As the original thread was closed because it went off topic (gosh, how terrible!).

I have started this one just to post alink to Ben Goldacres bad science site which explains how incorrect all the 'facts' reported were.

I will let people read it for themselves but basically the scientists were making no claims about turning gay rams striaght and are still doing work on what they were actually researching. They have issued no papers lets alone papers that have been peer-reviewed and the onlt people who spoke about stopping gay people being born was The Sunday Times.

http://www.badscience.net/?p=347#more-347

This is yet another example of journalists with little scientific knowledge either mis-reading information or purposefully mis-representing it to make a good story.

[sarum]

Interesting; thanks for that.

I'm not sure how, but I missed the name of Michael Bailey in the original article; he must be writing another book.
Any 'research' he's involved in is going to be dodgy.

Originally Posted by sarum

Interesting; thanks for that.

I'm not sure how, but I missed the name of Michael Bailey in the original article; he must be writing another book.
Any 'research' he's involved in is going to be dodgy.

Hey, no Problem.

Not come across Micheal Bailey before: is he someone I should read with care?

[sarum]

Originally Posted by Alfster

Hey, no Problem.

Not come across Micheal Bailey before: is he someone I should read with care?

He's not someone you should read at all, tbh; he produces books purporting to be scientific research which are at best, dubious, and at worst deliberate moneyspinning sensationalism.

Here is a small example.

[Sven945]

Which is why I read the Graun and not the Funday Times. I'd always kidded myself that the Times was, despite being a Murdoch paper (and for that reason, one that I personally wouldn't touch), one that it was mildly respectable to read. Looks like I'd been deluding myself all these years!

jack

[Peapod]

Originally Posted by sarum

He's not someone you should read at all, tbh; he produces books purporting to be scientific research which are at best, dubious, and at worst deliberate moneyspinning sensationalism.

I've read some of his work and found it quite interesting and enlightening

[Sven945]

But the question is are they factually accurate?

jack

[Peapod]

Originally Posted by Sven945

But the question is are they factually accurate?

jack

I would say he has some well thought out theories based on observation. I'm not sure to what extent scientific research supports or disagrees with his ideas though.