Science(?) writing
Was in Dublin briefly yesterday and picked up a copy of the Irish Times to keep me occupied at the airport. It was working well until I got to William Reville's column. That just made me cross. I have no problem with identifying problems with published research. I would encourage it, results should be open to close scrutiny. (See Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, for example.) However, it's wrong to do it purely on one side of the argument while ignoring the failings of the research that supports your view. (A view which, in this case, is probably based on religious rather than scientific conviction.) Make it clear that you are writing about your moral opinion, don't try and pretend it's hard science.