On 15 Aug 2003 03:45:38 -0700, (Mike Lyle)
wrote:

"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.)

and BSE?


and nvCJD?
--
Martin