23, October 2007
Some blatent self-promotion here. The Journal of Public Health Policy has just published a special section on gun violence in Africa. I helped to organise it (but Maria Valenti did most of the work) and contributed an introductory article. Unfortunately, my article wasn’t my best because I had a list of topics that needed to be covered, and that’s not good for narrative structure. But the other articles are very good, and present new data on a subject that’s very difficult to study.
The articles are currently available for free on the Journal’s homepage, here. Get them while you can! They are:
Read the rest of this entry »
8, October 2007
On 7 October 2007 readers of The Observer were greeted with the headline that “Forensic DNA tests ‘reveal traces of Madeleine’s body on resort beach’” (the article was written by Mark Townsend and Ned Temko and is available here). At first glance this latest installment in the long-running saga of the disappeared child promised a follow-up to the previous stories that some of her DNA had been found in her parents’ car.
Unfortunately, the article inadvertently reveals something much more disturbing – the cynical exploitation of the case by a shyster given credibility by The Observer (and other UK newspapers). The ‘forensic tests’ were carried out by a crank using a secret ‘quantum’ device with a secret energy source. It’s the sort of thing you would expect to find in a science fiction novel, and has no relationship to science. But the Observer reported this gobbldigook as news, and in doing so relied upon multiple untruths and distortions, which are outlined below. Read the rest of this entry »
29, September 2007
Another story claiming to show the dangers of mobile phone radiation has been doing the rounds of the predictable press – for example in the Mail, the Telegraph, CTV, and Fox News. As of 27 September Google provides over 800 hits for the story, some of them from sites offering specialist information for people with hearing impairments. Read the rest of this entry »
23, September 2007
In an open society, and especially in scholarly research, we are used to discussing the merits of ideas. In doing so we judge their merits using a variety of factors, but most important are evidence and logic. People should change their minds when they are confronted with evidence that contradicts their position, rather than reject the evidence. It may take a long time, and prejudice never seems to go away, but science and is based upon the assumption that through discussion and review the illogical and implausible will be eclipsed by ideas which are supported by better evidence, or evidence at all. This process has served us well, the scientific method has provided innumerable benefits. Read the rest of this entry »
22, September 2007
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!