This story covers the public reaction to publication of news about scientific research. The story makes clear that some of the reporting was incorrect or misleading, but it isn't clear how much blame should be laid on the headline-writing punsters. The reporter lets the sources speak for themselves, for the most part, and seems to give a balanced view.

A good reminder that attacks on science are not the exclusive privilege of the creationist right.

THis is an interesting story about the politics around "gay" and animal rights. It's not clear that scientists agree this is or is not good science. Nor do we get a sense that the project is or is not making progress on any of its aims. This is a story of a grant-funded project being politicized and, as far as it goes, is instructive.

It is especially good because it shows the interaction of an academic itch to be scratched, media and special interest spin, and citizen journalism. Plus, the subject is both challenging and pretty darn strange. Good stuff.

The article does a good job helping the reader realize the ridiculousness of a professional tennis player inflamed by misleading PETA propaganda discussing science she doesn't understand. But the NYT shows no signs of having read any of Roselli's research themselves, either. The one scientific finding they discuss is filtered through an outraged gay PETA member who read a press release. Looking at any list of Roselli's publications shows a broad interest in how sexuality works, not just gay sexuality.