Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The "Best" of Genetics Science Writing from New Scientist

The blogosphere is discussing the conflict between scientists and science journalists. The issue is not whether science journalists can write for the general public—I take that as a given—it's whether what they write is scientifically accurate. Do articles by science journalists fairly represent the state of science?

New Scientist has risen to the challenge by listing it's top ten article on genetics [Genetics: Top 10 articles from 2008.

Here's the list of titles. Judge for yourselves.
Me and my genome
DNA dating: Can genes help you pick a mate?
Genes make mice squeal during sex
Are political leanings in the genes?
Cloning 'resurrects' long-dead mice
Genetically modified humans: Here and more coming soon
MicroRNAs: The cell's little emperors
Solar-powered sea slug harnesses stolen plant genes
Cancer special: Living with the enemy
Goldmine bug DNA may be key to alien life


  1. I don't think New Scientist is a fair test. As far as I can see, their editorial policy mandates that every article they publish be sensationalized, distorted, and twisted.

  2. Top ten as in MOST POPULAR WITH READERS. Not as in "most important as deemed by sientists". That's what peer reviewed journals are for. Pleae try to get to grips with how the world works.