of alignment with real, objective time. This indicates our perception of time is shaped by our environment and internal state rather than a direct readout of physical time, and our best neuroscientific theories of time perception support this. Though scientists have theorised our brain uses a central clock or metronome, more recent evidence suggests our mechanisms for perceiving time are distributed across our brain (6). For example, there seem to be distinct mechanisms involved in tracking time of less than a second, compared to more than a second (7). Each sense also seems to have its own timing systems, meaning vision, hearing and touch modalities are able to track their own time (8). Rather than syncing to a central clock, many researchers believe the measurement of time is implicit in the timing of neural processes and inferred from external signals (9). It’s not a metronome – it’s an orchestra without a conductor, each player keeping the other in check. This means our flow of time is dynamic, stitched together from our environment, alertness and the neuronal activity of the brain itself. Our subjective experience of time and the inner workings of time in the brain are very different from the steady, constant flow we perceive physical time to be. Yet, time as an objective feature of the universe is dynamic in its own way. We all share the basic experience of “being” in a present moment. According to our best understanding of physics, however, time is tied to space, with no point in spacetime being uniquely privileged (10). This means there is no singular present moment we all share. Rather, depending on their position and motion through space, different people can experience different chains of events in time. In essence – different people experience different presents (11). Time is also inherently directionless. Fundamental equations in physics are time-symmetric, meaning the laws of physics work in reverse (12). Our experience of time as a directional flow is fundamental to how we see the world, but this flow is a product of entropy (13). This refers to how arrangements of particles in a system are overwhelmingly likely to progress from states of order into states of increasing disorder. An apple decays and doesn’t revitalise. Ice cubes melt and don’t reform. But this is also not a fundamental force, like we perceive the flow of time to be. It is a statistical tendency that emerges only on the large-scale interactions of an uncountable number of particles. In summary, time in physics is far from an independent arrow. It is interweaved with space and has direction only through the relationships between particles. Yet it remains an integral aspect of our reality. If objective time is so different from our intuitions, how do we explain our experience of time? Why do we experience a seemingly shared present moment, and a sense of time flowing forward steadily? Ultimately, this is because our experience of time is constructed. We need the experience of a present moment to draw together events in the world (14). The clap of your hands, in the truest sense, is a collection of particles. But by interweaving the myriad streams of brain activity and sensory stimuli, the mind places this clap within a moment. Just as we, as a species, place ourselves within a moment. Time in the brain is represented through a shifting, organised chaos of neural activity and interconnected systems. Within physics, it is bound with space and progresses forward through a dance of particles organised through thermodynamics. Collectively, we tell stories and plan futures through a shared sense of time that has been somehow ordered from the chaos. If you’re ever without a clock and wondering how much time has passed, remember, you are not alone. References Gable PA, Wilhelm AL, Poole BD. How Does Emotion Influence Time Perception? A Review of Evidence Linking Emotional Motivation and Time Processing. Front Psychol . 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.848154 De Kock R, Zhou W, Joiner WM, Wiener M. Slowing the body slows down time perception. eLife . 2021. doi: 10.7554/eLife.63607 Shibasaki M, Masataka N. The color red distorts time perception for men, but not for women. Sci Rep . 2014;4(1):5899. doi: 10.1038/srep05899 Matthews WJ, Meck WH. Temporal cognition: Connecting subjective time to perception, attention, and memory. Psychol Bull. 2016 Aug;142(8):865–907. Hancock P. A meta-analysis of flow effects and the perception of time. Acta Psychol (Amst) . 2016;142(8):865-907. doi: 10.1037/bul0000045 Ivry RB, Schlerf JE. Dedicated and intrinsic models of time perception. Trends Cogn Sci . 2008;12(7):273–80. doi: 1 0.1016/j.tics.2008.04.002 Paton JJ, Buonomano DV. The Neural Basis of Timing: Distributed Mechanisms for Diverse Functions. Neuron . 2018;98(4):687–705. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.045 Rammsayer T, Pichelmann S. Visual-auditory differences in duration discrimination depend on modality-specific, sensory-automatic temporal processing: Converging evidence for the validity of the Sensory-Automatic Timing Hypothesis. Q J Exp Psychol . 2018;71(11):2364-2377. doi: 10.1177/1747021817741611 Buhusi CV, Meck WH. What makes us tick? Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing. Nat Rev Neurosci . 2005 Oct;6(10):755-65. doi: 10.1038/nrn1764 Buonomano D, Rovelli C. Bridging the neuroscience and physics of time. arXiv . 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2110.01976 Baron S, Miller K. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time. 1st ed. Polity; 2018. 280 p. Carrol S. Time. In: The Biggest Ideas In The Universe: Space, Time and Motion. Dutton; 2022. p. 304. Buonomano D. Your Brain Is a Time Machine: The Neuroscience and Physics of Time. 1st ed. W. W. Norton & Company; 2017. 304 p. Eagleman DM. Human time perception and its illusions. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2008;18(2):131–136. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2008.06.002 Previous article Next article Entwined back to

< Back to Issue 10 Young Scientists in the Making by Kacy Toombs 2 June 2026 Illustrated by Saraf Ishmam Edited by Ingrid Sefton When you look at a baby, a multitude of thoughts might cross your mind, ranging from “aww cute” to “ ew, I’m never having kids” . You might see a baby babbling, screaming, drooling, or giving you that heedless, unwavering stare, and think about how silly that baby is. How socially inept! There’s not a thought behind those eyes! But what if I told you that every single baby is actually a young scientist? That everyday, babies are conducting social and scientific experiments; testing the limits of their understanding and noting down the mechanics of our world? Together, let’s explore how everyday babies are deploying the scientific method to learn about the world around them, and how they use these techniques to navigate life. If you’re at all familiar with this magazine, you’ll most likely know exactly what the scientific method entails. For those of you who haven’t touched a science kit since your Year 9 biology class, I’ll briefly explain. The scientific method (also known as the analytical method) is the use of a series of experiments to test a hypothesis. These experiments are often circular in their function, with the hypothesis modified and further retested until consistent results are achieved (1). It is standard practice within the many fields of science, and can range from wildly entertaining social experiments, to closely controlled quantitative observations. In the most basic terms, the scientific method is the art of asking a question, then seeking an answer. Picture a baby in a highchair. They’re happily wobbling their arms and swinging their plump little legs. Maybe they are even dribbling out the remnants of their mushy lunches. They pick up their spoon, and instead of using the spoon for its intended purpose, they drop it onto the floor. There are a number of things happening in this given scenario. A baby isn’t simply dropping the spoon to be annoying or to make itself laugh; though many babies have in the past, and will in the future, think that this act is very, very funny. The baby is asking a question – creating a hypothesis – and testing a number of variables. What happens when I let go of this spoon? When they drop the spoon, they are observing science in action. Gravity – the spoon falls down. Physics – the spoon spins in the air and bounces on the floor. The energy of sound waves – the clattering of the spoon on tile is loud, versus the soft boff of it bouncing on carpet. There are also the social aspects to consider. How will the people around them react? Will they come pick up the spoon? Is this a good way to get somebody’s attention? Like all great scientists, a baby will need to run multiple tests to come to conclusive results, so they will drop a lot of spoons. Now, am I advocating for us to let children throw their spoons around? Of course not. Part of this experience is for children to also learn that throwing spoons at the dinner table isn’t classified as decent behaviour in our society. But I do believe that it is important to acknowledge what a child is doing here. This action stems from curiosity, and it is important to cultivate that curiosity rather than quash it. Curiosity is a common trait we associate with ourselves as a species, and more often than not, is an intrinsic characteristic of children. Ironically enough, science has a hard time pinpointing the ‘why’ behind our curiosity (2), though many theories on the cognitive development of humans link our need to observe the environment and animal behaviour to survival (3). The power of curiosity is a baby’s best tool in their metaphorical toolkit. As a newly conscious being, there’s a lot about the world that they simply don’t understand. There’s a reason why the phrase, “ a baby’s brain is like a sponge” , is so well known. They absorb everything, and are constantly using any newly acquired knowledge to test the limits of their own understanding. The art of observing the world and the willingness to learn from it can be broken down into four main categories: questioning (the act of verbalising curiosity), physical exploration (bodily curiosity as a sensory experience), philosophising (the act of verbalising wonder) and embodied fascination (bodily wonder that does not seek a cognitive answer) (4). Of course, a baby won’t start verbalising their curiosity until they can speak (at which point you might be forced into the repetitive hell of a child’s never-ending echolalia of “ but why?” ), but instinctually the questions are present. These four categories are not mutually exclusive; often wonder can lead to curiosity and curiosity can lead to wonder. When people are given the room to explore their curiosity in any learning institution, they naturally grasp the concepts taught to them with a better understanding (5). Unfortunately, many modern day schools prioritise academic performance over a child’s own understanding of any given topic. I’m sure we can all relate to being talked at by a lecturer in the classroom rather than being invited to participate in the conversation. It’s a pretty fast way to get your brain to switch off and dull any curious inclination you might have had. It is no secret that some children learn differently from others, and this method of simply giving instruction in class can work for some. But using the broadest methods of engaging in wonder and curiosity will help all students, alongside their relationship with learning as a whole (6). Have you ever wondered why children enjoy field trips so much? It isn’t just the novelty of breaking a set routine and ‘skipping’ a school day; it’s also much simpler than that. Field trips give students a safe space to have fun with their learning and actively immerses them in all four categories of wonder and curiosity. Let’s take the example of students going to a planetarium. A child has the opportunity to physically explore a space; by interacting with planet mobiles or using their hands to feel textures on touchable exhibits, children are engaging in their bodily curiosity. Questions are naturally prompted by these physical explorations – “Is this Mars?”, “Which planet is Earth?” – which can lead to further discussions with their teachers and peers. Through these discussions, children can start philosophising certain ideas based on their newly acquired knowledge: “ These space rocks look like rocks on Earth. I wonder if they are made of the same thing?” . And in the quieter moments, children can idly sit with their own embodied fascination, taking in the atmosphere of the universe from inside the cool dome of the planetarium. There are no examinations or grading on field trips. A child has the freedom to simply be. This cultivation of curiosity at such a young age actively helps aid in the development of more complex and abstract thoughts (7) and leads to children in learning institutions taking more intellectual risks when approaching topics unknown to them. There’s a magic in being curious, in this need to fill in the blanks of their own knowledge. When children are comfortable in their own lack of understanding, they are not only more receptive to learning, but are shown to be more flexible in their beliefs when presented with new ideas (8). They engage more in classrooms, they speak up when they don’t understand, and they embrace the discomfort of not knowing. It all starts with the little, nappy-wearing scientist, sitting in their highchair. These babies are setting up their own cognitive learning systems from the moment they open their eyes. They let their curiosity guide their experimentation, which shapes how they come to understand the world. So what if they’re not making any groundbreaking revelations? They don’t need to be. Give in to your own curiosity next time you encounter a baby in the wild. See if you can observe the little scientist in action as they interact with the world for the first time. And hell, maybe let them drop a few spoons. References Gregersen E. Scientific method. Britannica. 24 April 2026. https://www.britannica.com/topic/empirical-evidence Kobayashi K, Ravaioli S, Baranès A, et al . Diverse motives for human curiosity. Nature Human Behaviour. 2019;3:587-595. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0589-3 Del Claro K. It All Began Out of Necessity and Curiosity. Behavioral Ecology . 2026;1-10. doi: 10.1007/978-3-032-13988-7_1 Heggen MP, Lynngård AM. Wonder and curiosity beyond the obvious—a dynamic model of bodily and verbal understandings of these phenomena. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2026;13:167. doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-06467-3 Kidd C, Hayden B. The Psychology and Neuroscience of Curiosity.” Neuron. 2015;88(3):449-460. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.010 Peterson EM. Supporting curiosity in schools and classrooms. Behavioral Sciences. 2020;35:7-13. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.006 Hall S. The Young Child as Scientist. A Learning Moments Collection. Videatives. 2015. https://videatives.com/node/2117 Jirout JJ, Vitiello VE, Zumbrunn SK. Curiosity In Schools. The New Science of Curiosity . Edited by Gordon G., 243-266. Nova, 2018. Previous article back to Fact & Fiction Next article

< Back to Issue 2 Mastering Chaos with Pen and Paper The mathematical laws which govern our chaotic and complex universe have found special use in describing the rapidly changing global climate. The work of three research scientists, with backgrounds in physics and meteorology, offered crucial insight into models describing the chaotic processes of climate change, granting them the 2021 Physics Nobel Prize. by Xen Papailiadis 10 December 2021 Edited by Mia Horsfall & Katherine Tweedie Illustrated by Jess Nguyen The world in which we live is densely packed with randomness and disorder. From the stampede of pedestrians navigating a major intersection and meshing together at the zebra crossing, to a flock of blackbirds hovering above like a shapeless dark cloud. All seems random and without any sense of pattern. However, at a very fundamental level, all of these processes can be described by logic and equations; as once remarked by Galileo, “the order of the natural world is written in the language of mathematics”. Through the tireless efforts of natural scientists from across the world, over millennia we have developed a remarkable understanding of the nature of the physical world. At the atomic scale of quantum physics right up to the largest astronomical objects in our universe, physics can both describe the present and decisively predict the future and past of a system. This is all with a pinch of salt, of course, as we run into some serious issues where probability and uncertainty takes over at the quantum level (best saved for another feature article), however, by and large we are capable of determining how a rocket will launch into space and where it will land on dry land, thanks to this deterministic tool. This may seem like the end of the story, however, Mother Nature will not dispel all her secrets at once. In the past century, scientists studying random behaviour, such as how clouds move and disperse or how the small fluctuations in the stock market can be tracked, have been at a loss applying deterministic methods (i.e. methods where we can determine or predict the outcome from a few fixed starting conditions) to these systems. There seemed to be no way to accurately predict the evolution of the system through time. This began with the likes of Poincare fruitlessly predicting the future movement of the planets in our solar system at the request of a monarch, and later Lorenz with his breakthrough and accidental discovery of the mathematical field of chaos itself. “Chaos Theory” is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. In other words, a reckoning with systems that display persistent randomness and a perceived lack of total predictability. There is a nuance to this, however, as a system can simultaneously appear ordered, yet harbour chaotic behaviour within (as Lorenz discovered). Alternatively the systems may seem entirely chaotic however it obeys certain patterns when looked at closely (such as the aforementioned flocking birds). Among all the far reaching applications of Chaos Theory in describing the natural and human-made world, the most recent development has also been deemed worthy of the Nobel Prize. On Tuesday 5th October of this year, three leading scientists in their respective fields were awarded the title of the Nobel Prize, including a share in a $1.53 AUD million reward, by the Royal Swedish Academy of the Sciences. The Nobel recipients are Syukuro Manabe of Princeton University, Klaus Hasselmann of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, and Giorgio Parisi of Sapienza University of Rome. The prize itself was awarded “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex physical systems”, including “the physical modelling of Earth’s climate… and reliably predicting global warming”. This is the first occasion a Nobel Prize in Physics has been attributed to the field of environmental science and studying the future of the world’s changing climate, and initiates an interesting chapter in the interplay between research in physics, mathematics, and the global climate in decades to come. Receiving one half of the total prize money, Professor Parisi was awarded for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales. Having been at the cutting edge of complex systems research since the 1980’s, Parisi observed hidden patterns in disordered complex materials. His discoveries in understanding and describing the behaviour of these seemingly random materials and phenomena has far reaching contributions into biology, neuroscience and machine learning. Parisi’s work provides a mathematical framework for studying the evolution of the global climate as an example of a complex system. The Earth’s climate is a complex system of vital importance to humankind. Professors Manabe and Hasselmann, two senior climate scientists, shared in the other half of the prize for their contributions in modelling the Earth’s climate system to reliably predict global warming and climate change. In the 1960’s, Professor Manabe led the development of physical modelling of the Earth’s climate, uniting previously separate models of the ocean and atmosphere to demonstrate how increased levels of carbon dioxide impact on temperature on the Earth’s surface. This has effectively laid the foundations of modern climate models used today. Professor Hasselmann followed this up with research of his own a decade later, finding a link between local weather and climate. Hasselmann and his colleagues produced a model which described why climate models can be reliable despite weather being changeable and chaotic, and his work has been used to prove that the increased temperature in the atmosphere is due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. The decades-long work of all three Nobel Laureates fundamentally shaped our understanding and ability to predict how the chaotic and interwoven behavior of the atmosphere, oceans and land will change over time, and strengthen our understanding of the changing climate on our planet. As put by the Nobel Committee for Physics, their discoveries demonstrate that our knowledge about the climate rests on a “solid scientific foundation”, one which can only grow with future generations of climate scientists, physicists and inquirers of the world under a scientific lens. The world in which we live is a random and chaotic one. Despite this sea of unpredictability, a deeper understanding of its mathematical nature can reveal patterns which have far reaching ramifications to our society and even our existence on planet Earth. The Nobel Prize in Physics is one significant step toward greater understanding of real-world complex systems which impact us, and a deeper recognition of the impact we have upon the Earth’s climate. Our ability to understand complex systems is one of a myriad of stepping stones into the great unknowns of science. To those turning away from studies in mathematics and physics for their seemingly abstract and complex nature, the future of our society is written in these laws and it is up to us to master them with pen and paper. References: Bradley, Larry. “Strange Attractors.” Chaos & Fractals, 2010. https://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/attractors.html Gardini, L., Grebogi, C. & Lenci, S. “Chaos theory and applications: a retrospective on lessons learned and missed or new opportunities.” Nonlinear Dyn 102, 643–644 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-020-05903-0 Irfan, Umair. “Earth’s climate is chaotic. The winners of the 2021 Nobel Prize in physics found patterns in the noise.” Vox, October 5, 2021. https://www.vox.com/22710418/2021-physics-nobel-prize-climate-change-chaos-model Oestreicher, Christian. “A history of chaos theory.” Dialogues in clinical neuroscience vol. 9,3 (2007): 279-89. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2007.9.3/coestreicher Plus Magazine. “Maths in a minute: Poincaré and the beginnings of chaos.” Universtiy of Cambridge, February 28, 2017. https://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-beginnings-chaos Press release: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2021. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2021. Thu. 25 Nov 2021. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2021/press-release/ Randall, David. “Winners of 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics built mathematics of climate modeling, making predictions of global warming and modern weather forecasting possible.” The Conversation, October 6, 2021. https://theconversation.com/winners-of-2021-nobel-prize-in-physics-built-mathematics-of-climate-modeling-making-predictions-of-global-warming-and-modern-weather-forecasting-possible-169329 Previous article back to DISORDER Next article

< Back to Issue 4 Fool Me Once by Julia Lockerd 1 July 2023 Edited by Tanya Kovacevic and Elijah McEvoy Illustrated by Sonia Santosa I have rabies. I’m absolutely sure of it. I mean, I can't really tell, but that’s the silent killer, right? You don’t know you’re rabid till it’s all over, and you’re foaming at the mouth and biting your student tutor on the leg. Despite being completely safe here in Australia with its complete lack of rabies-having animals, I’m still pretty sure I’ve managed to catch it. Next week it will all be over for me and my tutor. Sorry, James. Of course, it’s not actually rabies that I’ve contracted, but a much more common condition: Medical Student Syndrome (1). Last week in my lectures, we learned all the ins, outs, and symptoms of the rabies virus. So, naturally, now we all have it. This health-related anxiety is a prime example of how our human brains can trick us into experiencing phantom symptoms. The same cognitive veil is used in clinical trials all over the world in order to test the efficacy of new drugs. We’ve all felt it. That moment when you question, ‘Is this real, or is my mind making its reality?’ We call this the placebo effect. The placebo effect is crucial to modern and historical experimental design. The ‘trickable’ nature of the human mind has changed the course of drug development as we know it. The effects’ success hinges on a patient's belief that they are receiving treatment for their ailment. The simple belief in a cure can often result in real physiological changes in an individual. This makes the placebo effect a very powerful tool in the development of new drugs for the market. In a placebo-controlled trial, half of the sample population will be blindly given a placebo, and the other half of the drug being tested. In order for a potential treatment to be considered effective, it must produce more significant results than the placebo group (2). We must improve our approach to designing and researching hypotheses. Can we use what we know about the placebo effect to make more accurate claims about modern pharmaceutical development? Well, in 2017, Dr. Sara Vanbheim of the Arctic University of Norway published a study that brought into consideration the possible effects of differing sexual characteristics on placebo efficacy (3). This idea could restructure the way experiments are designed going forward and potentially provoke a possible review of drugs already on the market. Is it possible that traditionally marginalised groups are underrepresented in the clinical trial process? Can we restructure experiments to be more inclusive? Are changes even really necessary? These questions were investigated through the compilation and calculation of placebo and nocebo effects on men and women over multiple previously conducted studies mostly centering around physical pain and the administration of analgesia. The term ‘nocebo’ defines the antithesis of a placebo (4), referring to adverse side effects a subject feels when given an inert version of the test drug. While placebos tend to have an analgesic effect, nocebos often cause negative effects or emotions when the subjects are told that they should expect/anticipate them. Before discussing any of these questions, it is worth noting that the Norwegian study focuses solely on classic sexual differences between cis-gender men and women. Though both keywords ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ were included in the study, research surrounding the specific effects of gender identity and gender-affirming therapies on placebos has not been thoroughly conducted as of 2023. It is with this focus that the following hypotheses are stated (3): “1) placebo responses would be stronger or more frequently observed in males than in females, 2) nocebo responses would be stronger or more frequently observed in females than in males, 3) verbally induced placebo responses would be more frequently observed in males than in females, and 4) conditioned nocebo responses would be more frequently observed in females than in males.” Results concluded that there was indeed a significant correlation between sex and placebo/nocebo effects when concerning pain relief. But what is truly fascinating is that while men received elevated levels of a placebo effect, such as reduced symptoms and analgesia, women were more susceptible to hyperalgesia and negative emotions. Those supposed ‘side effects’ appear to weigh more heavily on women (3). What does this say about how men and women process pain and information? The Norwegian study discusses the role of ‘psychophysiological mechanisms’ in pain pathways. Or, more simply, How stress and anxiety can affect the pain the brain perceives. In 8 of the 12 studies, men experienced significantly stronger analgesic effects from the placebo than women (3). It is plausible that men react more strongly to pain induced by stress hormones. This would explain why when taking a placebo, their anxiety level would decrease, and they would receive higher levels of analgesia than their female counterparts (3). Another study, upon which the Norwegian argument builds, investigates placebo delivery methods and their effect on perceived pain in men and women. In this study, men relied far more on verbal queues to provide analgesia, whereas women received a more significant effect from classic conditioning (5). These studies bring into question both the methodological and physiological effects of placebos on different sexes. What do these differences tell us about how men and women perceive the world? And what does this mean for the future of the placebo? The result of all of these studies is to show not whether placebos are bad or good, reliable or unreliable, but instead to highlight the differences in the physiological and psychological links when looking at different groups of people. At its core, a placebo is simply a trick of the brain, a psychological mirage. While the basis and reliability of placebos can be debated at length, their effect on the human brain teaches us something about ourselves societally. In all areas of medicine, the inclusion of people from all different backgrounds, genders, ethnicities, and ages is crucial so professionals know how to identify and treat various manifestations of a disease with grace and care. Now I know James responds better to verbal commands; I’ll be sure to tell him he has rabies the next time I see him. References Henning Schumann J. I contracted medical student syndrome. You probably will too. [Internet]. AAMC. [cited 2023 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/news/i-contracted-medical-student-syndrome-you-probably-will-too Harvard Health Publishing. The power of the placebo effect - Harvard Health [Internet]. Harvard Health. Harvard Health; 2021. Available from: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect Vambheim S, Flaten MA. A systematic review of sex differences in the placebo and the nocebo effect. Journal of Pain Research. 2017 Jul;Volume 10:1831–9. National Cancer Institute NCI. Definition of nocebo effects [Internet]. www.cancer.gov . 2011. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/nocebo-effect Enck P, Klosterhalfen S. Does Sex/Gender Play a Role in Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Conflicting Evidence From Clinical Trials and Experimental Studies. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2019 Mar 4;13. Previous article Next article back to MIRAGE

< Back to Issue 5 Why Do We Gossip? Lily McCann 24 October 2023 Edited by Celina Kumala Illustrated by Rachel Ko Have you ever heard of ‘Scold’s bridle’? A metal restraint, fitted with a gag, that was strapped about the face as a medieval punishment for excessive chatter; gossip, it seems, was not received too fondly in the Middle Ages. While the bridle may have gone out of fashion long ago, today the word gossip still carries negative connotations. The Oxford Dictionary, for instance, defines gossip as “informal talk or stories about other people’s private lives, that may be unkind or not true” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2023). Entries in the Urban Dictionary use yet stronger terms, going so far as to describe gossip as the “garbage of stupid silly ignorant people” (Lorenzo, 2006). Is this too harsh? Cruz et al. (2021) propose a much more neutral definition in their analysis of frameworks to study gossip, concluding that gossip is “a sender communicating to a receiver about a target who is absent or unaware of the content”. Whether the gossip conveys positive or negative content — otherwise known as its valence — is not a requirement of the definition itself. Gossip, then, is not always “unkind” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2023) or “garbage” (Lorenzo, 2006). In fact, with a bit of further reading, we can see that this “informal talk” has played an important part in our evolution and even serves positive purposes in society. In the first sense, gossip is an important facilitator of safety. It allows dangerous situations to be identified: spreading the knowledge that a certain individual is prone to violence, for instance, ensures the rest of a community takes care of their own safety with regards to that individual. On a different note, passing about the fact that another individual is skilled in certain aspects of resource procurement allows wider access to these resources. It is easy to see in these examples how gossip could give a selective advantage in the survival of societies. But the influence of gossip goes further than this. It has been shown that gossip in fact encourages cooperation and generosity (Wu et al., 2015). How? The crucial mediator is reputation (Nowak, 2006). Reputation is incredibly important - see Taylor Swift’s 2017 album for more. A poor reputation leads to ostracisation, and for an individual in prehistoric societies, this could be fatal. Cultivating a good reputation among peers thousands of years ago, as today, improves the chances of success in life by increasing access to resources and the willingness of others to help you. Positive gossip can facilitate all this. So, how do we foster positive gossip? What will encourage someone to put in a good word for us? The most effective approach is to act in a way that benefits that individual. It predisposes them to spread the word of our generosity, helping to build a reputation for goodness that will in turn have positive outcomes for ourselves. Thus, it’s easy to see how behaviours that foster good gossip are incentivised in our everyday lives. This propensity to spread the knowledge of how certain individuals interact with others has been incredibly impactful in the development of human societies. The fact that our species can flourish and sustain itself in such immense populations requires a high level of cooperation - which enables us to share resources and productivity - even with people we do not know. Otherwise known as indirect reciprocity, this ability to work with strangers is enabled by reputation (Nowak, 2006). How else do we know that it is safe to interact with a stranger, other than through the means of gossip, which informs us of their reliability and trustworthiness? But what about when gossip is incorrect? The Oxford definition hints at the possibility that information spread through gossip “may be…not true”. Can untrue gossip hinder our progress, by limiting interactions with individuals who may have the potential to help us, or promoting those interactions that would better have been avoided? And if gossip can be incorrect, does that not render reputation meaningless? What is the incentive to be good, if gossip could label you as a bad egg, regardless (Nieper et al., 2022)? Incorrectly negative gossip can be extremely impactful for the subject of that gossip. Studies have shown that it decreases productivity and prosocial behaviour - not to mention burdening victims with the psychological effects of ostracisation, injustice and loneliness (Kong, 2018; Martinescu et al., 2021). Through gossip, we can exert immense power over other beings. It is understandable, then, that we fear gossip, and try to discount it by painting it as “garbage” (Lorenzo, 2006), “unkind” or “not true” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2023). And yet, whilst negative gossip can be a detriment, positive gossip can yield great benefits, reinforcing prosocial behaviour, fostering cooperation and promoting generosity. So, rather than fearing gossip, perhaps we ought to acknowledge its benefits and harness it for good. Perhaps it's worth considering how we can each use gossip to exert a bit of good upon our world. References Dores Cruz, T. D., Nieper, A. S., Testori, M., Martinescu, E., & Beersma, B. (2021). An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip. Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 252-285. http://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121992887 Kong, M. (2018). Effect of Perceived Negative Workplace Gossip on Employees’ Behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology , 9(2728). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01112 Lorenzo, A. (2006). Gossip . Urban Dictionary. Accessed October 10, 2023. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gossip Martinescu, E., Jansen, W., & Beersma, B. (2021). Negative Gossip Decreases Targets’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior by Decreasing Social Inclusion: A Multi-Method Approach. Group and Organization Management, 46(3), 463-497. http://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120986876 Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. (2023). Gossip - definition . Accessed October 10, 2023. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/gossip_1#:~:text=gossip-,noun,all%20the%20gossip%20you%20hear . Nieper, A. S., Beersma, B., Dijkstra, M. T. M., & van Kleef, G. A. (2022). When and why does gossip increase prosocial behavior? Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 315-320. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.10.009 Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation . Science, 314(5805), 1560-1563. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755 Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2015). When does gossip promote generosity? Indirect reciprocity under the shadow of the future. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 923-930. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615595272 Wicked back to

< Back to Print Editions Print Edition 2: Issue 4, 5 and 6 2023/2024 ABOUT THIS EDITION In various languages, the word ‘science’ can be traced back to its Latin origins of simply meaning ‘to know’. Today, explorers, curators, and researchers of scientific knowledge understand this as a systematic acquisition of information, with observations made and theories tested as we try to comprehend our world. For true advancement, science requires reciprocity: the mutual sharing between ‘scientists’ and individuals of society alike. In such a discourse we celebrate the beauty of scientific progress, whilst too holding space for the unease new unknowns can bring. Science communication is how we can continue to alleviate this dissonance, bridging knowledge gaps and seeking scientific understanding for all. The creation of Issue 4: Mirage, Issue 5: Wicked and Issue 6: Elemental over 2023 and 2024 has seen contributors create ever more informative content, aiming to make the innovations of science readily accessible to the public. Through experimenting with new formats, genres and mediums for illustrations, our contributors have formed a body of work that seeks to captivate and question. FEATURED ISSUES Issue 4: Mirage This issue explores the realms of science that are not what they seem. Is that shape in the distance reality or just a figment of your imagination? Issue 5: Wicked This issue spotlights the mischievous, malevolent and morally dubious. Issue 6: Elemental This issue explores the building blocks that comprise the world we live in. PURCHASE A COPY Keen to purchase a copy of the magazine? Click here to do so, at an OmniSci Magazine exclusive price! Alternatively, visit the Science Gallery Melbourne to find our magazines stocked in person. back to print editions

By Lily McCann < Back to Issue 3 Belly bugs: the aliens that live in our gut By Lily McCann 10 September 2022 Edited by Andrew Lim and Zhiyou Low Illustrated by Helena Pantsis Next Figure 1 (1): "Animalcules" The figures above may look exceedingly simple to you. Beautifully drawn, yes, but nothing particularly complicated —mere ovals and lines of black ink. If I told you that the drawings were 350 years old, your interest might be piqued by that fascination we hold for all historical relics. You might wonder what the images are attempting to portray. You would only be more confused, however, were I to describe them to you using the name they were known by to the artist: “animalcules”. (2) These drawings, penned by a Dutch draughtsman in the early 1680s, are the first known depictions of bacteria from inside a human body (2). They were discovered by a man called Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek in a sample taken from between his teeth. Leeuwenhoek had examined “animalcules” in various water samples before turning to saliva, analysing the shape and movements of the little cells beneath his microscope, which he made from hand-crafted glass mounted between plates of brass. It is now known that these “animalcules” are in fact bacteria, and that they are avid colonisers not only of our mouths but every other body surface, too. These single-celled organisms parted ways with animals some 2.7 billion years ago in evolution and could not appear any more alien to ourselves (3). Though simple in structure and function, they are capable of populating the most inhospitable and extraterrestrial of environments. In fact, Deinococcus radiodurans (pictured below) can survive for years in the harsh vacuum of space (4). Figure 2 (5): Deinococcus radiodurans Freaky, right? The evolutionary distance between bacteria and ourselves does not seem to deter them from entering into the most intimate of symbiotic relationships with us. Despite their alien-ness, despite billions of years of divergent evolution, we have not lost the ability to communicate with these distant relatives of ours. In fact, communication with bacteria is a daily and essential part of our lives. The reason we can still chat with these creatures is that they are made up of the same basic “stuff” that we are: genetic material made of sugars, phosphates and nitrogen bases to dictate our functions; proteins to carry out our cellular processes; membranes to hold us together. All these aspects form a common basis for language. Just as human languages consist of orally transmitted units of sounds that can be translated and understood, bacteria can impart signals in the form of particles that can be decoded and acted upon by our own cells. One example of this kind of dialogue is the production of molecules called short chain fatty acids by bacteria that digest plant materials in our gut. These bacteria impart their gratitude to us for supplying them with suitable foods by releasing short chain fatty acids, which in turn tell our gut not to worry, signalling our cells and instructing them to reduce inflammation, build up our gut wall and even help fix our blood pressure. These molecules can also travel to the brain, where they are thought to influence the release of various signals including that of the “feel-good” hormone serotonin. (6) There’s a whole world of dialogue beyond this often referred to as the gut-brain axis of health. Research into the area has revealed that signals produced by gut bacteria are extremely influential in a number of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease. These relationships often work both ways, giving rise to a strange “chicken-and-egg” situation: those who demonstrate symptoms of such conditions are found to carry altered gut bacterial populations, and altering gut bacteria can in turn change symptoms. For example, in a cruel experiment involving the separation of infant monkeys from their mothers, the stress caused by separation changed the distribution of bacteria colonies in the infants’ guts, whilst administering a certain bacteria often imparted to infants by their mothers was found to reverse the symptoms of this stress (7). The way that bacteria can change our very emotions has significant implications for our idea of personhood. What are we, if how we act depends on the alien cells we carry in our digestive tracts? Perhaps we ought to extend our definition of identity to include these little cells that are truly, it seems, a part of how we are—another organ of our body, even. Happily (for those of you who support the philosophy of a ‘growth mindset’), the way our gut influences our minds is subject to manipulation. And we do not need a scientist to isolate and administer a certain bacterial species to us in order to change it; evidence suggests that simply altering what we eat can have a profound influence. Dietary change is known to directly alter bacterial gut colonies, and the change shown to bring about the most harmonious of conversations with our gut is increasing our intake of dietary fibre. Flooding our gut community with plentiful fibre causes a rush of signals from bacteria that promote gut health, mental health and healthy ageing. In contrast, a low fibre diet can promote diabetes, cardiovascular problems and, for pregnant mothers, may compromise the neural functioning of a developing child (8). What does this mean for medicine? Can we harness the billion-year old dialogue between our cells and the aliens that colonise our gut for our own benefit? Can we coax these residents into a mutually beneficial relationship by approaching them in the right tone? These questions are gradually gaining popularity among the scientific community as trials of probiotic administration are explored in the context of treating illnesses from depression to gastrointestinal disorders (9). We are yet to see where such studies will lead us. When the outside world seems increasingly bleak, I find comfort in the fact that within us rumbles on the activity of an intricate and disinterested universe, completely alien to and yet an integral part of ourselves. Like farmers of a garden in times of shortage, we exist in a state of codependency with the world we nurture inside our bodies. If we foster a good relationship with its inhabitants, they can protect us from the afflictions of illness, sadness and madness that threaten our species day by day. References : 1. The Royal Society. Bacteria from Leeuwenhoek's mouth [Internet]. 2022 [cited 17 March 2022]. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/2bf20f9f-28e1-4126-bd7e-f92950899a2b/rstb20140344f03.jpg 2. Lane N. The unseen world: reflections on Leeuwenhoek (1677) ‘Concerning little animals’ | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences [Internet]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2022 [cited 17 April 2022]. Available from: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0344 3. Cooper G. The Origin and Evolution of Cells [Internet]. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 2022 [cited 17 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/#:~:text=The%20eukaryotes%20developed%20at%20least,is%20from%20present%2Dday%20eukaryotes 4. Cox M, Battista J. Deinococcus radiodurans — the consummate survivor. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2005;3(11):882-892. 5. 5. The European Synchroton. Deinococcus radiodurans [Internet]. 2022 [cited 5 May 2022]. Available from: https://www.esrf.fr/UsersAndScience/Experiments/MX/Research_and_Development/Biology/Deinococcus_radiodurans 6. De Angelis M, Piccolo M, Vannini L, Siragusa S, De Giacomo A, Serrazzanetti D et al. Fecal Microbiota and Metabolome of Children with Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76993. 7. Bailey M, Coe C. Maternal separation disrupts the integrity of the intestinal microflora in infant rhesus monkeys. Developmental Psychobiology. 1999;35(2):146-155. 8. Buffington S, Di Prisco G, Auchtung T, Ajami N, Petrosino J, Costa-Mattioli M. Microbial Reconstitution Reverses Maternal Diet-Induced Social and Synaptic Deficits in Offspring. Cell. 2016;165(7):1762-1775. 9. Kazemi A, Noorbala A, Azam K, Eskandari M, Djafarian K. Effect of probiotic and prebiotic vs placebo on psychological outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. Clinical Nutrition. 2019;38(2):522-528. Previous article Next article alien back to

< Back to Issue 8 Glowing Limelight, Fashioned Stars by Aisyah Mohammad Sulhanuddin 3 June 2025 Edited by Kylie Wang Illustrated by Jessica Walton Good evening Rose Bowl, Pasadena! The crowd erupts into a roar, the stadium air overcome with a thunder of adulation. Between throngs of teenagers tearing through streets in pursuit of the Beatles, concert-goers fainting at the sight of Michael Jackson, and Top Tens of the day made to navigate flirty fan calls on daytime TV in front of live audiences (1), pop history as we know it has always revolved around the deep, fanatic reverence of the star . Stars in all corners of the entertainment cosmos, be it music, film or TV, have long had their lives glamorised. Tales told of luxurious jet-setting, post-show mischief and infamous public appearances peppered with paparazzi. Fame turned into fables, circulated eagerly by the wider populace. Having avidly followed a plethora of musicians, actors and comedians at different points of my own life, the gurgling vortex of stardom culture has remained ever-intriguing. Why do our relationships with stars mean so much to our society, and have they shifted over time? Public perceptions & parasocial relationships Our journey begins with the making of a star. A star is born from an assemblage of artistic choices: artwork, stage personas, press releases, bold onstage costumes and more, which constellate into a fashioned image. Or, a ‘manufactured personal reality’ (2). This reality is what audiences draw upon when forming attachments to stars, a process that moulds complex, contradicting human beings into idealised forms that may resonate, validate or provide meaning to them. The mid-century women empowered by the feminine sexuality and intelligence of Marilyn Monroe (2), or the working class Eastern European following of Depeche Mode who saw the band as an emblem of social rebellion under the USSR in the late 80s (3), are such examples. Such attachment gives rise to the infamous ‘parasocial relationship’ (PSR). An often derisive term aptly used today to call out toxic, boundary-crossing online fan behaviour, parasocial relationships at their core simply encompass socio-emotional connections formed with media figures (4). In it, audiences extend emotional energy, time or interest towards figures that whilst unreciprocated, create a perceived idea of intimacy similar to that of two-way relationships. For the audience, PSRs can evoke feelings of safety, trust and various forms of devotion, self-strengthened through personal habits – think dressing like a favourite ‘bias’, or diligently watching a favourite director’s closet picks. PSRs have historically been one-sided. Audience reactions to sensation and scandal have had the power to make or break an artist’s image, but restricted channels of dialogue meant that direct two-way feedback was often “fragmented” (2). The influencing power of the star’s image lay within reach of the star themselves, and more often than not, was shaped by the wider commercial agendas of their agency or labels. That is, until recently… The rise of the Internet Whilst the glitz and glamour of stardom remains strongly relevant, we can focus on the advent of the internet as the most powerful force in reshaping the relationship between fan and star. Termed the “o ne and a half sided” PSR (4), seen today is a shift in power dynamics towards one of increased fan-star symbiosis. As the theory notes, technology has allowed for greater perceived proximity and reciprocity, blurring the line between social and parasocial. Under the extensive nature of the current digital world, our internet presence has become increasingly considered a material extension of our real-life selves (4), whether through Zoom calls, real-time story updates or live vlogs. Direct messages or comments that allow instant reply have muddied the realm of physical and virtual reality, thus leading audiences to feel ‘physically’ closer to the figures in question. This decrease in constructed social distance has fostered notions of reciprocity, viewing stars as people they can reach out to and touch, converse with, and most importantly, influence in return – regardless of any actual ability to do so (4). As we witness stars defend their personal choices against an onslaught of ‘netizen’ backlash or wryly reply to a barrage of invasive thirst tweets (5), we see the increased power that global audiences have over said stars’ images. Eroded power barriers between the star and fan have heightened both positive and negative emotional engagement. Well-documented are various behaviours that disrespect boundaries between personal and professional lives, such as harassment, stalking, and other breaches of privacy. Yet, the rise of the ordinary, accessible star has also allowed greater exposure to previously hidden or stigmatised facets of figures’ lives, fostering safe spaces for perceived authenticity and vulnerability that can counter blind idealisation (6). Evolving industries & societies Under the diluted power networks of stardom today, we can describe celebrity image production as increasingly decentralised (6). Technology has made entry into the entertainment industry more accessible by providing numerous channels for artistic output, whether it be through releasing music independently on streaming services like Spotify, Bandcamp or Soundcloud, or creating short-form video skits on platforms like TikTok or Instagram. With top-down connections to age-old media institutions no longer required, the pool of faces that audiences can form relationships with has drastically expanded (7). Social norms – at the time of writing – have also welcomed the notion of diversified talents. As prevailing social, cultural and political structures shape value judgments made of stars (2), we have seen increased audience meaning-making in the dimensions of gender, ethnicity, class or sexual orientation over past decades (8) aligned with a gradual direction towards progressive and learned landscapes. Here, celebrity advocacy for causes and movements beyond the stage is nothing new, but fan bases can now dissect their forays into activism more publicly than ever before. A world unapologetically critical of “out of touch” (9) wealthy stars crooning out Lennon’s Imagine at the beginning of the pandemic would unlikely have welcomed the white-saviorist charity event that was Live Aid 1985 with as open arms as the dominant media narrative did then (10). A hyper-consumerist present If the exclusive stardom of yore can be likened to the dominance of a supermarket monopoly, then stardom today looks more like a diverse hub of online stores for buyers to ‘Click and Collect’ from. Whilst this setup offers diversified perspectives to a consuming audience, it embodies wider societal trends towards hyper-commodification. Market an image that sells well, and everyone will be famous for 15 minutes , as Andy Warhol supposedly declared (11). Reinforcing the ephemerality of mass consumerism are internet memes or trends (12) that morph and dilute rebellious celebrity motifs for overarching capitalistic agendas – think Brat Summer campaigns in the style of Charli xcx’s 2024 album co-opted by the most unethical multinational corporation you’ve ever come across. Like with the discourse exposing ‘nepo’ babies in the entertainment industry (13), we are reminded that despite the semblances of democratisation, the limelight remains far from a level stage. Stardom, beyond So what then? What lies in store for the future star? On one hand, the perception of proximity with the decline of ‘untouchable’ star personas can strengthen fan worship and deification, with frenzied consequences. On the other hand, increased artist-audience dialogue can pave the way for real change over performative gestures as lessening power imbalances bring a form of democratisation that can platform diverse and marginalised voices in art. All in all, stars today may no longer be able to fully present themselves and be perceived solely as spectral, enigmatic illusions that audiences can latch upon, but the new freedoms and avenues that come with being more truly known may be just as bedazzling. References 1. Robinson P. The great pop power shift: how online armies replaced fan clubs. The Guardian [Internet]. 2014 Aug 25; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/aug/25/great-pop-power-shift-how-online-armies-replaced-fan-clubs 2. Dyer R. Introduction. In: Heavenly Bodies [Internet]. Routledge; 2004. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203605516 3. Wynarczyk N. Tracing Eastern Europe’s obsession with Depeche Mode [Internet]. Dazed. 2017. Available from: https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/36659/1/tracing-eastern-europe-s-obsession-with-depeche-mode 4. Hoffner CA, Bond BJ. Parasocial Relationships, Social Media, & Well-Being. Current Opinion in Psychology [Internet]. 2022 Feb;45(1):1–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101306 5. Yodovich N. Buzzfeed’s “celebrities reading thirst tweets”: examining the sexualization of men and women in the #MeToo era. Journal of gender studies. 2024 Feb 28;33(8):1–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2024.2324263 6. Driessens O. The Celebritization of Society and Culture: Understanding the Structural Dynamics of Celebrity Culture. International Journal of Cultural Studies [Internet]. 2013;16(6):641–57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877912459140 7. Carboni M. The digitization of music and the accessibility of the artist. Journal of Professional Communication [Internet]. 2014 Jun 4;3(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.15173/jpc.v3i2.163 8. Stewart S, Giles D. Celebrity status and the attribution of value. European Journal of Cultural Studies [Internet]. 2019 Jul 21;23(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419861618 9. Caramanica J. This “Imagine” Cover Is No Heaven. The New York Times [Internet]. 2020 Mar 20; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/arts/music/coronavirus-gal-gadot-imagine.html 10. Grant J. Live Aid/8: perpetuating the superiority myth. Critical Arts [Internet]. 2015 May 4;29(3):310–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2015.1059547 11. Nuwer R. Andy Warhol Probably Never Said His Celebrated “Fifteen Minutes of Fame” Line [Internet]. Smithsonian Magazine. Smithsonian Magazine; 2014. Available from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/andy-warhol-probably-never-said-his-celebrated-fame-line-180950456/ 12. Cirisano T. “Brat” summer and the dilemmas of going mainstream [Internet]. MIDiA Research. 2024. Available from: https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/brat-summer-and-the-dilemmas-of-going-mainstream 13. Jones N. How a Nepo Baby Is Born [Internet]. Vulture. 2022. Available from: https://www.vulture.com/article/what-is-a-nepotism-baby.html Previous article Next article Enigma back to

< Back to Issue 4 PT by Saachin Simpson 1 July 2023 Edited by Caitlin Kane, Rachel Ko and Patrick Grave Illustrated by Jolin See 'Pt' (medical abbreviation for ‘patient’) recounts a patient visit on an early-morning ward round at Footscray Hospital in my first placement as a second-year medical student. The line “I came to hospital with my innocence” was actually said by the patient and stuck with me, eventually inspiring this poem, which I wrote in a Narrative Medicine class run by Dr Fiona Reilly and Dr Mariam Tokhi. The poem depicts a dramatic rise and fall in tension during the patient visit. It is bookended by soulless technical medical abbreviations that exemplify patient notes on electronic medical records. Pt Pt alert and oriented, sitting upright in chair. Breathing comfortably, responsive to questions. Bilat basal creps, bilat pitting oedema to knee. Pt gazes out window at the opposite concrete wall Pt’s cataracts suddenly shimmer, a sorcerer’s crystal ball. Pt need not speak for his stony grimace conveys Pt’s sheer and utter avowal of his final dying days. Pt’s power becomes apparent in his mighty ocular grip Pt’s lungs echo black tattered sails of a ramshackle timber ship. “I came to hospital with my innocence” Professional, qualified eyes dart from computer To patient And back. “and now I muse on dark and violent tricks” Med student looks at intern looks at reg looks at consultant. Feet shuffle, lips purse Pretending not to hear. “Your poisons gift no remedy, your words fat and hollow” Like a serpentine hiss, his derision rings through sterile air 5-step Therapeutic Guidelines for Reassurance (vol 23.4, updated 2023) does little for his despair. Pt need not speak for his stony grimace conveys Pt’s sheer and utter avowal of his final dying days. Pt need not speak for his stony grimace conveys Pt’s sheer and utter avowal of his final dying days. Pt to await GEM. Frusemide 40mmHg. Cease abx. Refer physio. Refer OT. Call family. For d/c Monday. Previous article Next article back to MIRAGE