"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
[...]
That's unfair to *New Scientist*, an entirely responsible weekly.

What I said is not at all unfair to New Scientist. It was a criticism of
the scientists who got their work published in a pop journal prior to a peer
reviewed publication. There is far too much jumping the gun in this manner,
particularly in the life sciences.
It
would be wrong not to report initial and interim findings as they
become available.

They had no findings worth publishing. They talked about a "suggestion".
Many readers will misunderstand the posiotion and waffle about the article
as if it contained scientific information rather than "suggestions". Some
idiot is going to take action based on what he/she thinks the article avers.

Not many NS readers, I suspect: and what harmful action would be
likely to result from a misunderstanding of this particular piece? (If
you're thinking of the outrageous case of the MMR vaccine panic, I
couldn't agree with you more; but it's hardly on that scale if some
farmer decides not to use glyphosate this year.)

It must be better to publish a short news item like this, complete
with very clear caveats, and mention of research tending towards an
opposite conclusion, than to let the story spring out in garbled and
sensational form via the *Daily Mail*. You can't keep these things
secret.

Those who have read the article properly must have
noticed that it contains clear cautionary remarks such as:

QUOTE/
But the investigators warn against jumping to conclusions. "We're
deferring judgement until we have all the data," says Hanson. His team
is now planning field and greenhouse trials.

Of what use is a scientific publication without conclusions?

As science, no use at all (unless the conclusion is that no conclusion
can be reached); but people want to know what fellow-workers are
doing, and what stage they have reached, and all the usual news. And
it's always ultimately the public who fund these programmes. As I
said, these things can't be kept secret.
[...]

Mike.