“I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud are mere distractions. The state of our science is strong, but it’s plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really fucking hard.” Christie Aschwanden at FiveThirtyEight on why “Science Isn’t Broken”.
“Certain genes (…) have no known relatives, and they bear no resemblance to any other gene. They’re the molecular equivalent of a mysterious beast discovered in the depths of a remote rainforest, a biological enigma seemingly unrelated to anything else on earth.” Emily Singer at Quanta on genes from junk.
Personalized tragedy: Tom Junod at Esquire on Stephanie Lee, precision medicine’s patient zero. “Without prelude, a deus ex machina had arrived upon the scene, and the race against time had begun.”
Pseudo-science and the justice system, by Jeremy Stahl at Slate. “‘The howls of protest from fire investigation ‘professionals’ were deafening,” fire scientist John Lentini wrote of the initial response to NFPA 921. ‘If what was printed in that document were actually true, it meant that hundreds or thousands of accidental fires had been wrongly determined to be incendiary fires. No investigator wanted to admit to the unspeakable possibility that they had caused an innocent person to be wrongly convicted.'”
Architects, doctors, janitors, police, and gardeners. Ferris Jabr at Nautilus on the cells in your brain (not those, the other ones).
“The intro, discussion, and conclusion have value because I don’t view them as opinion, but as argument.” PaleoGould on the virtues of reading the whole paper.
“The vast majority of scientific papers today are published in English. What gets lost when other languages get left out?” Adam Huttner-Koros at The Atlantic wants to know.