This article prompted me to consider the question of whether there were any boundaries regarding the silliness that could be presented as science.  The article entitled 'Vampire Books Like "Twilight" May Be Altering Teen Minds' has reached a new peak.

Of interest is that the leading proponent of this view is organizing a conference to discuss this topic. I haven't quite figured out how a professor of literature is remotely qualified to engage in this kind of idle speculation, but I suspect it occurs when being surrounding by too much fiction.

While there is little doubt that an immature brain, such as in adolescence processes information differently than a mature brain does, it seems interesting that the people engaged in this "research" seem so uniformly unqualified to comment on it.

Of course, there is the obligatory nod towards policial agendas, such as

"If you look very, very clearly at what kind of values the 'Twilight' books propagate, these are very conservative values that do not in any way endorse independent thinking or personal development or a woman's position as an independent creature," Nikolajeva said. "That's quite depressing."

Actually what's quite depressing is that this drivel passes as "science" in any capacity.

Then there's also the proposed "solution".

Nikolajeva argued that authors have a moral responsibility to include some positivity and hope in works aimed at teens.

So in general, this particular article has convinced me that there's a good reason why literature is not considered as one of the sciences.