science policy

A California judge is going to determine whether or not coffee causes cancer. Think about that. We live in a society where judges and lawyers – not medical doctors or scientists – get to determine the credibility of biomedical research. And guess who paid in the process?
It is immoral and reckless to leave drugs within the reach of children. That five kids were poisoned makes grandpa, who had a medical marijuana prescription, an irresponsible pothead.
Alas, the $37 billion dietary supplements industry likely will remain unregulated for the foreseeable future. And with it, the fight against junk science and bogus health claims must soldier on.
Lawyers are routinely required to solve problems that they themselves created. If something like this were to occur in any other area of life, it would be called racketeering. So beware, science: a lawsuit-happy nation turns its eyes to you.
Open displays of bipartisanship are rare these days and, as such, should be applauded. Unfortunately, a recent example of bipartisanship promotes junk science and bogus health claims, using buzz words like "integrative" and "wellness" that are code for "alternative medicine."
It's time to turn the forces of political correctness against themselves. If society is going to be in the dubious business of banning words, then we ought to do that because they're factually incorrect – rather than politically incorrect. And there's no better place to start than with the abbreviation "GMO."
If marijuana is now a "recreational drug" then what about its second-hand smoke? Does it get ignored? Is there some science to apply in making an informed decision?
It is time to call out academia's fascination with Karl Marx for what it really is: a pernicious form of historical revisionism that is nearly identical to Holocaust denial.
Should the U.S. learn from China about air pollution? A history professor says yes, and he bases his argument on an epidemiological paper that utilizes deceptive maps and dubious methods.
When it comes to alcohol, the United States is incredibly puritanical. Our society has promoted the view that even a single drop of alcohol is harmful to developing babies. However, the totality of evidence does not support that belief at all.
Researchers at Harvard's Belfer Center scoured the globe for whatever was publicly available on North Korea's biological weapons program. Referencing news articles, journal papers, expert interviews and government reports, the team assembled a comprehensive study of the knowns and unknowns. Here are the main findings.
Air pollution in China has a substantially negative impact on public health. But with the exception of central and southern California and the upper Midwest, the United States has extremely clean air. And in fact, most regions in this country would not benefit from tighter air pollution standards.