From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Dec 25 2002 - 12:39:38 MST
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I again remind all and sundry that a messed-up press release does not
> necessarily indicate messed-up research. The included hype and
> irrelevancies are probably more likely the result of a reporter trying to
> "make the research interesting".
I agree -- *but* -- a quick PubMed scan on "Costa RH FoxM1B" reveals that
most of the research is in the liver and lung. These are tissues that
are (or can) divide. Further, they are explicitly damaging the liver
to force regeneration -- that *isn't* a good model for aging. It may
very well be that the aging angle got added by the person writing the
press release -- but a responsible scientist is going to try and make
sure that the press get it right. That will not always happen
but it doesn't mean that that we should pull any punches with
respect to evaluating what is reported -- that is the way that
science is supposed to work.
While I'm not sure about eurekalert.org, most Science Daily
press releases are derived directly from the university doing
the research. From the looks of it, the information is
directly from the press office at UIC, one Sharon Butler
(with phone number and email supplied). Extropes with
my "yelling from the back of the room" approach to getting
things right may feel free to forward to her my comments, perhaps
along with Eliezers (so she doesn't feel too assaulted).
[It would be a little too self-serving for me to do so --
and besides its Christmas.]
One would *hope* that most universities allow their scientists
some editing power over their own press releases.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:53 MST