From the piece: > "The correction isn't the ultimate truth either," Prof. Kevles said. No kidding! Folks, this is an iterative process. If you get as excite

From the piece: > "The correction isn't the ultimate truth either," Prof. Kevles said. No kidding! Folks, this is an iterative process. If you get as excited as the P.I. about their findings, stop for a second, look at the methods & materials, and ask if a different analysis would support their findings. In a 'hot' field, look very carefully at the figures and tables, for these fields are the most prone to shenanigans (cough stem cells cough). At the same time, when you have a critical mass of smart, motivated people in a field that's ripe for discovery, real advances can and do happen. What biologist would have taken you seriously in 1990 if you told them that, not only would we have a map of significant functional landmarks in the human genome by 2000, but by 2010, we'd have them broken down base-by-base into their patterns of variation among sub-populations? And the same thing is happening for everything from nematode worms to wine grapes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But do expect more heavy-handed anti-intellectual undertones from the WSJ as Murdoch begins to insert his control into the editorial staff.