Remember Michael LaCour, who argued that you could change people's minds on gay marriage just by talking to them? Tabitha M. Powledge writes about a more successful followup: "A particularly juicy feature of this heartwarming tale is that the new research, and apparent vindication of the face-to-face approach for changing hearts and minds, was conducted by David Broockman and Joshua Kalla. They were the grad students who exposed the fraudulent data in LaCour’s paper."
Science blogs
Vermont has a new law requiring labels for food products containing genetically modified organisms, and Tabitha M. Powledge says that may end the GMO debate: "When every bag of Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn and Mars Bar proclaims itself to be made with GMOs yet otherwise turns out to be ordinary snack fare, the average consumer is going to grow blasé about the idea of GMOs in general." Also: Is cold fusion back again? And Hillary Clinton on the government's UFO files.
Tabitha M. Powledge reviews commentary on the latest research into the traces of Neandertal genetic material — and to a lesser extent, genes from Denisovans — that most modern humans carry within them as a result of ancient cross-breeding: "The others are gone. Vanished. Extinct for thousands of years. But some live on in our DNA as a result of all those matings. Everybody outside of Africa has Neandertals in their family trees, ranging from 1.5 to about 4% of DNA."
Tabitha M. Powledge weighs in on the separation of Science magazine and its longtime contributor Michael Balter after a sensitive story: "Jettisoning him from Science is a loss to the magazine and to reliable information about a fraught field of science. But it’s not at all clear that this event has much to do directly with another fraught topic, sexual harassment." Also, Undark makes its premiere and brings with it a revived Knight Science Journalism Tracker.
Last summer's Science paper saying that only about one-third of psychology studies had results that could be reproduced has drawn a contrary response, and there are responses to that response. Tabitha M. Powledge tries to sort it out: "Reading the commentaries on these commentaries, it seems likely to this outsider that the latter Science paper’s exceptional even-handedness is no more warranted than is the former’s optimism." Also, further illumination on p-values.
It's about the appeal of authoritarianism, Tabitha M. Powledge writes in discussing a Vox post that analyzes the GOP presidential race: "I’m finding these ideas somewhat reassuring because they help make sense of what’s going on. I am somewhat less gobsmacked by the nutsy direction of U.S politics. But authoritarianism as an explanation is also quite worrisome. If the political scientists are right, the effects go way beyond Donald Trump." Also, Scott Kelly comes home.
A recent effort to quantify science writing's gender gap leads Tabitha M. Powledge to assess the state of the craft: "The byline research and a couple of other posts I read this week prompted me to spend this post on writing about science writing. My picks aren’t exactly random, but, as is usually the case here at On Science Blogs, I’ve made no attempt to be systematic and/or objective." Also, gender bias in sourcing.
Last week brought news that scientists confirmed Einstein's predicted ripples in spacetime. Tabitha M. Powledge calls it the biggest science news of 2016: "The ability to see/hear gravitational waves is a new way of perceiving the universe. Nobel Prize stuff, without question. It is also generating heady dreams for the future of cosmological science." Also, who's likely to win that Nobel? And what does the Supreme Court vacancy mean for climate change and health care?
Tabitha M. Powledge discusses coverage of two leading figures in the Flint water story — Virginia Tech water scientist Marc Edwards, whose report documented Flint's lead contamination issues, and pediatrician Mona Hanna-Attisha, who delved into hospital records to document rising blood lead levels in the city's children. Both scientists, Powledge writes, were subjected to efforts by government agencies to discredit them and their findings before their vindication.
There's plenty of blame to spread around after this week's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report warning about the dangers of alcohol to a developing fetus, Tabitha M. Powledge writes: "The media and commentators are guilty of careless reading. But the CDC is guilty of careless writing too. The agency must know that the topic of women and alcohol and pregnancy or intended pregnancy has long been a hot-button issue." Also, new data deflates a popular belief.