Science itself needs to be put under the microscope and carefully scrutinised to deal with its flaws.
We are observing two new phenomena. On one hand doubt is shed on the quality of entire scientific fields or sub-fields. On the other this doubt is played out in the open, in the media and blogosphere.
The number of predatory scientific journals has exploded in recent years.
A leading website that monitored predatory open access journals has closed. This will make it harder to keep tabs on this corrosive force within science.
Don’t feel bitter, but that story you read about gin was probably wrong.
Claims that gin lovers are more likely to be psychopaths are just another case of science media misreporting - which should be a tonic to any tipplers who were worried by the news.
Good science loses out when bad science gets the funding.
New studies on the quality of published research shows we could be wasting billions of dollars a year on bad science, to the neglect of good science projects.
This is what happens when science writing gets too turgid.
Science can be fascinating and exciting. But much science writing is dull and obscure. Here are some of the tricks scientists often use to suck the joy out of science.
Reported "evidence" that the proposed fuel-free "EmDrive" works (and breaks the known laws of physics) is nothing of the sort.
What? Eating chocolate doesn’t help lose weight? But I read it in the newspaper!
A recent hoax study suggesting chocolate helps people lose weight highlights many problems with the way science is conducted and reported by the media.
One more corner, then I’ll answer your questions.
Imagine you’re a scientist. You’re interested in testing the hypothesis that playing violent video games makes people more likely to be violent in real life. This is a straightforward theory, but there…