Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

The Science News Cycle

Ronald Bailey | 5.21.2009 4:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Tom Tancredo Questions the War on Drugs

Ronald Bailey is science correspondent at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (22)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Mister DNA   16 years ago

    This was actually funny.

    Suck it, Chip Bok.

  2. JP   16 years ago

    I like it. Especially the internet response.

  3. Xeones   16 years ago

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

  4. Warren   16 years ago

    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. J sub d   16 years ago

    Thank you Ron. Phdcomics.com FTW.

  6. Malto Dextrin   16 years ago

    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. John   16 years ago

    Another important step is peer review.

  8. Rib O\'Flavin   16 years ago

    Well played, Dextrin.

  9. Syd   16 years ago

    Peer review, schmeer review, we have the internet!

  10. Pi Guy   16 years ago

    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. P Brooks   16 years ago

    Most excellent.

  12. Mister DNA   16 years ago

    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. ed   16 years ago

    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. Jeff P   16 years ago

    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. Gilbert Martin   16 years ago

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

    And Joe Biden has the web number.

  16. P Brooks   16 years ago

    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. No Name Guy   16 years ago

    SPOT ON.

  18. Hammered Head   16 years ago

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

  19. skr   16 years ago

    omg lmao

    especially at the boingboing dig.

  20. Art-P.O.G.   16 years ago

    Kudos all around.

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

    doom?

  21. Bronwyn   16 years ago

    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. Joe_D   16 years ago

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

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Tariffs Are Breaking the Manufacturing Industries Trump Says He Wants To Protect

Eric Boehm | From the July 2025 issue

The Latest Escalation Between Russia and Ukraine Isn't Changing the Course of the War

Matthew Petti | 6.6.2025 4:28 PM

Marsha Blackburn Wants Secret Police

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.6.2025 3:55 PM

This Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs

Eric Boehm | 6.6.2025 3:30 PM

A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization'

Jacob Sullum | 6.6.2025 2:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!