Homeopathy and public policy - a match made in the moonlight?

Something in the water...

Such delicious paradoxes are rare events and should be relished. The House of Commons science and technology select committee exists “to ensure that government policy and decision-making are based on good scientific and engineering advice and evidence”. David Tredinnick, the MP for Bosworth, has just joined it. Upcoming business includes a discussion of how we can reduce the presence of pollutants in our water. The idea is to look at what chemicals should be allowed to remain in water discharged into public resources and at what level. Who better to assess the evidence than a champion of homoeopathy?

Homoeopathy involves dilutions of chemicals, often to the point where the medicine contains not a single molecule of the chemical that is supposed to be doing the healing. The higher the dilution, the more powerful the medicinal effect. Tredinnick has been a fervent supporter of the idea that the National Health Service should offer patients free homoeopathic treatment if they request it.

Scientists have suggested this is not the best use of scarce NHS resources, given that homoeopathy has been shown to be no better than a placebo. Yet Tredinnick has used his position in parliament to request that the government respond to “attacks by the socalled scientific establishment” by being “robust in [its] support for homoeopathy and consider what can be done so that it is used more effectively in the health service”.

Proponents of homoeopathy suggest that water “memorises” substances that have been dissolved in it. If this is true, not only is there no prospect of extracting pollutants from water, but the more we try to clean it, the more dangerous the water becomes. A logical position for Tredinnick to take is that the European Union’s Water Framework Directive is based on a misguided premise and the whole project should be dropped.

It will be interesting to see what Tredinnick makes of the evidence submitted concerning clinical trials by pharmaceutical companies. Submissions close on 22 February; we wait with bated breath for his interpretation of the question, “Can lessons about transparency and disclosure of clinical data be learned from other countries?” He has asserted in parliament that the long traditions of astrology-based health care in Chinese, Muslim and Hindu cultures make it worth considering introducing similar practices in the NHS.

Tredinnick knows, at least, that science isn’t easy: he has gone on the record to declare that radionics, which involves “the transmission of a signal that sends a healing process to someone remotely”, is “difficult for science to test”. That didn’t stop him suggesting that radionics might also be of interest to the NHS.

Tredinnick did go on to applaud science for discovering that “pregnancy, hangovers and visits to one’s GP may be affected by the awesome power of the moon”. Sadly, science hasn’t made this discovery; neither has it proved his assertion that arson attacks “increase by 100 per cent during a full moon”. This is a man who will be weighing up evidence about the best way to improve the use of forensic science by the police force in the UK.

When Richard Feynman defined science as the art of not fooling yourself – “. . . and you are the easiest person to fool” – he might have been thinking of Tredinnick. However, Andrew Miller, chair of the select committee, is unlikely to take Tredinnick’s assessments seriously. Miller is an Aries and they’re always very sceptical.

Pills for homeopathic remedies. Photograph: Getty Images

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 25 February 2013 issue of the New Statesman, The cheap food delusion

Apple
Show Hide image

Is Apple Music really deleting users’ songs without their consent?

It's hard to tell – but the iTunes Terms and Conditions seem to cover the company even if it does.

Musician James Pinkstone was a new Apple Music user when he realised that 122GB of music was missing from his computer.

According to a long blogpost he published on Wednesday, Apple Music attempted to “match” his music with songs in its online library via a function called “iMatch”. It then, Pinkstone claims, deleted all 122GB of his original files – collected from CDs, bought, and even created himself over a lifetime – from his hard drive.  

Luckily, Pinkstone was able to restore his library from a backup, but if what he says is true, it’s outrageous for a number of reasons. Apple Music streams music to users, meaning you need to be connected to Wi-Fi while you’re listening, so it isn’t the same as having an iTunes library of songs you actually own. You can download individual songs from the service to your device, but as Pinkstone writes, “it would take around 30 hours to get my music back” in this way. Your music and playlists also disappear if you stop paying your Apple Music subscription fee.

Meanwhile, iMatch has been notoriously rubbish at matching your files with music library entries, sparking lots of user complaints already. Pinkstone says a Fountains of Wayne song was replaced by a later version, for example, so he would have been unable to get the original song back.

So is it true? It’s not totally clear what happened to Pinkstone’s library, but here’s what we know so far.

Apple has said it doesn’t delete users’ music without their consent

Apple declined to give me a statement, but referred me to the piece “No, Apple Music is not deleting tracks off your hard drive – unless you tell it to” on the site iMore, which is not affiliated with the company but which the spokesperson described as “accurate background”.

Its author, Serenity Caldwell, explains that you have “primary” and “secondary” devices on Apple Music, and that on secondary devices (usually phones or tablets) in particular it’s advisable to delete your physical copies of songs to free up space – after all, you can stream everything via Apple Music anyway or download individual songs if you need them.

However, users should never delete files from their “primary” device (usually your desktop or laptop computer) because they’d lose the master copy of their songs forever.

…But customers might be giving that consent by accident

Jason Snell, a writer, speculated on Twitter that a misleading dialogue box may have caused Pinkstone his problems.

When you delete a song on any device, a dialogue box pops up offering to “delete” the song from “your iCloud Music Library and from your other devices” (emphasis mine). It’s more than possible that users would click this “delete” button rather than the less obvious “remove download” option which removes the song only from that device.

Apple Music’s terms and conditions cover it if it does delete your songs

Pinkstone seems to argue that he did no such thing, however, and it’s possible that there’s a bug as yet undiscovered by Apple which is deleting songs at will.

However, as Pinkstone points out, iTunes terms of use actually do cover it in the event the programme damages your files, or your property in general.

One section reads:

“IN NO CASE SHALL APPLE, ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATES, AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM YOUR USE OF THE APPLE MUSIC SERVICE OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM RELATED IN ANY WAY TO YOUR USE OF THE APPLE MUSIC SERVICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ANY CONTENT OR APPLE MUSIC PRODUCTS, OR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF ANY CONTENT OR APPLE MUSIC PRODUCTS POSTED, TRANSMITTED, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE VIA THE APPLE MUSIC SERVICE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THEIR POSSIBILITY.”

Elsewhere, it defends its right to withdraw access to Apple products at will  including songs and albums you're under the impression you bought from them outright:

Apple and its principals reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any iTunes Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the iTunes Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for making these changes.

Tl;dr: Until there’s some explanation for Pinkstone’s lost library, it might be a good idea to avoid using the iMatch function, or even Apple Music altogether. It seems very unlikely that the software would be able to delete files without your consent, but given you aren’t covered if they do, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.