[benbataille]

Does someone have read the original article ? I am curious about how the reader evaluation of potential risk was assessed. Was there a control group which didn't see any comment to compare variance amongst this group to the other groups variances ? How was the sampling done ? Were people with knowledge of science equitably balanced amongst groups ? How many of them was there ? At which level is the variance difference amongst groups significant ? 2000 subjects can lead to average results depending of the sampling.

The jsonline article does quite a lousy job with details.

[twentysix]

The title of the original article is "Science, new media, and the public" published in the Science Magazine. https://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/40. If you google the title you can find the full text.

Here is a detailed article on the same topic > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/...