I don’t often mention politics in my science column, but I feel it is urgent to bring to the attention of all candidates a new field of research in which Australia has taken the lead and in which Canada, I feel, could make important contributions.
I’m speaking, of course, of the study of disappearing teaspoons.
In the December 24-31 issue of the British Medical Journal, Megan S. C. Lim, Margaret E. Hellard and Campbell K. Aitken, scientists at the Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health in Melbourne, Australia, set out to answer that age-old question “Where have all the bloody teaspoons gone?”
Inspired by their failure to find any teaspoons in their tearoom in January of 2004, the authors began their research with a pilot study, purchasing 32 plain stainless steel teaspoons and numbering them with red nail polish on the undersides of the handles. The Burnet Institute has eight tearooms, four used mainly by the staff of specific programs, and four that are communal. The researchers put 16 teaspoons in the program-linked tearooms and 16 in the communal tearooms, and checked their distribution throughout the Institute on a weekly basis for five months.
Then they expanded their research, purchasing a further 54 stainless steel teaspoons and 16 higher-quality teaspoons, which were also distributed to the tearooms, with a higher proportion going to those rooms which had suffered the highest teaspoon losses in the pilot study.
After five more months of teaspoon tracking, they revealed their research to the staff, and asked them to return or anonymously report any teaspoons whose whereabouts they might know. They also had staff members complete a brief anonymous questionnaire dealing with their attitudes toward (and knowledge of) teaspoons and teaspoon theft.
In those five months, 56—80 percent—of the 70 teaspoons disappeared. The spoons’ half-life—the time it took half of the teaspoons to permanently disappear—was 81 days. The higher-quality teaspoons didn’t disappear any faster than the lower-quality ones, but once a teaspoon made its way to a common room, it was likely to disappear more quickly (half-life 42 days) than it was from a program-linked room (half-life 77 days).
The rate of teaspoon loss was 0.99 spoon per 100 teaspoon-days, or, for the Burnet Institute, which employs 140 people, approximately 2.58 teaspoons per person per 100 teaspoon-years. Maintaining a teaspoon density of one spoon for every two people would require the Institute to purchase 252.4 teaspoons every year—at a not-insignificant cost of $100 Australian.
Although five potentially lost teaspoons were recovered after the study was revealed, no one admitted permanently removing a teaspoon from the institute.
The study’s authors put forward three theories as to why teaspoons disappear. One is “the tragedy of the commons.” An individual may logically decide that the improvement to his own efficiency from his monopoly of a teaspoon outweighs the miniscule loss to the efficiency of the office as a whole from the loss of a single teaspoon—but if enough individuals make that same decision, the number of teaspoons available for common use quickly degrades.
The second theory the authors put forward is that unobserved spoons are able to slip away through space to a world inhabited by spoon life-forms, “where they enjoy a uniquely spoonoid lifestyle, responding to highly spoon-oriented stimuli, and generally leading the spoon equivalent of the good life.”
Their third theory is that disappearing teaspoons are an example of “counterphenomenological resistentialism,” a.k.a. “things are against us.” This is the notion that inanimate objects have a natural antipathy toward human, and that therefore we ultimately have no control over them. Increasingly, in fact, they control us. (Based on my own experiences with inanimate objects, I tend to think this theory is the most likely.)
Noting that teaspoons are an essential part of office life; that their follow-up questionnaire revealed a high level of dissatisfaction with teaspoon coverage among workers at the Institute; and that the cost of maintaining a working teaspoon population is not inconsiderable, the authors recommend that institutes consider designs that minimize the risk of teaspoon loss (specifically, more program-linked and fewer common tearooms).
“Finally,” they write, “we suggest that the development of effective control measures against the loss of teaspoons should be a priority on national research agendas.”
Are we in Canada going to let Australia get ahead of us in this crucial area of scientific research?
Candidates? We await your positions on this matter of critical importance.
2 comments
Hi, Jill! Thanks for dropping by.
In the actual paper, they give credit to Douglas Adams for the notion, so indeed, it is not a coincidence.
The spoons and the pens don’t worry me. It’s what all those missing socks are up to that give me nightmares…
Their second theory sounds remarkably similiar to Douglas Adams’ theory about where pens mysteriously go.
Coincidence? I think not. 😉
Maybe the spoons and pens are plotting something in some parallel universe. In any event, I’ll begin stocking up on provisions. 😉
(Found your blog using the Next Blog function and thought I’d say hello to today’s blog neighbor.)