Sunday, November 10, 2013

Spritz, Boom, Bah!



Nothing says Texas A&M University like “refreshing top notes of Italian lemon, bergamot and iced pineapple.” Welcome to collegiate colognes, a rapidly growing niche in the fine fragrance business. Arian Campo-Flores and Meredith Rutland at the WSJ provide a decent rundown on the fad, and refrain from overdoing the cow shit jokes.

In actual fact, universities as “personalities” offer the perfumer as good a creative canvas as any—there are visuals, emotional associations and even the occasional bona fide scent marker. From a purely aesthetic point of view, there isn’t much to carp about. [Besides, we’ll have a ton of material once Parlux signs Miley Cyrus for Twerker.—Ed.]

The main danger for the collegiate cologne market is success—there are hundreds of universities and just not that many distinctive, high-quality fragrances to go around. By the time the trend hits Bergen Community College, we’ll be talking knock-offs and aftershave.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Challenges



I received a letter this week from an organization that wants me to join. Read the opening paragraph and see if you can guess which group sent it.
Dear Avery Gilbert, 
As global citizens, the challenges we face have never seemed greater than they do today. Climate change, chronic and emerging diseases, rising food costs, population pressures, environmental degradation, and continued reliance on fossil fuels are just some of the issues we all face in one form or another.
So where do think it come from? Here are your choices:
Sierra Club
American Psychological Association
Environmental Defense Fund
American Association for the Advancement of Science
I’ll post the answer later.

UPDATE November 10, 2013

Here is the answer:



What is the difference between an organization that promotes scientific research and one that advocates specific positions on public policy?

If you can’t distinguish one from the other based on their own communications, then whose fault is it that science is losing credibility as an honest, skeptical and disinterested endeavor?

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Obama’s BRAIN: Making It Up as They Go Along



Today’s issue of Nature has an article by Helen Shen recounting the tempestuous and confused story of President Obama’s BRAIN initiative. Coming after the administration’s botched launch of healthcare.gov, one is left in awe at the hubris of a government managed mega-research project that aims to simultaneously record all of the neural activity in the human brain, and that will involve scientific and budgetary coordination between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Kavli Foundation, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

As they say in the White House briefing room, expect a few glitches as things roll out.

Here’s a quick recap for those of you keeping score at home:

The White House, “on the lookout for a bold presidential initiative,” latched onto a blue-sky idea called the Brain Activity Map (BAM) which had been floated a few months earlier. The president mentioned it in his State of the Union speech on February 12, and the administration was soon talking about a ten-year, $3.8 billion plan. Many neuroscientists were “alarmed,” fearing that the money would be pulled from existing research programs, and that failure of such a titanic project might “undermine public trust in science.” One scientific critic called it “a very narrow agenda of a small group of people.”

The White House formally announced its plan on April 2, by which time BAM had been transformed by clever acronym into the BRAIN Initiative. Unlike BAM, Obama’s BRAIN had “no clearly defined goal” and many neuroscientists found it “puzzlingly vague” and yet “reassuring,” because details were to be left to DARPA, NIH, NSF and the four private foundations.

The hashing out of details took place at a meeting in Arlington, Virginia on May 6. Chen described that meeting as “a frenetic pitch-fest,” and a “cacophonous town hall meeting” filled with “restless attendees,” all lobbying for their particular scientific topics and techniques.
To the growing exasperation of audience members, however, there was no convergence towards a coherent agenda for the [BRAIN] initiative.
The boisterous open session was followed by a carefully stage-managed closed meeting at which the specially selected NIH advisory committee (a.k.a. “The Dream Team,” chaired by Rockefeller’s Cornelia Bargmann and Stanford’s William Newsome) heard privately from invited speakers. The Dream Team’s selection of speakers and topics drew fire from scientists who felt excluded.

After the meeting in Alexandria, the government research agencies began playing “after you, Alphonse,” with NSF and DARPA ultimately declining to take the lead in BRAIN planning. So all eyes were on the NIH advisory committee, which on September 16 made public its interim report on the project’s scientific priorities. The result will not surprise anyone who has served on a committee.
Many had feared that it would fail to be sufficiently inclusive, but the document was instead so staggeringly broad that it seemed to encompass all of circuit-based neuroscience.
The NIH advisory committee has now kicked the can down the road to an open comment session at the massive Society for Neuroscience meeting on November 11 in San Diego.

Having squeezed its fifteen minutes of attention out of the president’s SOTU speech, the Obama White House has “so far indicated no intention to coordinate the [inter-agency planning] process more formally.” Whether that is a bug or a feature has yet to be determined.

Chen’s detailed account of the BRAIN Initiative is remarkable—it brims with fear, anxiety, chaos, distraction, mistrust and lack of coordination. Welcome to Big Science in the Age of Obama. When we load every dream and wish onto the agenda of the Federal government, can we be surprised that the behemoth staggers and fails us? Are we shocked to find the Federal money trough swarmed by a selfish, unruly throng, and the spigot controlled by a small coterie of insiders? If you are, you haven’t been paying attention for the past five years.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Jimmy Kimmel’s Olfactory Placebo Sketch Comedy



There’s been a recent flurry of PR around a scent-emitting device that attaches to your iPhone and puffs aroma every time you get a text message. Called Scentee, it appears to be a re-branding of the ChatPerf device I blogged about in May.

Now the inestimable Jimmy Kimmel tees it up for a man-on-the-street bit. Since the Scentee is only available in Japan, Kimmel uses a dummy device for his “Imaginary Smell Edition of Lie Witness News.” If you have ever doubted the power of the olfactory placebo effect, here’s your answer.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Sniffing It on Beverly Boulevard



A headline from The Hollywood Reporter will warm the hearts of olfactory enthusiasts everywhere:
‘Perfume: The Story of a Murderer’ to Reshow With Newly Created Scent Track 
The 2006 film from Tom Tykwer will play at special screenings Nov. 6 and 7, giving audiences a special scent track with which to follow along.
Neato!

The event in L.A. is the brain child of Saskia Wilson-Brown at the ever-expanding Institute for Art and Olfaction who pulled together some corporate sponsorships to make it happen. Our pal and co-creator of the scent-track Christophe Laudamiel will be there in person. The fifteen custom scents will be delivered manually on blotters: low-tech but effective. The showings are free and limited to the first forty people which pretty much guarantees the place will be packed.

P.S. A Face Palme d’Or to The Hollywood Reporter’s Laurie Pike for mangling the history of scented movies:
Think of it as the sophisticated cousin of William Castle’s Smell-O-Vision and John Waters’ Odorama, the scratch-and sniff cinema gimmicks of 1960 and 1981, respectively.
Where to begin? Schlockmeister William Castle (of “Tingler” fame) did not invent Smell-O-Vision; Mike Todd, Jr. and Hans Laube did. They delivered scent through tubes to the theater seats, not via scratch-and-sniff (which hadn’t been invented yet). Smell-O-Vision’s actual cousin was Walter Reade’s AromaRama, which delivered scent via ventilation ducts. C’mon Ms. Pike, it’s not like someone didn’t already publish this piece of Hollywood history.*

*Which would make a great movie BTW.

Gotta go, Chili Palmer’s on line one.
“That was Rio Bravo. Robert Mitchum played the drunk in El Dorado. Dean Martin played the drunk in Rio Bravo. Basically the same part. John Wayne did the same on both. He played John Wayne.”