Is this new gene perhaps related to the fox-1 news gene family?
Dick the Damnedsays
Jumpin’ Jebus on a stick, do you think this could explain the press releases that come out of the Discovery Institute?
stonygroundsays
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.
jacklewissays
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.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
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.
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!
Moggiesays
Why the high concentration of the gene at the Daily Mail? Inbreeding?
Thomathy, Gay Where it Countssays
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.
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…
robrosays
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.
We must sequence Keith Kloor immediately!
No mention of control here – have they sequenced Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh?
Found by Top Docs, no doubt.
Is this new gene perhaps related to the fox-1 news gene family?
Jumpin’ Jebus on a stick, do you think this could explain the press releases that come out of the Discovery Institute?
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.
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.
all
the
damn
time
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!
Why the high concentration of the gene at the Daily Mail? Inbreeding?
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.
There must be an evolutionary psychology reason for the existence of this gene.
Well, if it was good enough for the synod of Hippo, it’s good enough for the Daily Mail…
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.
[Off Topic]
jacklewis
You spurred me to write up a workaround I found/created. If you’re on Firefox, this might be of help.
“[…]or whether the ancient Mayans discovered the gene before modern science.”
It was the ancient Egyptians. Or possibly the Chinese.
–
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