Scott is always a good read, and rarely not entertaining. The Atlantic’s piece is a bit less snarky, but has other redeeming factors. It is quite obvious when

Scott is always a good read, and rarely not entertaining. The Atlantic’s piece is a bit less snarky, but has other redeeming factors. It is quite obvious when comparing the two that a journalist’s first instinct is always to call a bunch of experts and incorporate their views. It’s also laudable that the author rejects the easy cynicism of accusing these scientists of individual intentional deception, and instead redirects our scorn onto the publish-or-perish dynamic.