Richard,

I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a change. :)

The word 'significantly' triggered an autonomic reflex. But is the funding number itself really significantly less I wondered? I thought maybe I should check. So I did. OK, that wasn't exactly your point here but it's kind of related.

Assuming funded projects 'rain down' at random and generally evenly in proportion to population, is the difference in the two numbers significant if the populations are the same? A back of the envelop calculation says no.

Taking the worst case figure of incidence (1079) and assuming that it reflects the average rate of project 'rain' then what are the chances of it having been 1139 instead? Random 'rain' like this has pretty much a normal (Gaussian) distribution, the standard deviation of which is about √(what you see)*: in this case, √1079 ~= 33. In most studies, statistical significance is taken at the 5% level. For a Gaussian distribution this means falling outside two standard deviations from the expected average, which, for a two-tailed test, means a 2.5% chance at either end of falling outside. Actually 2 standard deviations gives 2.3% at either end but 2 sds is good enough (the strict figure is 1.96 sds).

Norway's excess is 1139 -1079 = 60, so it's just inside the 2-standard deviation mark, making it not significant.

Then I wondered about the populations sizes exactly. Googling gives ROI 4.58 million and Norway 5.03 million, about 9.8% larger. But the number of Norway's funded projects is only 5.6% more than ROI's. So ROI gets more per capita!

But not significantly more. :)

I would have liked to have done this in more excruciating detail and really dragged it out but just after I started I happened to notice that my left shoelace needed urgent attention. Inexplicably the knot has lost all symmetry! Gotta rush — emergency adjustment needed. I must remain calm. Pffff!


* From the binomial approximation to the Gaussian, and a very good one it generally is too in cases like this.


P.S. So no one's murdered Paul Nurse yet? How disappointing!

Edited by user 28 January 2013 04:45:31(UTC)  | Reason: Asterisk AWOL. Now sorted. Shoe lace doing well.

That's one nurse I shan't be holding onto for fear of something worse.

Richard,

Would yo have any objection if I forwarded your piece to the Royal Society in an attempt to draw out a response from Sir Paul. Its galling that these so called leaders in 'their field' constantly preach but never enter the debate at any meaningful level. I doubt very much they will respond but nothing ventured.

The article is now winging its way to Sir Paul via his very pleasant PA, Janet Bonner.........I await a response with baited breath.

Did anyone listen to Broadcasting House yesterday morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ipl...asting_House_27_01_2013/

There was an article "Life in the Future". 2017 and yesterday Britain voted to leave the EU. About 10 minutes into the programme.

Daniel Hannan and Sir Stephen Wall.

WOW!!!

With all that activity, can you even BEGIN to imagine what the fax machine market must be like in Norway?
}:-]

I dunno about FUD............let us see what the great dissembler says........................

I think this plays on Fear, Uncertainty and Bull****.

That would make it a FUB.

Here, I will provide a taster:



and -


Then,




Jog off Tony.....

but hey honestly I really do hope you nail your colours to the mast - you'd be doing us [secessionists] a great favour.

Lordy. Before I even considered how to tell nursey to keep his hands to himself, I got stuck at the picture! If the nobels and other assessors can take phizzogs like that seriously .... no wonder science is in such a mess. But then, what did euro-meisters ever care about judging character....