Dan MacArthur at Genetic Future has the details. Some of the stuff coming out of genomics reminds me a lot of what you see with social science; lots of sexy studies which turn out not to be as significant upon later analysis. Perhaps hypotheses are overrated?
More like this
Joe Carter has a post where he lists the 100 most overrated and underrated movies of all time, by arbitrary category.
Squid Scientists
In a list of the most overrated things, we're the Churchills of popular science:
Popular science: ScienceBlogs. Politics gets more hits than science, so ScienceBlogs recruits screamers rather than interesting popularizers or important scientists.
Guess who's building an Ark on top of Mt Ararat in Turkey now?
Greenpeace.
Perhaps hypotheses are overrated?
Well, some of the people doing genome scans would argue that they're going in without any hypothesis at all.
Of course, the hypothesis they're implicitly testing is that common diseases are caused by common variants that can be tagged with a SNP chip; as it turns out, this hypothesis is largely wrong.
Of course, the hypothesis they're implicitly testing is that common diseases are caused by common variants that can be tagged with a SNP chip; as it turns out, this hypothesis is largely wrong
How do you know they are wrong?