Philip Ball writes, “There are now several companies offering to read your genes: 23andMe, Ancestry DNA, and Family Tree DNA are a few of the most prominent. You send them a saliva swab and cross their palm with silver, and back comes an analysis of your DNA.There are plenty of grounds for skepticism about the new business of personal genomics.”

Quick Read

That’s dangerous. When the results of clinical trials aren’t made public, the consequences can be dangerous — and potentially deadly

Quick Read

When you pick up a newspaper and read a story about the latest results on breast cancer, autism, depression or other ailments, what are the odds that finding will stand the test of time? The answer, according to a study in the journal PLOS One is: flip a coin

Quick Read

— and put academic freedom on trial. When a Harvard researcher dared to point that out, in a scientific, peer-reviewed study and in media interviews, the supplement maker sued him for libel and slander.

Quick Read

Academics vet the work of their peers — for free, in their spare time — in a process that is supposed to weed out junk science before it’s published. But researchers say the task is thankless, that it slows down the publication process. To make matters worse, this cornerstone of the scientific method has surprisingly little evidence for its effectiveness, and many mysteries about how it works

Quick Read

Early trials by UK universities give grounds for optimism after patient shows no sign of virus following treatment

Quick Read

Want to be smarter? More focused? Free of memory problems as you age? If so, don’t count on brain games to help you. That’s the conclusion of an exhaustive evaluation of the scientific literature on brain training games and programs. It was published Monday in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Quick Read

Long-awaited plan would exempt computer-aided harvesting from EU copyright law

Quick Read