My (very expensive) Lenovo laptop just committed suicide after a year and 1 month (which is ironic since I thought that buying computers more expensive than Dell would help them to last longer than the typical 2-3 years). Hopefully I can manage to keep posting regularly with my work computer or (god forbid) my phone.
I was asked about the recent GM toxicity study where researchers re-analyzed Monsanto toxicity data and came to a different conclusion. It's a good example of how the Truth in science lies in the tiny details.
I (along with other) responded to this question recently on U.S. Food Policy.
Other scientists wade in on blogs compiled in the AgBioWorld mailing list.
For example? The "Impact Factor" of scientific journals is rated based on how many people use and cite the articles within. Prestigious journals with huge audiences (e.g. Science and Nature) have Impact Factors in the high teens, twenties and up. Very good journals with small, specialized audiences often have Impact Factors above 5. Journals with Impact Factors below 4 are usually mediocre, specialized journals or (more often) lousy journals. The International Journal of Biological Sciences is not even rated (though they assign themselves their own number of 3.24!).