Monday, April 23, 2007

More Junk from Scientific American

First this, and now this.

I cant find a publication by Gill Bejerano that includes the term 'junk DNA.' Doesnt help that SciAm didnt reference this groundbreaking publication. I dont know what theyre talking about.


TR Gregory said...

I had the same reaction -- why don't science news agencies provide a link to the source paper?

Glad you blogged about this. Saved me the trouble. :-)

By the way, if you like crank "junk DNA" theories *and* Medical Hypotheses, check this out:

Vendramini D. 2005. Noncoding DNA and the teem theory of inheritance, emotions and innate behaviour. Medical Hypotheses 64: 512-519.

My grad student already blogged about it here.

ERV said...

Hey thanks for the blog links! (yours and your students)

hehehe I bet he and I could get in a fist-fight over which paper is the "Worst Scientific Paper Ever" lol!!

Tyler DiPietro said...

I haven't read SciAm for a while. The only times I do are when I'm in a barber shop or something and it's either that or Esquire or some other bullshit.

I've generally been less keen on popular science periodicals. The best ones, IMO, are Skeptical Inquirer and PopMech. A lot of sensationalism is passing for scientific journalism nowadays, and not just in the expected sources (e.g., New Scientist).

Kristjan Wager said...

Tyler, SEED is actually pretty good.

Chris Noble said...

I subscribe to New Scientist but it disappoints me fairly regularly with overly credulous or sensation reports.

I too rarely read Scientific American because of the "popular" style.

At least with New Scientist you can usually get to the source paper without too much problems.

windy said...

Anyone remember the pyknons? They were supposed to be this revolutionary code in junk DNA (and all other DNA) that was discovered last year and was never heard from since.

I wish that anyone who publishes these revolutionary discoveries in junk DNA would tell us how it relates to earlier revolutionary discoveries in junk DNA ;)