[dangus]

My complaint is not with the research, but the sensationalist hype with which they bypass peer review and go straight to the press, baiting the press with laughably misleading assertions.

Most members of the press probably believe that science has demonstrated sponataneous creation of DNA, for instance, which is very, very far from the truth. (In actuality all they did is create nucleotides. It's the difference between showing that monkeys have written Shakespeare, and showing that a monkey has hit a typewriter key.)

The scientists can tell their peers, "I didn't say anything untrue," while manipulating the ignorant press. Truly shameful. It's the biological equivalent of "cold fusion," only no-one came forth to denounce the fact that it never happened.

[js1138]

Most members of the press probably believe that science has demonstrated sponataneous creation of DNA, for instance...

I wouldn't want to overestimate the intelligence of reporters, but I'd like to see some actual evidence of this -- a mainstream story that asserts this, for example.

[VadeRetro]

My complaint is not with the research, but the sensationalist hype with which they bypass peer review and go straight to the press, baiting the press with laughably misleading assertions.

Occasionally I see a sloppily written science article which looks to be the product of a reporter who does not understand what he has read or been told. Rarely does a researcher seriously misrepresent his work, especially in the direction of hucksterism. The kind of controversies that erupt when this happens (see "Cold Fusion") tend to destroy careers in science.

[Doctor Stochastic]

My complaint is not with the research, but the sensationalist hype with which they bypass peer review and go straight to the press, baiting the press with laughably misleading assertions.

Sort of the Behe, Dembski, ID crowd's methodology. They (along with Pons&Fleishman and Sagan) tend to contact the press first and try publishing later (if ever.)

[jennyp]

My complaint is not with the research, but the sensationalist hype with which they bypass peer review and go straight to the press, baiting the press with laughably misleading assertions.

In my "job" as webmistress of Creation/Evolution: The Eternal Debate, I've been scouring the science news daily for a year & a half. The news stories you see invariably follow the press releases, which are issued by the universities or the journals to publicize the publication of the peer-reviewed studies.

IOW, when you read about a scientific breakthrough or new theory, it's almost always based on a peer-reviewed study. It's true that the headlines often make more sweeping claims than the articles themselves, many of which can be more forceful in their claims than the studies that they're based on. But for any story you'll always find one or two well-written articles that explore the nuances of the actual findings. Sometimes it takes a couple days for the more-informative article to come out. But sometimes not.

The point is, it's hardly ever like the cold-fusion fiasco.