Don't Mistake Genetics for Fate

A few weeks ago in this space, we wrote about the bias toward sensationalist science reporting:  lazy journalists report the press release and present the results in traditional scientist-as-hero mode, while the more thoughtful members of the press see through the hype and want no part of it.  The result is that readers are exposed only to the puffery but only rarely to the skepticism.

Here’s an example.  A couple weeks ago, one of us received the following email from a reporter for the news section of the journal Nature:

“The paper is about paedophiles being more likely to have minor facial abnormalities, suggesting that paedophilia is a neurodevelopment disorder that starts in the womb. We're a bit concerned that the stats look weak though—small sample size, no comparison to healthy controls, large SD, etc.

“If you have time, could you take a quick look and let me know if the statistics seem to be strong enough to back up their conclusions? The paper is here:”

We spent a few minutes looking at the article...