Yesterday,...
Category: torture
Yesterday, I argued that science writers had missed a good bet by (mostly) not covering a study concluding that doctors at Guantanamo had failed to inquire about, or document, potential abuse of detainees.
Today, The New York Times and a scattering of others covered a story about legal action being taken against psychologists alleged to have designed or consulted on abusive interrogation techniques. And once again, science writers are mostly absent.
We're often quick to jump on the stories...
As science writers, we make a lot of fuss over the importance of peer review as...
As science writers, we make a lot of fuss over the importance of peer review as one indicator of the legitimacy and importance of science But what happens when peer reviewed conclusions clash with our politics?
I have no way of knowing whether reporters' political views shaped the coverage of the PLOS Medicine study alleging that doctors at Guantanamo ignored evidence of torture. But the study did not receive the coverage I thought it might, and I think it's reasonable to raise the question. With the national focus on jobs and the economy (and, in some quarters, Obama's birth certificate), we--and I include in that all of us who are...
Finally, we have the definitive word on torture: It has a deleterious effect on the hippocampus, the frontal cortex, and memory. The...
Finally, we have the definitive word on torture: It has a deleterious effect on the hippocampus, the frontal cortex, and memory. The phony idea that torture elicits good information is based on "folk psychology and folk neurobiology."
Folk neurobiology? What's that? Neurobiology discussed around a campfire? What neurobiological changes afflicted the magic dragon Puff, I wonder, when the kid grew up and didn't come back?
Maybe this isn't the definitive word after all.
The news stories on this were sparked by...
©2010 Knight Science Journalism at MIT. All Rights Reserved.