Your problem is that you (and perhaps the original authors) are oversimplifying. No scientific study would ever claim that HFCS is 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'. They would claim that eating X amount of HFCS causes an increase in Y. The other paper would claim that eating Z amount of HFCS does NOT cause an increase in Y(or A). Y may be related to health, and so might A, but 'healthy' is a value judgment which we do not make.

Read the surgeon general warning: "quitting smoking now may reduce serious risks to you health". These are the kinds of statements science is legitimately able to make. Not 'you will die young if you smoke' or ' cancer sticks are unhealthy'.

Evolutionary Biology doesn't explain society or the relations between men and women. Ev Psych does.

Let's make like bacteria, baby, and engage in horizontal (gene/jean) transfer.

The scientists don't write the press releases. They dont exercise editorial oversight, they don't choose the headline. That's the science press, and they are to blame.

Now, some scientists do get quoted for making statements that are too strong, but the press is like the National Enquirer: If they can't get you to make some ridiculous claim, they will find someone who is desperate enough to do so.

The solution: Don't read science press releases or newspaper articles - read the actual peer-reviewed articles. The kind of articles that nearly get rejected for being 'tempted to speculate'. (Oh, you mean that's too boring for you? You can't have it both ways.)

This is exactly the kind of thing he's famous for doing, so i really wouldn't put it past him.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_branson_s_life_at_30_000_feet.html

Nevertheless, it was listed on the laundry list of "terrible abuses of deficit spending" last night in the US House of Representatives.

It also bears mention that when you're making nonsensical claims about things that you fix, you are supposed to choose "from A to Z", not "from A to C". Even if cancer is more widely feared than zoonotic disease.

Somehow, the chemists in my lab have been making benzodiazapines for years without ever once mentioning that they're good for getting drunk off of.

I suppose its the part where they make about a gram of it in a month that kills the temptation to drink it.

To be fair, there are soooo many journals out there that you can get published in, you will always find one for your paper.

If the CRU is on the editorial board of journals XYZ, there's still 23 options, and that's just letters of the alphabet - there are way more journals than that out there.

There isnt enough manpower in such an organization to cover it all.

The problem with this patent is enforement. How can they prove that you used the Steitz ribosome structure to design your new drug and not, say, the Cate structure, or the Ramashandran structure? If anything, real science would be utilizing all of the available data, comparing and contrasting bacterial and human ribosomes to determine which sites are relevant for antibiotics.

The coordinates are publicly available, anyway, so I could run MD on the structure for 1 picosecond and i would have "my" structure, which would be an interesting legal case in its own right.

I can't find the time to read the entire patent, but in the abstract, the "methods" they claim are used on a daily basis by groups around the world. And have been for the better part of four years.

From TFA: "English libel law can have a global reach: there have been several high-profile examples of foreign journalists being sued for libel in the English courts over statements published on foreign websites or by foreign publishers"

Be careful what you say, or the Bobbies could be coming for you.

They did not do any analysis of the humans who have the genetic mutation. They did an exhaustive amount of studies on the transgenic mice they created. I didn't bother to read it all as it seemed to be focused on proving that they actually slept less. Science doesn't move as fast as we'd like it to, nor are results as amazing as the news articles make them out to be.

This study is still pretty exciting, as they proved that a single point mutation can make you sleep less. The biochemical mechanism for this is still almost entirely unknown. 10 years from now maybe someone will have an idea about how to make it happen in real people. (and that would be a blockbuster drug!) It's still an incredibly long way away from 22 hour workdays and or mandatory gene therapy (since we can't even DO gene therapy effectively)

Sooo someone starts a publishing and record company of their own, reveals themself as a non-evil alternative, develops a backlog of undistributed/unpublished works with a certain amount of demand, and then eventually convinces walmart/amazon/etc to carry their product lines because of the pent-up demand.

Business model validated, except good luck convincing people to sign up their creative works to languish in obscurity.
You could even merge with On-Demand printing technology and internet-based distribution, which would get you some budding artists, one of whom could easily write the next Harry Potter.

I'm getting closer and closer to not posting this idea and going off to start a business.

So now we finally have a realistic explanation for the lack of interaction with alien life forms. They've all developed illusion cloaks to protect their spacecraft and planets and everything. They look like paperclips and rubber bands. And chapstick. That's why they're always disappearing and re-appearing.

The retention bonuses were just 'please dont quit before the end of the year, we need you to do something about this mess' bonuses, and i dont know why people can't respect that. Except for the part where they didn't really *do* anything about the mess, but the *performance* bonuses aren't getting paid for that very reason.