The Science News Cycle

|

NEXT: Tom Tancredo Questions the War on Drugs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This was actually funny.

    Suck it, Chip Bok.

  2. I like it. Especially the internet response.

  3. This preemptively makes tomorrow’s “funny” that much more disappointing, you know.

  4. Ha! That’s funny. I get how the artist wanted to point the finger at the many different players, but I think we go from: A is weakly correlated with B, to, A kills babies, in about two steps.

  5. Thank you Ron. Phdcomics.com FTW.

  6. You forgot to close the cycle:
    Grandma talks to her bridge club/church group/coffee klatch,
    They complain to their kids, one of which is a political activist,
    Who then organizes a group “Concerned Nitwits Against A”,
    Which group protests to their Congresscritters,
    Which results in a pork barrel item calling for more research into the effects of A,
    Which gets passed, providing funds to the Federal Administration for the Regulation and Monitoring of ‘A’ Continuously Reliably Accurately and Permanently (FARMACRAP),
    Which issues an RFP to study the effects of A,
    Which you then apply for and win,
    Allowing you to do more research,
    And publish a paper in an obscure journal,
    Thus closing the cycle.

    Which is one of the reasons I got out of academia.

  7. Another important step is peer review.

  8. Well played, Dextrin.

  9. Peer review, schmeer review, we have the internet!

  10. Who then organizes a group “Concerned Nitwits Against A”

    That would be hilarious if weren’t so completely true.

    One suggestion for completeness:
    …Which results in a pork barrel item calling for more research into the effects of A – the vast majority of which will never end up in the researcher’s hands,…

  11. Most excellent.

  12. Don’t forget, since “B” causes “A”, “B” will need to be taxed to fund the regulation of “A”.

    To insure this happens with the least amount of opposition, Concerned Nitwits Against A will need to find a White Girl (preferably a Dead White Girl) whose life was adversely affected by “A”. What congressman would vote against “Tiffany’s Law”?

  13. the many different players

    Let’s face it, folks. The enemy is us. We’re citizens of Retard Nation. It’s all downhill from here.

  14. In Reason terms, this means the science/outrage/regulation cycle is posted by Radley, Katherine, Jacob, Brian, Ronald, and Nick, in that order.
    If it involves history, insert Cathy into that sequence.

  15. “Peer review, schmeer review, we have the internet!”

    And Joe Biden has the web number.

  16. Tonight at eleven:

    Courtney Lipgloss, Special Correspondent in Charge of Scaring the Bejesus out of the Rubes*, will take an in-depth look at “A” and how it can Destroy Your Family!

    *(despite the fact she knows absolutely nothing about anything)

  17. SPOT ON.

  18. Wow sounds exactly like what just happened with lead in childrens merchandise.

  19. omg lmao

    especially at the boingboing dig.

  20. Kudos all around.

    We’re citizens of Retard Nation. It’s all downhill from here

    doom?

  21. Oh, lookit! Lookit! My two favoritest things on the internet came together!

    What a fabulous way to start my day.

    I love PhD Comics. They helped me maintain my sanity during those last years of my dissertation work. Now I can read them and laugh, thinking how smart I was to get out of academia.

  22. Did anybody else like the fact that the p value shows no correlation at all? Good stuff.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.