Comments on: Clinical Genetics Has a Big Problem https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/21/clinical-genetics-has-a-big-problem/ All about electronics and circuit design Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:35:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Tomi Engdahl https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/21/clinical-genetics-has-a-big-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-1577029 Mon, 08 Jan 2018 19:05:58 +0000 http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=36648#comment-1577029 Uh Oh—CRISPR Might Not Work in People
https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/609904/uh-oh-crispr-might-not-work-in-people/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-01-07&utm_campaign=Technology+Review

A sampling of human blood has turned up a surprise: most people could be immune to one of the world’s biggest advances in genetic engineering.

]]> By: Tomi Engdahl https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/21/clinical-genetics-has-a-big-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-1577028 Mon, 08 Jan 2018 19:04:58 +0000 http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=36648#comment-1577028 500,000 Britons’ Genomes Will Be Public by 2020, Transforming Drug Research
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609897/500000-britons-genomes-will-be-public-by-2020-transforming-drug-research/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-01-08&utm_campaign=Technology+Review

Six drug firms are paying to sequence all the DNA in the UK Biobank.

In an effort to vault genetics into a new era of big data, six drug companies say they will decode the genes of half a million Brits and then make the data public—all by 2020.

]]> By: Tomi Engdahl https://www.epanorama.net/blog/2015/12/21/clinical-genetics-has-a-big-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-1462135 Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:36:10 +0000 http://www.epanorama.net/newepa/?p=36648#comment-1462135 Why Is So Much Reported Science Wrong
http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/12/21/167251/why-is-so-much-reported-science-wrong?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29

An article from Berkeley’s California Magazine explains some of the reasons science reporting is often at odds with actual science. Quoting: “Where journalism favors neat story arcs, science progresses jerkily, with false starts and misdirections in a long, uneven path to the truth—or at least to scientific consensus. The types of stories that reporters choose to pursue can also be a problem, says Peter Aldhous, [lecturer and reporter]. ‘As journalists, we tend to gravitate to the counterintuitive, the surprising, the man-bites-dog story,’ he explains. ‘In science, that can lead us into highlighting stuff that’s less likely to be correct.’ If a finding is surprising or anomalous, in other words, there’s a good chance that it’s wrong.

Giving Credence: Why is So Much Reported Science Wrong, and What Can Fix That?
http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/winter-2015-breaking-news/giving-credence-why-so-much-reported-science-wrong-and

1998 Year in which the British medical journal The Lancet published a study suggesting a link between autism and vaccines.

2010 Year The Lancet published a retraction of the discredited study.

33 Percentage of American parents surveyed by The National Consumers League in 2014 who believe vaccines are linked to autism.*

10 Factor by which retraction notices in scientific journals increased between 2000 and 2010.

44 Percentage of retractions attributed to “misconduct,” including fabrication and plagiarism.*

44 Percentage of health care journalists who said, in a 2009 survey, that their organization sometimes or frequently reported stories based only on news releases.*

]]>