Fake Banner
Marijuana For ADHD?

Cannabis and THC, its main psychoactive compound, have been endorsed by people suffering from anxiety...

Rutgers Study - Forcing DEI Programs On People Increases Hostility

If you have done nothing wrong, do you want to be treated like a criminal? That was always the...

Minnesota Trial Lawyers Want To Ban Neonics - Here Is Why That Is A Mistake

Minnesota is having a challenging year, so challenging they are approaching California as the wackiest...

The Toxic Masculinity Of Disney Movies

Once upon a time, stories were just stories. They were fantasies that took people to a new world...

User picture.
picture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Ilias Tyrovolaspicture for Fred Phillipspicture for Robert H Olleypicture for
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

Blogroll
Science journalism used to not have that 'science' qualifier.  It was journalism, like any other kind, but about science.

Last decade, though, science journalism lost its way, as we have discussed many times before. Too many science journalists became cheerleaders for science or, worse, advocates for aspects of controversial science topics. They were no longest trusted guides for the public and, as a result, people stopped reading them and corporate media no longer had need for something no one read. Science 2.0 and other sites filled the void nicely.
If only there were a field that examines the spiritual, therapeutic and psychological aspects of human-nature relationships, I'd abandon my graduate studies in Theoretical Phys Ed and embrace this new discipline instead.

Luckily, there is. For those of you dumb enough to have spent $80,000 for a two-year program in Environmental Journalism at Columbia but now can't (they closed it - even unlimited student loans reached a gullible student limit), Ecopsychology is here.
Fareed Zakaria of CNN writes the Global Public Square column and expressed concern recently that America was losing ground in science because of research funding and education.  
The Agriculture Department is supposed to promote agriculture, including meat, but it seems someone in there once read a flawed metric that claims it takes a gallon of gas to produce a pound of beef and recommended USDA employees go meatless to save the world.

Is there any truth to it?  No, but maybe they are counting on another four years of anti-science, advocacy-based leadership and getting a head start. In their agency newsletter, they provided tips on how to reduce environmental impact while eating in the department cafeteria - they suggested not eating meat. 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that, despite claims by some that the water has been polluted by gas drilling, extensive tests in the northeastern Pennsylvania village of Dimock found it safe.
Null results are important in science, but that doesn't mean scientists want other people to see theirs. The reason is obvious: competition.  If one group has a null result and another group is working on something similar, they potentially give the competitor a shortcut by publishing a negative result.

So it goes in just about every field. The food industry has its own null results, but they can be a lot more expensive.  The failure rate of new product launches is a shocking (to outsiders) 50%. It seems shocking because these are experts, armed with expensive demographic analyses and psychological information on the marketplace. They should know what people want.