Blog Article

Around the Blogs

by on 19th of September, 2008 in Of Interest

It's Friday again, so what do you say we hit the feed reader and see what's goin' on Around the Blogs…

We Are Science
There is no "Science." There is no "Academia." These things do not exist as coherent entities, any more than "The Market" does.

Linkage and the Antibiotic Resistance Problem
New data show that antibiotic resistance genes travel together, at least in E. coli isolated from farms.

Science Writers Need Science History
…science writers need to recall some history. [...] In other words, scientists already knew fifty years ago that some segments of DNA that did not encode proteins were useful.
[But be sure to check out SciPhu's counterpoint for this specific instance.]

Altruism in Bacteria? Allowing Yourself to Die for the Good of the Species
A recent study by Ackermann, et al in last month's Nature, shows a form of altruistic behavior being practiced by Salmonella typhimurium.

Marketing Science in the Public Square
Just this week, the Washington Post's Monday science "page" was reduced to a 1/2-page feature article, plus a 1/2-page ad. This science feature article will appear only every second week.

David Goldstein on the failures of genome-wide association studies
In the New York Times yesterday, Nick Wade profiles highly-regarded geneticist David Goldstein of Duke University, who provides the most sober assessment I have yet seen in the mainstream press about the outcomes of the genome-wide association study frenzy:

About the author: Dan Rhoads
Dan is a postdoc working at the University of Cyprus in developmental biology. He has a BSc in molecular biology and a PhD pharmacology and biochemistry.

See more from Dan Rhoads Visit their website

One thought on “Around the Blogs”

  1. Sciphu says:

    Since you are linking to "Science Writers Need Science History" and I honestly think that his point is not a good one…, I feel the need to repeat my comment on the same post.

    This is not an example of bad science journalism. The author makes a point out of the fact that enhancers aren't "junk". IMO, this constitutes a minor inaccuracy at best, because, …. the fact remains that they describe the function of a piece of DNA, previously unknown to have any function. We as scientist needs to get off our high horses and not criticize every bit of unimportant detail that isn't referred correctly. Besides, there is an ongoing scientific debate on "junk" DNA and any inaccuracy is further diminished by that fact. There are far better examples of bad science journalism (like the over-hyping of imminent cures for cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer). Criticize those reports please, not something minuscule like this.

Speak Your Mind

Article Categories

Of Interest