On the other hand, > it looks like lead really is the culprit And yes, > there are reasons to be cautious about the results But that's immediately followed

On the other hand, > it looks like lead really is the culprit And yes, > there are reasons to be cautious about the results But that's immediately followed by, > However, the main strength of this study is unquestionably important: it verifies the lead-crime link in [a new] environment... That's not the level of nuance I'm looking for. More specifically, I think articles tend to be stronger when they acknowledge that there are multiple theories for crime trends, several of which have some explanatory power, none of which really gives a complete picture. If the title were "Lead contributed to higher crime rates" rather than "Lead caused higher crime rates," that would be the sort of concession I'm looking for. Unreservedly agree with you about the older piece though. Even without discussing alternative theories, Drum's earlier article is a good example of science journalism that puts a paper in perspective, (titled "some new evidence" rather than "X causes Y"), and the content is really well balanced.