Google Glass - now available as shades. Photo: Ajit Niranjan / The New Statesman
Show Hide image

Google Glass launches in the UK, but don't expect to be wearing them anytime soon

Google just launched their prototype smartglasses in the UK, two years after they hit the US.

“Ok, glass.”

Two simple words, and a passable imitation of Benedict Cumberbatch’s public school tones – think Sherlock, not Smaug – start a frenzy of activity in the top right-hand corner of my eye. A list of voice commands appears on a screen that feels as if it's projected eight feet away, which I scroll through with the slightest tilt of my head. 

I triple-tap my temple and suddenly I can see the solar system from within the showroom by Central St. Martins on an overcast Monday evening. Constellations and planets are annotated in space but the text is unnecessary. I turn slowly on the spot till I locate the sun hovering over St. Pancras, and a soft voice reads out a Wikipedia-style entry of the star.

This is Google Glass, the latest in high-tech gadgetry. Star Chart, just one of the apps in the prototype I’m playing about with during Glass’ UK launch last night, is like a virtual planetarium which operates on a point-and-look model – no swiping or clicking needed. GPS and gyroscopes make it perfectly suited to Google’s hands-free headset.

The technology giant is selling the prototype of Google Glass for £1000, but don’t write it off because of the price-tag. Though the final version will undoubtedly be much cheaper, the current model is being released now to get public feedback on the project. Just as it has been in the US, Google is looking for British “Explorers” to test the product out and report their experiences of it. Speaking to The Guardian, 'Head of Glass' Ivy Ross – the intellectual counterpart to Blondie – said:

What you’re seeing now is that the people in businesses that acquired them are coming up with all these amazing use cases for it, but the same thing is happening with consumers – artists, mums, dads, school teachers, scientists – they’re doing amazing things with it too.” 

Their London video gives a little taster of how they expect it to take off.

Set aside the technological jargon – one of the team describes it as an “optical head-mounted display optimised for augmented reality” – and it's hard to deny that Glass is actually quite nifty, and user-friendly too: within ten minutes I've got the hang of interacting with the headset, through a combination of vocal commands, swipes and head nods. The employee demonstrating Glass to me – whose Polish accent is just a touch too strong for the voice recognition software – even showcases the surreptitious "wink-for-a-photo"  command. 

Fun as the applications are, there's a strong mood in the room that Google is onto something bigger than a snazzy gadget. Global director of marketing Ed Sanders believes Glass might help us interact more with the real world by taking us away from smartphones and tablets:

People are looking down; people are getting buried in technology. We have a deep, sort of philosophical desire to help people look back up. And one of the big things behind Glass is how you put people back in the moment.”

Supposedly, its functions can be called up without taking the user away from the action. The demonstrator puts this in perspective: imagine you’re on holiday. Want to find directions to a fancy restaurant? Translate the indecipherable Italian menu? Shazam the Pavarotti in the background? Google thinks Glass will let it embed technology in day-to-day life without detracting from the experiences.

Sanders – who managed to use Glass to record the first time his son said ‘Dada’ – thinks the company really might be onto something. The smartglasses were developed by Google X, a “Charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory” division of Google responsible for projects like the driverless car. The guiding mantra at the semi-secret research facility is to make technology ten times better, not just ten percent – hence the X in the name.

But Glass isn't without its shortcomings. The product's been plagued by bugs and it looks to be a long, long while before a polished, glitch-free version is on the market. Unfortunately the criticisms don't stop there. In the short time I used it, the demonstrator accidentally 'took control' of my glasses by saying commands a bit too loudly. In America it’s come under so much criticism for intruding on privacy that bars and restaurants in tech-hub San Francisco have banned it. Civil liberties groups have voiced concerns that the technology will enable stealthy spying.

Of course, there's the fashion angle as well. Despite partnering up with Ray-Ban and other high-end fashion brands, the fact remains that many users are reluctant to publicise their purchase. Google can make the design as streamlined and versatile as it likes, but something about the mini-computer sat on the bridge of your nose just screams "dweeb". 

So don't expect to see Glass becoming a part of everyday life anytime soon. The technology might be getting there but there's a whole marketing minefield that Google will have to navigate through first. After all, who really wants to be a "Glasshole"?

Davide Restivo at Wikimedia Commons
Show Hide image

Scientists have finally said it: alcohol causes cancer

Enough of "linked" and "attributable": a new paper concludes that alcohol directly causes seven types of cancer.

I don't blame you if you switch off completely at the words "causes cancer". If you pay attention to certain publications, everything from sunbeds, to fish, to not getting enough sun, can all cause cancer. But this time, it's worth listening.

The journal Addiction has published a paper that makes a simple, yet startling, claim: 

"Evidence can support the judgement that alcohol causes cancer of the oropharynx [part of the throat], larynx, oesophagus, liver, colon, rectum and [female] breast"

So what's especially significant about this? 

First, scientists, unlike journalists, are very wary of the word "causes". It's hard to ever prove that one action directly led to another, rather than that both happened to occur within the same scenario. And yet Jennie Connor, author of the paper and professor in the Preventive and Social Medicine department at the University of Otago, New Zealand, has taken the leap.

Second, alcohol not only causes cancer of one kind – the evidence supports the claim that it causes cancer at seven different sites in our bodies. There was weaker evidence that it may also cause skin, prostate and pancreatic cancer, while the link between mouth cancers and alcohol consumption was the strongest. 

What did we know about alcohol and cancer before?

Many, many studies have "linked" cancer to alcohol, or argued that some cases may be "attributable" to alcohol consumption. 

This paper loooks back over a decade's worth of research into alcohol and cancer, and Connor concludes that all this evidence, taken together, proves that alcohol "increases the incidence of [cancer] in the population".

However, as Connor notes in her paper, "alcohol’s causal role is perceived to be more complex than tobacco's", partly because we still don't know exactly how alcohol causes cancer at these sites. Yet she argues that the evidence alone is enough to prove the cause, even if we don't know exactly how the "biologial mechanisms" work. 

Does this mean that drinking = cancer, then?

No. A causal link doesn't mean one thing always leads to the other. Also, cancer in these seven sites was shown to have what's called a "dose-response" relationship, which means the more you drink, the more you increase your chances of cancer.

On the bright side, scientists have also found that if you stop drinking altogether, you can reduce your chances back down again.

Are moderate drinkers off the hook?

Nope. Rather devastatingly, Connor notes that moderate drinkers bear a "considerable" portion of the cancer risk, and that targeting only heavy drinkers with alcohol risk reduction campaigns would have "limited" impact. 

What does this mean for public health? 

This is the tricky bit. In the paper, Connor points out that, given what we know about lung cancer and tobacco, the general advice is simply not to smoke. Now, a strong link proven over years of research may suggest the same about drinking, an activity society views as a bit risky but generally harmless.

Yet in 2012, it's estimated that alcohol-attributable cancers killed half a million people, which made up 5.8 per cent of cancer deaths worldwide. As we better understand the links between the two, it's possible that this proportion may turn out to be a lot higher. 

As she was doing the research, Connor commented:

"We've grown up with thinking cancer is very mysterious, we don't know what causes it and it's frightening, so to think that something as ordinary as drinking is associated with cancer I think is quite difficult."

What do we do now?

Drink less. The one semi-silver lining in the study is that the quantity of alcohol you consume has a real bearing on your risk of developing these cancers. 

On a wider scale, it looks like we need to recalibrate society's perspective on drinking. Drug campaigners have long pointed out that alcohol, while legal, is one of the most toxic and harmful drugs available  an argument that this study will bolster.

In January, England's chief medical officer Sally Davies introduced some of the strictest guidelines on alcohol consumption in the world, and later shocked a parliamentary hearing by saying that drinking could cause breast cancer.

"I would like people to take their choice knowing the issues," she told the hearing, "And do as I do when I reach for my glass of wine and think... do I want to raise my risk of breast cancer?"

Now, it's beginning to look like she was ahead of the curve. 

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