This is an interesting critique, but equating science with "a crapshoot" is journalistically irresponsible. IANAS, but I read a few science blogs, and the impr

This is an interesting critique, but equating science with "a crapshoot" is journalistically irresponsible. IANAS, but I read a few science blogs, and the impression I get is that most scientific papers hedge and qualify extensively, laboriously mentioning statistical significance, noting possible alternative explanations for the observed data and imagining future experiments that ought to be run to provide extra confidence in the findings. He gives the example of all the studies linking genetic variants to acute coronary syndrome, only one of which was confirmed in a later (presumably larger?) study. Well, what does it mean for a study to link a gene to a condition? Maybe they concluded, "gene FOO19 causes heart attacks, bitches!" Or maybe it was more like, "4 out of 5 coronary sufferers we studied had this FOO19 gene. Someone should look into it." Those are two very different statements; one is way out-of-line, and the other is responsible reportage.