Distractions and amusements, with a sandwich and coffee.
With some very smart people, I work on problems in data visualization applied to cancer research and genome analysis. Previously I was involved in fingerprint mapping, system administration, computer security, fashion photography, medical imaging and LHC particle physics. My work is guided by a need to rationalize, make things pretty, combine science with art, mince words, find good questions and help make connections between ideas. All while exercising snark.
Jul 27 2005 | text and photos by Martin Krzywinski | After reading the UBC media release announcing that model rockets would be fired at UBC, I could not resist.
The contest was to launch a rocket at least 150m into the air with a payload of an egg and bottle of maple syrup. You guess it - the egg had to be returned back to earth in relative safety. I was first in line to see the egg carnage, which promised to be the best part of the show. Who wants to see whole eggs landing in relative safety anyway?
Not knowing exactly where the launch would be held (the media release said Thundebird Park - which is huge), I was hanging around at the center of the park hoping that smoke and cheers would guide me. Sure enough, at about 5:30 I heard a bang and a puff of smoke.
I found the launch platform - but unfortunately missed the first lift-off.
I was well positioned with my camera for the second launch. After a few times being told to step even further back - so that I would not get egg on my face, I'm sure - I settled into a position that was both safe and a good lookout.
Unfortunately, from my vantage point I was shooting right into the sun, so the photos are a little bleached out. I also had the 24-70mm f/2.8L on my 20D so I couldn't get good reach. The photos here are 100% crops.
Shooting at 5 fps, I caught the first sign of the plume developing around the rocket as its engines ignited.
After the second frame, the acceleration was rapid and the rocket lifted off to 2-3 m before my next frame.
And it was on its way!
And then it just kept going, and going and going. It finally disappeared travelling west. Nobody heard from the egg again.
After the second launch I repositioned myself to face south, with the sun at my back. After the excitement of the egg launched into orbit, I could hardly anticipate what came next. I was in for a show so exciting that all remaining launches were promptly canceled. Read on.
Before the launch, I caught the engineers looking over their rocket. Handling it lovingly, they were making sure that the eggnaut and maple syrup were snuggly nestled into the payload canister.
The tension was palpable. Would it launch? Would it reach 150m? Would the eggnaut return to tell the tale without cracking?
Once again, the shutter flapped at 5 fps as the rocket took off. This time, I caught the start of the plume at just the right time and captured the rocket take off in the first few frames.
The trip started solidly for our eggnaut. The launch was timely, and more importantly, the rocket was travelling vertically - upwards. Would the egg make a career out of it? Just as our hopes were rising, we realized that something was terribly wrong. Shortly after take off, it became clear that the eggnaut was doomed. We didn't want to believe it at first, but it was obvious that the flight plan was taking a turn for the worse.
The rocket began to spin wildly. To add, it began to turn to traveling the directly of the shocked onlookers and the parking lot. It was not longer just about the egg anymore. Fear gripped me, but I kept shooting. The next four frames reveal the horrible events that sealed the eggnaut's doom. In the second of the frames, an unplanned explosion is clearly seen. The rocket is undeterred by this, and continues to fly in the direction of the spectators.
The travel path became more erratic, and only a few seconds later the last booster cut-off. The eggnaut, perhaps still viable, was in free fall. Falling, accelerating - right into the parking lot.
I started running towards the extrapolated crash site, as I heard a thud. When I got there, a small crowd already formed around the impact site. Someone called for an eggdoctor. In my first shot of the macabre, only the parachute, never deployed, is seen. The true extent of the disaster is covered by the figure of solemn child.
Rapidly, the team of engineers arrived on site. Although the rocket spent about 10 fateful seconds in the air, it only traveled about 30 meters, as the crow flies (which it does much longer).
Of course, all eyes were on the contents. Was the eggnaut safe? Perhaps by some earthly miracle, the impact was not severe enough. Of course, even before the rocket payload canister was opened, we all knew that the sickly thud that placed the rocket less than a meter from a car was a mortal hit to our airborne friend.
The next photo captures the human moment of tragedy. The team lead finally realizes that nothing survived. The man behind him and to the right bites his lip in disappointment and shock.
The next photo reveals the payload - now turned into an ogrish paste of eggnaut and maple syrup.
The fourth team stood by - their launch canceled. Their hearts were heavy with the tragedy of the previous team's horrible flame-out. One of the team members is seen here so distraught that he kneals and leans on his rocket for support.
Yet they could not help but imagine - how far would their eggnaut have traveled?
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty! —D. Adams
A popular notion about experiments is that it's good to keep variability in subjects low to limit the influence of confounding factors. This is called standardization.
Unfortunately, although standardization increases power, it can induce unrealistically low variability and lead to results that do not generalize to the population of interest. And, in fact, may be irreproducible.
Not paying attention to these details and thinking (or hoping) that standardization is always good is the "standardization fallacy". In this column, we look at how standardization can be balanced with heterogenization to avoid this thorny issue.
Voelkl, B., Würbel, H., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2021) Points of significance: Standardization fallacy. Nature Methods 18:5–6.
Clear, concise, legible and compelling.
Making a scientific graphical abstract? Refer to my practical design guidelines and redesign examples to improve organization, design and clarity of your graphical abstracts.
An in-depth look at my process of reacting to a bad figure — how I design a poster and tell data stories.
Building on the method I used to analyze the 2008, 2012 and 2016 U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, I explore word usagein the 2020 Debates between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
We are celebrating the publication of our 50th column!
To all our coauthors — thank you and see you in the next column!
When modelling epidemics, some uncertainties matter more than others.
Public health policy is always hampered by uncertainty. During a novel outbreak, nearly everything will be uncertain: the mode of transmission, the duration and population variability of latency, infection and protective immunity and, critically, whether the outbreak will fade out or turn into a major epidemic.
The uncertainty may be structural (which model?), parametric (what is `R_0`?), and/or operational (how well do masks work?).
This month, we continue our exploration of epidemiological models and look at how uncertainty affects forecasts of disease dynamics and optimization of intervention strategies.
We show how the impact of the uncertainty on any choice in strategy can be expressed using the Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI), which is the potential improvement in outcomes that could be obtained if the uncertainty is resolved before making a decision on the intervention strategy. In other words, by how much could we potentially increase effectiveness of our choice (e.g. lowering total disease burden) if we knew which model best reflects reality?
This column has an interactive supplemental component (download code) that allows you to explore the impact of uncertainty in `R_0` and immunity duration on timing and size of epidemic waves and the total burden of the outbreak and calculate EVPI for various outbreak models and scenarios.
Bjørnstad, O.N., Shea, K., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2020) Points of significance: Uncertainty and the management of epidemics. Nature Methods 17.
Bjørnstad, O.N., Shea, K., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2020) Points of significance: Modeling infectious epidemics. Nature Methods 17:455–456.
Bjørnstad, O.N., Shea, K., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2020) Points of significance: The SEIRS model for infectious disease dynamics. Nature Methods 17:557–558.