I’m sure this will receive extensive coverage in the popular science press

17 comments

Skip to comment form ↓

1. 1
   

   moarscienceplz

   4 January 2013 at 9:35 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   We must sequence Keith Kloor immediately!

2. 2
   

   Gnumann+, Invoker of Mansplaining

   4 January 2013 at 10:02 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   No mention of control here – have they sequenced Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh?

3. 3
   

   cervantes

   4 January 2013 at 10:05 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Found by Top Docs, no doubt.

4. 4
   

   holytape

   4 January 2013 at 10:05 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Is this new gene perhaps related to the fox-1 news gene family?

5. 5
   

   Dick the Damned

   4 January 2013 at 11:33 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Jumpin’ Jebus on a stick, do you think this could explain the press releases that come out of the Discovery Institute?

6. 6
   

   stonyground

   4 January 2013 at 12:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   It isn’t just science. All of you out there must have all kinds of random interests about which you have fairly extensive knowledge. Often if you read a newspaper or magazine article about one of your particular pet subjects you will find that it is riddled with errors and made up stuff.

7. 7
   

   jacklewis

   4 January 2013 at 12:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   Who came up with this awful idea of putting all the links and crap on the left side.
   I read like most from left to right and unless I run the browser maximized all the time, this means scrolling to the right all the time to read any article…
   Just terrible UI design.

8. 8
   

   Rev. BigDumbChimp

   4 January 2013 at 12:05 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   It isn’t just science. All of you out there must have all kinds of random interests about which you have fairly extensive knowledge. Often if you read a newspaper or magazine article about one of your particular pet subjects you will find that it is riddled with errors and made up stuff.

   all

   the

   damn

   time

9. 9
   

   rorschach

   4 January 2013 at 12:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

   But is the gene subject to epigenetic modulation, depending on whether the journalist’s parents were HuffPo or New Scientist readers? Inquiring minds want to know!

10. 10
    

    Moggie

    4 January 2013 at 12:53 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    Why the high concentration of the gene at the Daily Mail? Inbreeding?

11. 11
    

    Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts

    4 January 2013 at 1:06 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    I read like most from left to right

    Yawn.
    _____

    I can think of a few science journalists who could benefit from some gene therapy, if one is developed to treat this unfortunate genetic affliction.

12. 12
    

    SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius

    4 January 2013 at 1:28 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    There must be an evolutionary psychology reason for the existence of this gene.

13. 13
    

    Daz

    4 January 2013 at 3:05 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    Often if you read a newspaper or magazine article about one of your particular pet subjects you will find that it is riddled with errors and made up stuff.

    Well, if it was good enough for the synod of Hippo, it’s good enough for the Daily Mail…

14. 14
    

    robro

    4 January 2013 at 4:08 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    Scientist journalists must spawn in university PR departments. Some of the more outrageous articles I’ve seen on Science Daily were just republished university PR pieces about a “major breakthrough” discovered by some team centered at the school. It’s a real coupe if it hits Google News, of course, or HuffPuff, and for that purpose the more outlandish the better.

15. 15
    

    Daz

    4 January 2013 at 4:36 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    [Off Topic]

    jacklewis

    You spurred me to write up a workaround I found/created. If you’re on Firefox, this might be of help.

16. 16
    

    cicely (The Less Sore of Two Measles)

    4 January 2013 at 6:24 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    “[...]or whether the ancient Mayans discovered the gene before modern science.”
    It was the ancient Egyptians. Or possibly the Chinese.
    -

17. 17
    

    khms

    6 January 2013 at 1:30 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    I think the best of these articles is the original one at http://www.speld.nl/2011/07/09/gen-voor-slechte-wetenschapsjournalistiek-gevonden/ – if you don’t speak the language, I think the sense comes through even with Google Translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speld.nl%2F2011%2F07%2F09%2Fgen-voor-slechte-wetenschapsjournalistiek-gevonden%2F