Science in the New York Times

Posted by Pete Shanks November 11, 2010
Biopolitical Times

Every Tuesday, the New York Times has a section called Science Times, a favorite of some readers. This week is the 32nd anniversary issue, which the editors are celebrating, they say (in the print edition; the articles are online separately), by yielding to the temptation to make predictions: to identify "which fields are hot -- in other words, where talent, money and circumstances are converging."

There's actually more -- indeed better -- than that. The two articles on the front page are by Gina Kolata and Nicholas Wade, and both include skeptical notes based on their long experience as journalists: Kolata leads with a rueful anecdote about her former hopes for gene therapy, and Wade emphasizes the failure rate of basic research. Wade is particularly critical of the "illusion of progress" fostered by stem cell researchers.

No fewer than six of the "prognostications from 10 leading figures in 10 widely scattered disciplines" (an interactive feature on the web; individual entries cannot be linked) involve biology in one form or another, including hidden patterns in proteins, a census of marine life, bacteria-laced concrete, and the organization of the brain. David Haussler anticipates genomic analysis of immune cells, and hopes that combining this with analysis of cancer cells will lead to therapies. Rob Carlson expects that within the next year we shall see cells routinely reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells with the aid of a "cocktail" of "artificial versions of RNA molecules" -- synthetic biology in anyone's garage.

But wait, there's more! Benedict Carey has an article on epigenetics. And there are pieces on treatments for Alzheimer's and brain cancer ... collect the whole set! Oh, and there is also a piece on "what we won't discover anytime soon," or "Predictions We'll Back 100 Percent": among them, Neanderthals will not be cloned.

We have sometimes been critical of coverage in the Times; and sometimes scientists have complained too. But it really is, at its best, a terrific resource.

Previously on Biopolitical Times: