Experts often suggest that crime resembles an epidemic. But what kind? Karl Smith, a professor of public economics and government at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, has a good rule of thumb for categorizing epidemics: If it spreads along lines of communication, he says, the cause is information. Think Bieber Fever. If it travels along major transportation routes, the cause is microbial. Think influenza. If it spreads out like a fan, the cause is an insect. Think malaria. But if it's everywhere, all at once—as both the rise of crime in the '60s and '70s and the fall of crime in the '90s seemed to be—the cause is a molecule.
Long story short, we all bought lots of cars after World War II and filled them up with leaded gasoline. This lead was spewed out of tailpipes and ingested by small children, and when those children grew up they were more prone to committing violent crimes than normal children. Then, starting in the mid-70s, we all began switching to unleaded gasoline. Our kids were no longer made artificially violent by lead poisoning, and when they grew up in the mid-90s they committed fewer violent crimes. This trend continued for two decades, and it's one of the reasons that violent crime rates have dropped by half over the past 20 years and by more than that in our biggest cities.The Impact Of Childhood Lead Exposure on Adult Crime:
The author concludes that lead's effect on violent crime may be just the tip of the iceberg. Increases in impulsivity, aggression, and ADHD can affect many other behaviors such as substance abuse, suicide, teenage pregnancy, poor academic performance, poor labor market performance, and divorce, suggesting that environmental policy can have far reaching effects on social outcomes.But how? In The Crime Of Lead Exposure(previously):
Twenty years later, the researchers tracked down these subjects and put them in MRI machines, allowing them to measure the brain volume of participants. The researchers found that exposure to lead as a child was linked with a significant loss of brain volume in adulthood, particularly in men. Furthermore, there was a “dose-response” effect, in which the greatest brain volume loss was seen in participants with the greatest lead exposure. What’s especially tragic is that the loss of volume was concentrated in the prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain closely associated with executive function and impulse control.Chicago Slums And The Long Shadow Of Lead Paint
In a 2000 paper (PDF) he concluded that if you add a lag time of 23 years, lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America....Fascinating. When you consider how much of American political culture has been driven by the rising crime rates of the 60s-80s and also by the differing rates of violence between big cities and the rest of the country, it's astonishing to imagine that all of that could be traced back to one simple technical decision by engineers at GM.
And with that we have our molecule: tetraethyl lead, the gasoline additive invented by General Motors in the 1920s to prevent knocking and pinging in high-performance engines....
Like many good theories, the gasoline lead hypothesis helps explain some things we might not have realized even needed explaining. For example, murder rates have always been higher in big cities than in towns and small cities. We're so used to this that it seems unsurprising, but Nevin points out that it might actually have a surprising explanation—because big cities have lots of cars in a small area, they also had high densities of atmospheric lead during the postwar era. But as lead levels in gasoline decreased, the differences between big and small cities largely went away. And guess what? The difference in murder rates went away too. Today, homicide rates are similar in cities of all sizes. It may be that violent crime isn't an inevitable consequence of being a big city after all.
IF ECONOMETRIC STUDIES WERE ALL THERE were to the story of lead, you'd be justified in remaining skeptical no matter how good the statistics look. Even when researchers do their best—controlling for economic growth, welfare payments, race, income, education level, and everything else they can think of—it's always possible that something they haven't thought of is still lurking in the background. But there's another reason to take the lead hypothesis seriously, and it might be the most compelling one of all: Neurological research is demonstrating that lead's effects are even more appalling, more permanent, and appear at far lower levels than we ever thought.You talk about "predictive" science, but I would argue there's no such thing where sociology is concerned. Even if there is, it's incredibly vague compared to the precision that medical science demands. And medical science indicates that this theory is true – that lead poisoning has historically been responsible for the major crime waves in the past century.
If childhood lead exposure really did produce criminal behavior in adults, you'd expect that in states where consumption of leaded gasoline declined slowly, crime would decline slowly too. Conversely, in states where it declined quickly, crime would decline quickly. And that's exactly what she found.In other words, there are state-by-state differences in the drop in crime rate, and the map perfectly to the state-by-state differences in the decline of leaded gasoline.
The elasticity of violent crime with respect to childhood lead exposure is estimated to be approximately 0.8. This implies that, between 1992 and 2002, the phase-out of lead from gasoline was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime.
This study investigates the association between air-lead levels and crime rates across 2,772 U.S. counties. Data for the analysis come from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Census, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Results suggest that air-lead levels have a direct effect on property and violent crime rates even after adjusting for general levels of air pollution and several structural covariates of crime. We also find that resource deprivation interacts with air-lead levels. The association between air-lead levels and crime rates-property and violent-is strongest in counties that have high levels of resource deprivation and weakest in counties that have low levels of deprivation. This interaction is consistent with arguments and evidence in the health care literature that populations most at risk of lead poisoning are least likely to get the resources required to prevent, screen, and treat the illness.Biology and violence: from birth to adulthood
This book presents the most comprehensive study to date of the major biological, psychological and environmental predictors of criminal behavior, particularly violence, through a detailed analysis of nearly 1000 low-income black youths from their birth to early adulthood. By examining over 150 variables spanning the lives of these youths, the study concludes that both biological and environmental factors produce strong, and independent, effects on delinquency and adult crime among males and females, who are distinguished from their controls. Powerful influences on violence include behavioral disorders during youth, low school achievement, parents with a low educational level, an absent father, hyperactivity, lead poisoning, left-handedness and mixed dominance, soft neurological signs, and neurological abnormalities. Case study comparisons between the most violent males and females and their controls show that criminals evidence a higher incidence of lead poisoning, disobedience, head injury, and a history of epileptic seizures among themselves or their immediate family members.The ATSDR's toxicological profile for lead, specifically the relevance to public health(PDF)
Despite the many factors that can potentially work against finding agreement among studies, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that lead exposure is associated with decrements in cognitive function. Meta-analyses conducted on cross-sectional studies or a combination of cross-sectional and prospective studies suggest that an IQ decline of 1–5 points is associated with an increase in PbB of 10 μg/dL. Most importantly, no threshold for the effects of lead on IQ has been identified. This has been confirmed by a series of recent studies in children that found significant inverse associations between cognitive function and PbBs [less than] 10 μg/dL.Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents. A case control study
RESULTS: Cases had significantly higher mean concentrations of lead in their bones than controls (11.0+/-32.7 vs. 1.5+/-32.1 ppm). This was true for both Whites and African Americans. The unadjusted odds ratio for a lead level > or =25 vs. <2>25 ppm than controls (OR=4.0, 95% CL: 1.4-11.1).
CONCLUSION: Elevated body lead burdens, measured by bone lead concentrations, are associated with elevated risk for adjudicated delinquency.
Prenatal and postnatal blood lead concentrations are associated with higher rates of total arrests and/or arrests for offenses involving violence. This is the first prospective study to demonstrate an association between developmental exposure to lead and adult criminal behavior.The relationship between lead exposure and homicide
This study shows a very strong association between preschool blood lead and subsequent crime rate trends over several decades in the USA, Britain, Canada, France, Australia, Finland, Italy, West Germany, and New Zealand. The relationship is characterized by best-fit lags (highest R2 and t-value for blood lead) consistent with neurobehavioral damage in the first year of life and the peak age of offending for index crime, burglary, and violent crime. The impact of blood lead is also evident in age-specific arrest and incarceration trends. Regression analysis of average 1985–1994 murder rates across USA cities suggests that murder could be especially associated with more severe cases of childhood lead poisoning.A summary of (mostly Nevin's) research: Research Summary: Childhood Lead Exposure Trends Explain International Property and Violent Crime Trends, and Differences in USA City Murder Rates
lupus_yonderboy: "As for the correlation/causation chestnut... correlation doesn't prove causation, but it sure as heck is evidence for causation - moreover, it's a necessary condition, because lack of correlation does in fact prove lack of causation."Another common pitfall is Simpson's paradox where when you calculate correlation between two variables you get one one direction, but once you split up based on a third variable, the correlations switch sign.
It's worse than that. Sometimes a cause can have two equal-but-opposite effects.
Needless to say, not every child exposed to lead is destined for a life of crime. Everyone over the age of 40 was probably exposed to too much lead during childhood, and most of us suffered nothing more than a few points of IQ loss. But there were plenty of kids already on the margin, and millions of those kids were pushed over the edge from being merely slow or disruptive to becoming part of a nationwide epidemic of violent crime. Once you understand that, it all becomes blindingly obvious. Of course massive lead exposure among children of the postwar era led to larger numbers of violent criminals in the '60s and beyond. And of course when that lead was removed in the '70s and '80s, the children of that generation lost those artificially heightened violent tendencies.That seems more than a little strong for the situation. I don't think it's "blindingly obvious." I think that the signs probably point to lead having a major impact on society, but society is a damned complicated thing. And there's an understanding of IQ here that I almost find ominous – the author is implying that if you're "on the margin" of being at a certain IQ, you're on the verge of becoming a violent criminal. Even if we assume that IQ is an acceptable standard measure (which is not an uncontroversial assumption, and I probably wouldn't go along with it) this is sort of an innovative way to interpret what IQ means.
Mental disorders among the subjects included schizophrenia, organic brain damage and a history of head injury. PET scans measure the uptake of blood sugar (glucose) in various brain areas during the performance of simple, repetitive tasks. (Glucose is the basic fuel that powers most cell functions. The amount used is directly related to the amount of cell activity.) On average, the murderers showed significantly lower rates of glucose uptake in three areas of the brain -- the prefrontal cortex, the corpus callosum and the posterior parietal cortex. ... The prefrontal cortex is involved in the inhibition of aggressive behavior. Studies have shown that damage to the region correlates with impulsiveness and unpredictable, uncontrolled actions.Blows to the head during development can predispose to violent criminal behaviour: rehabilitation of consequences of head injury is a measure for crime prevention
However, what differentiated the violent from the non-violent group was a history of having suffered head injuries that were never treated. Problems at school are not enough themselves to predict violent behaviour. A history of discrete neurological damage as a consequence to blows received to the head must also be present.Alcohol, intelligence, and violent crime in young males
These interactions indicate that the prevalence of violence increases significantly at low intelligence and high alcohol consumption levels. A parallel analysis with nonviolent offending as the dependent variable failed to find significant interactions. The combination of heavy drinking and lower intelligence is associated with a synergistic surge of violent behavior.Violence in Children and Adults: A Neurological View
Repeatedly violent behavior exists as a distinct behavioral syndrome with neurological, psychiatric, and environmental determinants. Neurological damage (electroencephalographic abnormalities, epilepsy, symptoms of psychomotor seizures, and a history of events known to predispose to brain injury) is prevalent.posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:27 AM on January 4 [5 favorites]
It's ridiculous – until you see the evidence. Studies between cities, states and nations show that the rise and fall in crime follows, with a roughly 20-year lag, the rise and fall in the exposure of infants to trace quantities of lead. But all that gives us is correlation: an association that could be coincidental. The Mother Jones article, which is based on several scientific papers, claimed causation.His Science Is Too Tight!:The Link Between Leaded Gasoline and Crime
I began by reading the papers. Do they say what the article claims? They do. Then I looked up the citations: the discussion of those papers in the scientific literature. The three whose citations I checked have been mentioned, between them, 301 times. I went through all these papers (except the handful in foreign languages), as well as dozens of others. To my astonishment, I could find just one study attacking the thesis, and this was sponsored by the Ethyl Corporation, which happens to have been a major manufacturer of the petrol additive tetraethyl lead. I found many more supporting it. Crazy as this seems, it really does look as if lead poisoning could be the major cause of the rise and fall of violent crime.
Obviously, we can't take this a step further into experimental data to enhance the hypothesis. We can't expose some children to lead and not others on purpose to see the direct effects. This is the best we can do, and it's possibly quite meaningful, but perhaps not. There's no way to say with much authority one way or another at this point, not just because of the smallish sample size and the mixed results on significance. Despite an improved study design from cross-sectional studies, a cohort study is still measuring correlations, and we need more than one significant result.Both from a followup post by Kevin Drum.
But even under all these unrealistic assumptions, what this model hasn’t accounted for is that the evolution of political economy over time during these decades could systematically vary between late- and early-phase-out states. This could easily be the case, if the evolution of, say, the political economy of Sunbelt states versus Rustbelt states evolved systematically differently over a time frame of many decades, and Sunbelt states tended to phase out leaded gasoline either earlier or later than Rustbelt states. In that case, you would have to consider each state/year combination as a control rather than just each state. Think this is an obstructionist objection? Reyes herself considers this possibility significant enough that she does this analysis. The result? No statistically significant relationship between lead and violent crime.Mother Jones:Lead And Crime: Response
But that's far from all. If Reyes' paper was the only evidence for the link between lead and violent crime, I'd agree with Manzi. It's not enough. But it's far from the only evidence. We have striking evidence at the national level, of course. We have evidence at the city level. We have evidence that merely living in a housing project near an expressway is associated with more crime. And most important, we have evidence at the international level. As long as the data is all from the United States, you can argue, as Manzi does, that there might be some systematic effect of culture or political economy that's hidden in the background and affecting the results. But it's a lot harder to say that when you find the same results in Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto. And it's way harder to say that when you find the same results in Britain, France, and Australia over different time periods (because different countries banned leaded gasoline at different times). Sure, it's still possible that there's some systematic hidden variable affecting these results, but that would be a helluva thing, wouldn't it? You're talking about some aspect of culture, or policing tactics, or drug use, or automobile preference, or whatever, that affects country after country around the world.posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:55 PM on January 14 [2 favorites]
Indicators of causation, now widely applied in public health research, were first proposed in Bradford-Hill’s 1965 treatise “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” Those who dismiss research linking lead exposure and crime trends as “simply looking at associations” need to reexamine that evidence in the context of Hill’s causal criteria.It references this paper: The Environment and Disease:Association or Causation? (PDF)
I have no wish, nor the skill, to embark upon a philosophical discussion of the meaning of 'causation'. The 'cause' of illness may be immediate and direct, it may be remote and indirect underlying the observed association. But with the aims of occupational, and alnost synonymously preventive, medicine in mind the decisive question is whether the frequency of the undesirable event B will be influenced by a change in the environmental feature A. How such a change exerts that influence may call for a great deal of research. However, before deducing 'causation' and taking action we shall not invariably have to sit around awaiting the results of that research. The whole chain may have to be unravelled or a few links may suffice. It will depend upon circumstances.Summary here: Lead and Crime: Is Correlation Also Causation?
The key statistical issue that needs to be addressed by the correlation-never-means-causation crowd is whether they honestly believe that:posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:53 AM on January 30
■The observed association between lead used in paint and USA murder rates from 1901 to 1960 with a time lag close to the peak age of homicide offending was a coincidence;
■The association between USA gasoline lead and violent crime from 1964-1998 with a similar time lag was another coincidence;
■The “experimental evidence” from violent crime since 1998 (including a 45% drop in the juvenile violent crime arrest rate from 1998-2011) tracking earlier trends in lead exposure is a coincidence;
■Analysis of crime in nine nations shows the same consistent relationship between lead exposure and crime trends through 2002, with statistical best-fit lags that reflect the peak age of offending for each crime category, by coincidence;
■This consistent relationship within every nation studied happens to explain otherwise bewildering changes over time in USA and Canada crime rates relative to Britain, France, and Australia, by coincidence;
■Experimental evidence from international crime trends since 2002 tracking earlier trends in lead exposure in every nation is also a coincidence.
1 - They're obviously not familiar with all the research - they keep making claims about the studies that are not correct, like saying the data is just nationwide or state by state, when in fact childhood lead exposure data goes all the way down to the individual level, with millions of data points. County and city data with thousands of data points and data for various countries around the world. All the data supports the conclusion. They say that the data only looks backwards at stuff that's already happened, but in fact the lead hypothesis has been tested in animals. Animals exposed to higher lead levels are more violent.Anyway, seems pretty clear to me that there is a ton of solid evidence for the "childhood lead exposure causes crime" hypothesis and seeming no evidence for the "childhood lead exposure does not cause crime" hypothesis.
2 - There's no math in any of their comments and no actual counter evidence. They continue to claim that the evidence isn't strong enough, but present no evidence that it's not true. There's no mathematical analysis to show that the actual statistical results are inaccurate. If you can show statistically that A causes B with high probability, then you have to show that there is actually something wrong with the math or the data
3 - Finally, there is a problem with the form of their argument. Skepticism is fine, but if you're doing "real" science there has to be some threshold specified in order for you to consider the argument valid. This is especially problematic here because the "skeptics" - being unfamiliar with the data - keep pointing to things they think are lacking that turn out to actually be there - like county, by county, or individual data.
Put another way, the skeptics are actually positing their own hypothesis - that lead is not a major cause of crime. Like everyone they need to propose an experiment that would disprove their hypothesis, or cause them to agree that the childhood lead exposure is not a major cause of crime is not true. Without specifying that, they aren't really making a scientific argument. They're really just like the creationists who look at the evidence for evolution and claim (falsely) it's not enough, or the global warming deniers who claim (also falsely) that there isn't enough science or all the science is bad or whatever.
I guess this means I should stop licking lead bars. -- DamienmceShould be fine so long as you don't also lick small children. (Also, if it's anything like mercury, the problem isn't the metallic form, but rather molecules containing lead that your body can easily absorb - but never get rid of)
If lead can have far-reaching effects, what about fructose? -- infinitewindowIt's interesting how so many people are just certain fructose must be bad. Sure, sugar in general is bad, but there seems to be this underlying assumption that fructose is somehow worse the sucrose.
Correlation does *not* mean "having behavior represented by the same equation". By that argument, since all falling bodies on the Earth follow the same equations of motion, they are all correlated. -- lupus_yonderboyer, technically all falling bodies do have the same cause, namely gravity :). But yeah obviously various things that seem to be governed by similar mathematical formulas, so long as the underlying processes is mathematically similar. Compound interest and bacterial colony growth, for example are both exponential processes.
As for the correlation/causation chestnut... correlation doesn't prove causation, but it sure as heck is evidence for causation - moreover, it's a necessary condition, because lack of correlation does in fact prove lack of causation. -- lupus_yonderboyThere are a couple of other things to keep in mind as well: 1) Timing - if B happens after B, B can't go back in time and cause A. That leaves only A causing B, or X causing both A and B.
My favourite correlation/causation chart of the week: Correlation between autism diagnosis and organic food sales -- wenatSimple causal explanation for that one, paranoid hippy parents more likely to buy organic and also be paranoid about their kids developing autism, thus more likely to get them checked out.
Is Dunning-Kruger the new Godwin? Not saying it is or isn't happening here, but it seems like half the time people bring it up they are unwittingly referring to themselves.Problem is, Dunning-Kruger probably does apply to, like, 90% of internet commentators.
- Pyry
[regarding non-lead bullets] Tungsten matrix [bullets] is really much better ballistic ally and in terms of damage to old guns not designed for harder metals but it is very expensive. It also isn't really non-toxic in the way that steel is.I thought the discussion at the top about non-lead bullets was kind of interesting too. The thing is, lead is actually pretty expensive, and it seems like steal bullets would actually be cheaper. (Obviously it was cheaper historically, but right now lead is ~$2000 a ton while iron ore is ~$120 and scrap steel is maybe $375?)
In other words, the lead hypothesis denies that the spike was naturally occurring as part of a cycle or noise in the system or something like that. So, seeing an unexplained huge spike would be disconfirming for the lead hypothesis. -- Jonathan LivengoodWell, not necessarily. Other causes may cause spikes in other places. Economic problems, for example. Or other pollutants.
Have some professional criminologists commented on these findings? I've read that one issue with crime stats is that they may not be comparable over a long time period. -- elgilitoFrom the article, no. They haven't looked at it much. I don't want to speak for the article's author, but my takeaway is that they're kind of bothered by the idea that all their theories and work over the past decades have been meaningless - nothing they've done caused the decline in crime (see Giuliani, for example - but lots of people have taken credit for the drop in crime). The other problem is, well, their field lacks a lot of scientific rigor.
"Remove shop-lifters and cure violent crime!!" and "Remove lead and cure violent crime!!" are equally simplistic, and I refuse to believe that anyone who has an actual real daily life in any inner-city neighborhood (or rural slums) would think up anything so facile. ... but both avoid discussing the root causes, which are poverty and segregation -- mumimorThe problem is that there is very good evidence that lead is in fact one of the biggest "root causes" of crime in the 70s/80s/90s. Also, it's interesting you brought up "rural slums" since one of the basic things being pointed out is that the crime spice didn't affect rural areas the way it did inner cities.
Giuliani had the balls to risk his reputation by making a predictive analysis based on his "broken-window theory," taking action on this prediction, and achieving results that were almost exactly what he anticipated. I'd say that gives him far more credence than this conspiracy-theorist researcher, who stakes nothing in his analysis and makes no predictions that can be used to verify or disprove his credibility. --wolfdreams01Except that crime dropped less in NYC then other cities, including cities that didn't do much of anything in that time period. If you think about it, that makes sense as well, much less driving in NY then in other places, so lead levels would have dropped comparatively less.
I see. So it's far easier for you to believe in the idea of a molecule that causes "criminal behavior" 29 years later (because apparently all people's physiology is the same, and 29 -- wolfdreams0123 years. Also, our entire war on drugs is predicated on the idea that exposure to various molecules can cause crime. The whole anti-depressant industry is based on the idea that molecules can alter people's internal mental states, which in turn changes how they interact with other people. We know molecules can help with anxiety, stress, attention problems.
My objection is that the article is written in a way that suggests that lead was the primary cause of the crime drop rather than Giuliani's broken windows theory. That is the nonsensical assertion that I would like to refute. -- wolfdreams01Again dude, you have to look at the math. And the math You can do the math and figure out exactly how much of the cause is lead. And, when you do that math the result is 90% - lead was responsible for 90% of the change in the crime rate. Other factors, then would be responsible for about 10%.
Spoken like a true pacifist! I think you may be letting your distaste for aggression blind you to its utility. There are multiple ways to express aggression, and some are in fact not only useful but necessary to a functioning society. Tell me, do you think SWAT teams do what they do for the money? Or for the sense of social obligation? Do you think soldiers only join the military because they have no other choices? In almost all of society's attack dogs (and please understand I don't call them "attack dogs" in a derogatory way - as a Taoist, I believe animals are more spiritually pure than humans) whether soldiers, police officers - wolfdreams01First of all, when social scientists talk about aggression, they only mean a tendency to violence. If a person has higher aggression then they are prone to violence. That's what scientists mean when they use the term. Of course, people are capable of self control and may not act on their aggression. But they are more likely to be violent if they show high aggression. And as Jonathan Livengood has pointed out, higher aggression in a population will mean higher violent crime levels.
Hey, as long as we are considering this to be a valid line of scientific inquiry, I would also like to point out that the crime stats also correlate roughly to the time period when people started breakdancing, feathering their hair, and wearing just one glove as a fashion statement. Obviously their cognitive function was impaired, and we must thus take it extremely seriously when researchers suggest that the lead molecule actually causes douchiness. -- wolfdreams01Do you have individual data for 2,772 U.S. counties? Millions of individuals? Obviously fashion trend timing differs from county to county so it wouldn't be impossible to check. Why don't you submit a grant application and get back to us with the results?
a clear continuum was shown for various towns at various sizes with various levels of lead exposure it would be a lot more convincing, -- Kid Charlemagne
Well for starters, don't make claims like this while failing to account for demographics, drug-use, both legal repercussions and law enforcement, population density, poverty and wealth migration, and perhaps most importantly, a lack of granularity finer than state level. -- clearlyWe have data down to the individual level, as well as county, city, as well as data from other countries. This is a good example of 'skeptical' comments specifically complaining about the lack of data that actually exists, which they would know if they'd RTFA.
And that jump is much more unsupported that even his more guarded rhetoric in this most recent article warrants. -- chortlyThe problem is there's no actual basis for saying it's "unsupported"? That's the problem I was talking about at the top of my comment the "skeptics" don't actually know how much support there is, since they haven't RTFAs and they haven't specified how much evidence, or what kind of evidence there needs to be for it to be "supported". The "support" for the "jump" between medical and sociological is that the data for society wide effects shows a clear link, and there's no plausible explanation of how crime rates could affect environmental lead levels 23 years in the past, or what third hidden cause could cause both.
Clearly you missed this comment, where I did exactly that.Is that a joke?
« Older Cringeworthy SLYT: Jamie Kennedy produced and host... | "We cannot help but see animal... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by DU at 6:50 AM on January 3