tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/nomakeupselfie-9665/articles#nomakeupselfie – The Conversation2014-05-27T13:46:38Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/272422014-05-27T13:46:38Z2014-05-27T13:46:38ZTwictionaries are adorkable but there’s a bigger story here<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49555/original/mwtnm2vs-1401194856.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Guess which way their vote is going.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/janitors/13890023923/sizes/l">Janitors</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Collins, publisher of one of the world’s most well-known dictionaries, is running a <a href="http://twictionary.collinsdictionary.com/word/adorkable">competition</a> to encourage members of the public to vote on the new words that should be included in its next edition.</p>
<p>But the hype around the selection of the words is masking something more special – the new resource on offer to us as amateur and professional word-lovers.</p>
<p>Candidates suggested by the Collins editors for the competition include adorkable, felfie, fatberg, nomakeupselfie, duckface, gaybourhood, Euromaiden, <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vaguebooking">vaguebooking</a> and fractivist.</p>
<p>You’ve got one more day to vote, but early indications suggest that Cancer Research UK is in favour of nomakeupselfie, following the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-nomakeupselfie-text-gave-cancer-research-funding-a-huge-boost-24759">campaign that raised millions for its work</a>, and <a href="http://farmershub.co.uk/backing-the-felfie-for-twictionary-2014/">farmers support felfie</a> – the latest version of the selfie which involves standing in front of a cow, tractor or other farmyard favourite. Thames Water is putting its <a href="https://twitter.com/thameswater/status/468677770730807297">weight behind fatberg</a>, after a <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-must-change-our-ways-to-fight-fatbergs-16831">lump of fat</a> the size of a bus was discovered in a London sewer last summer.</p>
<h2>New English, old method</h2>
<p>The intended outcome of this viral marketing campaign is clearly a Twitter buzz and the associated newspaper coverage rather than a meaningful sampling of public opinion on new words.</p>
<p>It’s not the first time that Collins has taken this approach. In 2012, the publisher invited members of the public to nominate 12 words of the year. Broga, legbomb, Eurogeddon, mummy porn, Zuckered, jubilympics, Romneyshambles, Games Makers, 47 per cent, Superstorm, Gangnam style and fiscal cliff were duly identified. </p>
<p>Excitement mounted in 2013, when the element of competition was introduced. Geek eventually emerged as the winner from a field of words that included twerking, bitcoin, phablet, plebgate, fracker, cybernat, thigh gap, olinguito, black Friday, payday lending and Harlem shake.</p>
<p>That’s geek, first cited in the Oxford English Dictionary from 1876 with the sense “a fool”, from 1957 in the sense “an unsociable obsessive person”, and from 1984 “a computer-obsessive”. This, in itself, illustrates how little value there is in crowdsourcing as a means of collecting lexical data. However, crowdsourcing has turned out to be a much more effective way to generate publicity than Collins’ previous efforts.</p>
<p>In 2011, the big story was the compilation of a list of words that had fallen from use, including aerodrome and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8726462/OMG-the-charabanc-has-been-plutoed.html">charabanc</a>, though some of the new words under consideration, such as Arab Spring and alarm clock Britain, also won a few column inches.</p>
<p>There’s no harm to any of this, of course. Collins gets people interested in its work, newspapers and bloggers lap it up and people who care are mildly distracted for a moment. We fulminate against the deterioration of the language or celebrate the moment “the dictionary” finally catches up with the latest linguistic innovations.</p>
<p>But it’s actually not a new trend. In 1859, work began on what we now call the Oxford English Dictionary with an appeal to members of the public to send in examples of words in use. This would not have been successful without some recent advances in communication and transport: postage stamps, the railway and steam ships. </p>
<p>The Oxford English Dictionary has updated its technology in the intervening years, and readers can now submit information to OED Appeals via its website. The <a href="http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/march-2014-update/new-words-list-march-2014/">OED New Words</a> list regularly causes newspapers, bloggers and tweeters to seethe with outrage or chortle at the incongruity of the most “establishment” of all dictionaries including bestie, e-ticket, honey trap, Old Etonian (all added in March 2014), or whichever one of the dozens of new words can most readily produce a witty remark or headline. Another new word list is due out in June, so there is still time to place bets on the next controversy.</p>
<h2>Beyond chatter</h2>
<p>What’s interesting about the newspaper coverage of Collins’ campaign is that the story isn’t so much about the words, but about the dictionary’s use of Twitter as a source of data. There even appear to be more tweets encouraging people to vote than there are actual votes.</p>
<p>This is a story about words, with all the usual themes, but it’s also a story about how those words are created and become mainstream. </p>
<p>I like to see stories about words and dictionaries – it’s reassuring to see that my own academic interests are not entirely irrelevant to normal people. But it’s a shame, really, that dictionaries and newspapers are trivialising language change by pressing all the usual buttons. </p>
<p>Twitter is an excellent source of information about the history of words. Hundreds of felfies have been posted on Twitter since August 2012, for example, but the word originally had a more varied meaning than the Collins campaign suggests. There were friend selfies, family selfies, fun selfies, foot selfies, fake selfies and Friday selfies. But the farmer selfie emerged as the most common by late 2013. This was in no small part due to the concerted efforts of numerous agricultural organisations, keen to generate a bit of attention for farming.</p>
<p>Although there are only <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Felfie">two definitions for felfie on Urban Dictionary</a>, they confirm this pattern: the fake selfie sense was defined in April 2013 and the farmer selfie sense in February 2014. Google Blog Search doesn’t produce many examples before January 2014, but the earliest ones appear to indicate that the craze for posting felfies began in Europe, specifically in Germany.</p>
<p>This is an incredible level of depth for a dictionary researcher to be able to access: the original editors of the OED would have been glad to have two or three citations to choose from.</p>
<p>So by all means vote in this dictionary Pop Idol but why not then take some time to do a little digging of your own? You can track back on Twitter to see how rapidly these words changed and gained traction and even see the forces that shaped that change. It’s a far more valuable use of your time than vaguebooking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27242/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Coleman has received research funding from the British Academy and the AHRC.</span></em></p>Collins, publisher of one of the world’s most well-known dictionaries, is running a competition to encourage members of the public to vote on the new words that should be included in its next edition…Julie Coleman, Professor of English Language, University of LeicesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/264792014-05-12T05:19:47Z2014-05-12T05:19:47ZSelfies in stories motivate but don’t turn children into digital bookworms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48155/original/3z5w93wg-1399626571.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C494%2C2523%2C2024&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Baby's first selfie.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jenny-pics/5661879987/in/photolist-9CjBEt-6BYRFu-sRSQ2-75xY4x-JRJgK-sRS82-sRS7Y-sRSkY-sRSm1-XPpnu-6BYRVG-6BYS3q-7SbrYN-7S8cNp-7S8cZz-9x7ky-5yVFH5-5yVJ2L-HzVy1-dwEzdD-dwEyMK-dvEGts-dwL58w-cit6nE-5TtszV-8UeYrT-oJx5z-7wciMe-sRS7V-bfKUL4-bfKUr8-bfKUHv-bfKUhn-bfKUtk-bfKUEV-bfKUMH-bfKUWD-bfKUni-bfKUAp-bfKUSD-bfKUPi-593b1E-eTqrQz-eTqs1r-4SaHos-e5AvCA-6BYQvm-fXBJud-6MTPGq-7pxotV">Jenny Downing</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tap on me, click on me, publish me! We live in an era of a digital <a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-selfie-youre-more-than-just-a-narcissists-plaything-20514">selfie</a> obsession. There is a growing tendency to create self-centred digital environments. You only need to look at a few Facebook profiles or the recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/reaction-to-no-makeup-selfies-reveals-how-most-of-us-really-feel-about-cosmetics-24811">no make-up selfie</a> trend to see this tendency in action.</p>
<p>And gradually, the selfie is creeping into digital products for young children, particularly apps and e-books. Some children’s digital books allow readers to insert their own photos or narration into pre-established story templates. Many now give them the option to create their own personal stories and share them <a href="http://mystoryapp.org/">online, via Facebook or Twitter.</a></p>
<p>Selfies are not necessarily a bad thing but there are implications in letting toddlers make them part of their reading. That includes the <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/ProjectOutputs.aspx">safety</a> issues that arise when children take pictures of themselves and <a href="http://www.booktrust.org.uk/news-and-blogs/blogs/booktrust/707">the marketing implications of personalisation features</a>. </p>
<p>It is crucial that adults educate and protect children from <a href="http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/resource/marketing-children-overview">unwanted commercial influences</a> but also the potential developmental impact that could come from selfie propagation. Children will clearly be more drawn to products which feature them as princesses or knights rather than unknown characters, but this may lead to solitary engagement and self-centredness if not supported by effective story sharing mechanisms.</p>
<p>While adults often take selfies with an agenda in mind, young children do so as part of their self-centred view of the world. Children under the age of three or four typically don’t have fully developed theory of mind and might not be able to understand or predict what others think. Adults therefore need to be there to discuss with children what the various <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/icd.1814/abstract;jsessionid=3ACBA734E0446424C994C07CC6BE70AC.f01t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false">characters might feel or think</a> and enrich children’s personal stories with their own personal stories. </p>
<p>In addition, adults can help children personalise their stories, not just with pictures but also with their own texts and audio-sounds. This process can be mutually engaging as parents too, will be more motivated to share a story with their child if it contains <a href="http://www.mebooks.co/">their own voice-overs</a> or story extensions.</p>
<p>Personal stories shared between parents and children at home contribute to a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lit.12003/abstract;jsessionid=D2E7744E052CCBDAF67808149A72D60A.f03t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false%22">happy atmosphere</a>. Personal stories shared and co-created between young children in pre-schools led to more joint problem-solving and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131513002881">productive talk</a> in the classroom. Children discussed, for example, which picture to use to best represent their recent school trip or how to write a friend’s name to accompany a specific picture. Similarly in <a href="http://cdq.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/06/1525740114525226.abstract%22">special needs schools</a>, children have been seen to be meaningfully engaged when they could verify their story understandings with others. </p>
<p>So if we are going to let children personalise their reading experiences, it should be about more than just let them take their own pictures. We need to support them with sharing and enriching their selfies and guide them to understand that stories should show diversity, invite co-reading and the exchange of ideas. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26479/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalia Kucirkova receives funding as a KTP Associate. She is affiliated with The Open University and Booktrust.</span></em></p>Tap on me, click on me, publish me! We live in an era of a digital selfie obsession. There is a growing tendency to create self-centred digital environments. You only need to look at a few Facebook profiles…Natalia Kucirkova, KTP Associate for Booktrust, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/251722014-04-23T14:38:27Z2014-04-23T14:38:27ZYoung, undecided and in the front line of Scotland’s indyref mindgames<p>To make an obvious point, the younger generation’s opinions on the referendum have not been formed by as much experience as those of the older generation. Many potential voters were not alive throughout Margaret Thatcher’s premiership and were not politically conscious during those of John Major or even Tony Blair – remember that 16-year-olds were only nine when Blair left office. I myself was just eight when Scotland’s devolved parliament was established in 1999. </p>
<p>Though surveys indicate that young voters are <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country">less likely</a> to be undecided than the <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/01/do-we-need-to-take-the-undecideds-seriously/">population as a whole</a>, their lack of experience may well make them easier to influence. If the political strategists can succeed at influencing them, it may well swing the vote in September.</p>
<h2>Spin when you’re winning</h2>
<p>Just like in any election, voters have to contend with spin, propaganda and the opinions of those with power and vested interests. Every word written or spoken to us, every image used and even details down to things like politicians’ facial expressions will usually have been carefully considered by a panel of individuals intent on persuading us and influencing the outcome of the referendum. </p>
<p>Some of this will be in plain sight, but decision making can also be influenced by manipulating what we in psychology call the “cognitive unconscious”. As most people will be aware, the power of associations is extremely important in psychology. </p>
<p>Ivan Pavlov’s <a href="http://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html">classic study</a> of 1902 showed that if a bell is played enough times before a dog is fed, eventually the sound of the bell will cause the dog to salivate. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46927/original/dfvqq4yh-1398259898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46927/original/dfvqq4yh-1398259898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46927/original/dfvqq4yh-1398259898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46927/original/dfvqq4yh-1398259898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46927/original/dfvqq4yh-1398259898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46927/original/dfvqq4yh-1398259898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46927/original/dfvqq4yh-1398259898.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pavlov’s dog, slaved by the bell!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kaptainkobold/375725338/in/photolist-zcG45-7tTAYX-7sxNek-8KHkzt-dKHrNQ-69VKyx-65Jwa2-2d4mJP-6e1BrN-9qBoGa-3LkPG-6x9rC-6hfgY-7VT6ub-7ouSZj-ajbNP1-4MCBe-3LkPF-4MCBd-4MCfZ-3LkPE-dqA9EN-bksLnP-cCZqiW-41LDh-45yjf-9F9eNf-41LDm-fzPve3-fzzbuT-cP3ZGf-cCZzSj-cCZzcE-cCZtrs-41LL6-7WM6dS-41LL5-41LL4-95mauv-45yjh-41LDn-cP41M3-45yjg-41LDg-3MMVN-8NncEi-47wvVR-diAkFU-84Wcz8-6Jf7P4">Alan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This so-called classical conditioning occurs in humans too. A <a href="http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/">persuasive study</a> by the well known US psychologist John Bargh nearly 20 years ago looked into the power of unconsciously formed patterns of information. Participants were asked to make sentences out of groups of words – some had to work with words related to politeness, some with words related to rudeness and some with neutral words. </p>
<p>Then participants had to walk down the hall and present their work to a professor who was conversing with someone else. Those who had worked with polite words waited longer to interrupt the conversation than those in the neutral group, while those working with rude words interrupted it faster.</p>
<h2>Old dogs, new tricks</h2>
<p>In another experiment, some participants had to form sentences with words related to old age while others were given words that were unrelated to it. The old age group got up and left the room more slowly than the others did. Such studies show the power of unconscious activations on decision making and behaviour that can happen without people being consciously aware that they are being manipulated. </p>
<p>There are numerous examples of such associations in the present debate. The saltire has become synonymous with independence, for instance, and so has the use of Yes in a particular font. On the other hand the pound has become a hallmark of unity.</p>
<p>It is important to know where our opinions and attitudes come from and why we hold them. Doing so allows us to maintain power over our decisions. Even if your opinions are based on those of your parents, this is preferable to having opinions based around selectively presented facts, biases and – in some cases – all-out manipulations. </p>
<p><a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/59/4/614/">Studies have shown</a> that it becomes more and more likely that people will fall back on their attitudes to help them make decisions as the opportunity to use available knowledge decreases – something that may happen because of perpetual mind games and disinformation that can get in the way. </p>
<p>The best tool we can arm ourselves with to avoid the manipulation of our unconscious in this way is information. Inform yourself as best you can with objective and impartial facts. In a political world where things are rarely said or shown by accident, real facts are the best way to make informed decisions. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25172/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Aitken does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>To make an obvious point, the younger generation’s opinions on the referendum have not been formed by as much experience as those of the older generation. Many potential voters were not alive throughout…Paul Aitken, Research post-graduate, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/247592014-03-31T13:43:43Z2014-03-31T13:43:43ZHow the #nomakeupselfie text gave cancer research funding a huge boost<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45166/original/z2yyk9m4-1396261673.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the name of science ...</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://twitter.com/morningireland/status/448069182765035520">morningireland</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It wouldn’t normally be cause for celebration when something related to cancer goes viral, but the recent #nomakeupselfie trend has been <a href="http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/25/nomakeupselfie-some-questions-answered/" title="Cancer Research UK: #nomakeupselfie—some questions answered">great news</a> for charity-funded cancer research. The campaign has already raised more than £8m, after women posted photos of themselves wearing no make-up to social media websites. So what sort of a contribution does this make to science funding? And how does that compare with the rest of the world’s charitable giving to scientific research?</p>
<p>During the #nomakeupselfie campaign, women <a href="https://twitter.com/CR_UK/status/446223117841494016" title="Twitter: Cancer Research UK">were encouraged</a> to post a ‘<a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-selfie-youre-more-than-just-a-narcissists-plaything-20514">selfie</a>’, and then make a text-message donation of £3. That doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but in the UK only <a href="http://scienceogram.org/in-depth/health/" title="Scienceogram: Health">£5.20 per person per year</a> is spent on charity-funded cancer research. Many of those who donated won’t have thought twice about donating £3 and yet, taken on average, they have boosted personal charity funding of cancer research by nearly two-thirds.</p>
<p>When compared with research into other diseases, the numbers are even more stark: a £3 donation to stroke research would be more than eight times the research spend per person per year—for government and charity combined. This kind of comparison drives home the point that small investments in science can nonetheless make significant contributions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=190&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45162/original/6m3tpgmw-1396259964.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=239&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scienceogram UK</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The combined economic impact of these diseases comes to more than <a href="http://scienceogram.org/in-depth/health/" title="Scienceogram: Health">£800 per person per year</a>—a figure combining the cost to the health service with other indirect costs to the economy, such as people giving up work as a result of their condition. This £800 is pitted against our combined research spend of around £13 from both government and charitable sources.</p>
<p>Thus, charity provides an important contribution to UK medical research – but its impact on science more generally is less significant. First, while charities researching specific diseases find it comparatively easy to raise funds (and it is important to emphasise the “comparatively” here – they are still only able to spend around £20 per year on behalf of the average UK citizen), it is not so easy to find charity support for research into less emotive and widely-known topics. </p>
<p>Whether you are researching fundamental organometallic chemistry, nuclear fusion, or even understanding <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/20/2011.htm#a92" title="House of Lords reports: Ageing—scientific aspects">the ageing process which gives rise to many of these diseases</a>, charity funding is relatively hard to come by. Taken across all areas of research, the UK non-profit spend on research and development is about eight times less than the £160 per capita spent by the government.</p>
<p>The UK is a world leader when it comes to charity-funded scientific research: spending of £20 per capita places the UK fourth in the world. In pole position, the US spends around £30 per person and, as you move down the rankings, the amount spent drops off significantly. Turkey, in 20th place, spends just £3.30 per capita on research funded by non-profits – equivalent to just over one #nomakeupselfie donation per person per year.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=557&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/45053/original/npmsqmzb-1396215671.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=700&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scienceogram UK</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another source of potentially significant resources for scientific research is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html" title="New York Times: Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science">high net-worth individuals</a>. From Bill Gates funding research into global health to Intel’s Gordon Moore donating towards projects from astronomy to ecology, the super-rich are making inroads into science funding. The world’s 100 wealthiest individuals are worth a combined £1.2 trillion, which is probably enough to develop nuclear fusion, add a few years to global life expectancy, send humans back to the Moon, and still have change.</p>
<p>However, loosening those purse strings will undoubtedly prove tricky: the $125bn offered by signatories to Bill Gates’s Giving Pledge represents around £70 per citizen of the developed world, or around three months’ worth of global public-funded spend on research and development. While still a significant amount of money, it seems clear that it won’t be supplanting state funding of science any time soon.</p>
<p>So, while non-profit funding makes up a significant fraction of medical research funding in certain countries, neither non-profits’ nor big philanthropic spending can replace the vital contributions made by the public and private sectors. The #nomakeupselfie campaign is one lens through which to view this: a £3 personal donation is both a lot, when it comes to charitable spending on research, and comparatively little, in the landscape of global funding of scientific research.</p>
<p>However, the success of #nomakeupselfie does demonstrate <a href="http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3357/Public-Attitudes-to-Science-2014.aspx" title="IPSOS Mori: Public Attitudes to Science 2014">a public appetite for supporting medical research</a>, and putting these numbers into context shows that a little extra money from each of us could make a difference. For those seeking an increase in science funding, while charitable donations can help, it is important to get governments on board too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24759/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Steele runs Scienceogram UK, a campaign raising awareness of the diminutive size of the governmen's spend on science compared to the size of the problems it is trying to solve.
He is funded by Cancer Research UK, but opinions expressed in this article are his own.</span></em></p>It wouldn’t normally be cause for celebration when something related to cancer goes viral, but the recent #nomakeupselfie trend has been great news for charity-funded cancer research. The campaign has…Andrew Steele, Post-doctoral research fellow, London Research InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.