Search results

It's been said that truth is the first casualty in war. It could also be said that truth is the first casualty in a decadent and declining society ... and journalists are leading the way.

It didn't take long to guess what might be going on: We're educating a whole lot of people about the differences between health scares and health threats -- and doing it well.

It's known that predatory open access (pOA) journals have low standards. But the story of the paper submission of Dr. Alexandre Martin's son, Tristan, underscores just how unethical they are. If published, Tristan would have plagiarized his work without ever having been aware of it. Did we mention that Tristan is seven years old? 

Science is one of the few institutions in America that has largely remained above the hyperpartisanship gripping our nation. However, there is a small but growing perception among Americans that scientists are becoming politically biased. Indeed, surveys have confirmed that Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans in academia.

The real issue is that our culture has gotten intellectually lazy. All someone has to do is ask about funding and a giant swath of people will dismiss the work. It is not just the anti-GMO and anti-vaccine contingent, everyone does it...

The Guardian's health page is scaremongering about e-cigarettes and pushing bizarre solutions to obesity. This is what happens when political activists write about public health.

Dutch journalist Jannes van Roermund sent an embarrassing, unprofessional, and accusatory email to epidemiologist and ACSH advisor Geoffrey Kabat. Dr. Kabat's response is pure gold.

Here is an insider's look on how to know when data should be taken seriously and when they should be ignored. (Hint ... it's all about where you find it.)

A recent prospective study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that exposure to perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) chemicals commonly found in non-stick pans and food packaging reduces immune responses to tetanus and diphtheria vaccinations among children aged 5 to 7 years old. But before you start worrying about protecting your children from these supposedly dangerous chemicals, it s important to note that the research, led by Dr.

In 2010, the profit for Elsevier, one of the world' leading publishers of technical, medical and scientific information, was 36 percent of its revenue – which exceeded Google's, Apple's and Amazon's. How did Elsevier do it? The company made use of a simple business model developed by Robert Maxwell.  
 
 
 
 

Speaking of chemophobia...last week, we were exposed to breathless, semi-hysterical headlines alleging that pregnant women — and, of course, their unborn babies — are doomed to disease and premature death because of the chemical stew we are all living in.

Pope Francis can claim many firsts; he is the first non-European Pope since 741 AD, the first from the Americas and the first from the Southern Hemisphere. Given his nuanced positions on science issues like climate change and agriculture, some might also consider him the first scientific Pope. That isn't correct, but he may be the most scientific in history.
Francis is not scientific due to credentialism, he does not have any advanced degree in chemistry. Instead, he is scientific by behavior.

In a lawsuit CSPI, in its fifth decade as America's premier sue-and-settle faux consumer advocacy group, claims the marketing for PepsiCo's Naked Juice is "misleading" because it can have more sugar than some of Pepsi's cola drinks. We have zero interest in defending Pepsi, but it didn't create that sugar, nature did.

Scientific journals discriminate against industry scientists, unless, that is, they happen to work for the environmental or organic industries. Those scientists don't have to follow the same rules governing the disclosure of conflicts of interest that everybody else does.

Michael Pollan, food activist and journalist, is the proverbial man trapped in the past. His latest piece for The New York Times criticizes the Obama administration for not catering to his bizarre beliefs about how food production actually works. And along he tries to smear ... the American Council's president, and you.

Junk science is everywhere. This is why our mission is so important. If journalists and advocates don't speak up for good science, cranks and quacks will take over. As part of our ongoing effort to eradicate nonsense, here's our list of the top junk science stories we debunked this year.

Here's some of what we've been up to over the last seven days, trying to change hearts and minds.

Do you think too much pizza will make you fat, or the chemicals in the box? If you think it's the box, you probably read AlterNet instead of us. And we had more outreach last week

An informative Washington Examiner article by T. Becket Adams hits the nail on the head in explaining the major problem plaguing science that ACSH has worked to combat: junk studies, and the sloppy media coverage that ensues. The piece also includes quotes from many experts associated with ACSH.

The scientific publishing industry is thoroughly dishonest and corrupt, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the journal Science are now also a part of the problem. Here's a disturbing case in point.

Anyone remotely familiar with the scientific method understands that just like a ruler or a telescope, statistics is a tool. Scientists use the tool primarily for one purpose: To answer the question, "Is my data meaningful?" Properly used, statistics is one of science's most powerful tools. But used improperly, statistics can be highly misleading.

It was another week of us doing what we do best: separating health scares from health threats. So when we get pushback from those in the health-scare business – a shifty faction that includes academic journalism professors and a former bureaucrat who insists checking your email will give you brain cancer – it's time for us to get busy.

Washington Post published a bizarre, long conspiracy op-ed about what scientists know - and the sources were a statistician, an environmental lawyer and a sociologist. Our other media coverage last week was more sane.

1. A student at Emerson College has gone John Birch Society, alleging he just sort of knows fluoridated water must be bad for us because he read it somewhere on the Internet and thinks being contrarian to accepted science and medicine is journalism. Well, it is. Shoddy journalism, anyway, and the world is already deep in that.

"Peer review" of scientific articles before publication is often considered the "gold standard" of reliability, but its luster has become tarnished by greed – the desire of the research community to tap into research funds, the pressure on scientists to publish or perish, and publishers of scientific journals seeking to maximize profits.