|
1-7 of 7 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
New Scientist Interview - correction
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on September 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the interview coming out in the September 30 issue of New Scientist about my research, they made a major editing error. After I had seen and approved the piece they made changes that resulting in a huge mistake.
The quote from me:
"The good news, though, is that while 'colubrids' like garter snakes, American racers, and radiated rat snakes may have similar venom as their more deadly cousins, even if you stuck your hand into those snake's throat, you would not get a deadly bite"
Was changed to general text (outside of quotations thankfully at least) to:
Garter snakes, American racers and radiated rat snakes drip venom from their back teeth, so unless you plan on sticking your hand down a snake’s throat you would be unlucky to get a deadly bite.
There is of course a radical difference between the two statements.
I of course immediately contacted the editor when the sent me an advance copy. It is too late to change it in the issue. However, for whatever its worth, they will be printing the following correction in the next issue:
Due to an editing error, our article about snake venom gave the impression that it is possible to receive a deadly bite from garter snakes, American racers and radiated rat snakes, all of which are kept as pets. This is not true. Even if you stuck your hand into those snakes' throats, you would not get a deadly bite
::sigh:: Media. What can you do?
Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian Venom Research Unit,
University of Melbourne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venomdoc.com
|
| |
|
RE: New Scientist Interview - correction
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on September 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
``drip venom from their back teeth,``
Again, the tendency of the print media to sensationalize everything comes through!
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: New Scientist Interview - correction
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on September 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I expected better of New Scientist. Its a quality magazine that is typically an excellent source of science news.
The version I saw was not the version that went to print. \I went to great pains to make it crystal clear that the vast majority of these animals were completely harmless despite being technically venomous. This was deliberate so as not to provide ammunition for anti-herp legislation. To have some twit editorial assistant screw that up at the last instant makes me want to grow my hair back just so that I could immediately pull it out!
grrrrrrrrrr
Cheers
B
|
| |
|
RE: New Scientist Interview - correction
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on September 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess even what's considered a "quality publication" has twits who just have to add their own twist to every story.
I'm surprized there was not a reference to "Snakes on a Plane".
Cheers!
Al
|
| |
|
RE: New Scientist Interview - correction
|
Reply
|
|
by ALA_snake33 on September 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now, we all know that those Cute Little Garter Snakes are very Dangerous “Don’t We?”LOL. it fascinates me how they make any Snake out to be the Most Dangerous Snake in the World, shoot, they even say a Hydrodynastes gigas is one of the most Dangerous Snakes in the World “At Least That’s What My Local News Paper Said”. I guess Bad News is better than Good News, at least that’s what I gather from what I read.
Be Safe Ya’ll, Happy Herping : Wally
|
| |
|
RE: New Scientist Interview - correction
|
Reply
|
|
by snakeguy101 on September 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
you would not believe the amount of calls that i get that say they have a 10' water moccosin ( this drives me crazy as when translated means water water snake, just a pet peve ) and it ends up to be a ribon snake or even a garden hose! don't let the hose bite you, you'll end up in a hospital for weeks...
chris hartmann
|
| |
|
RE: New Scientist Interview - correction
|
Reply
|
|
by kacz on September 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bryan,
Isn't it wonderful when some idiot in authority puts your veracity in jeopardy? You may want to consider sticking with the peer-reviewed publications. The message doesn't go as far, but at least it gets there relatively intact. Redemption for the New Scientist should be based on the timeliness and visibility of the errata. Don't hold your breath!
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
