Alright. I adore the Huffington Post. Truly. But this is the most ass-backwards half-written piece I think I've ever seen come out of there: ADHD Meds Abuse.
To paraphrase... "This non-profit study says this (kind of), but this big-pharma study says that (almost) - oh noes!... ... ..."
As a scientist, I take personal offense to this kind of writing. As a human being, I take umbrage to the lack of integrity in an article addressing an epidemic controversy such as ADHD. It's empty. There's not even an argument for or against the methodology of one study or another. There are no details as to how the study was conducted, no questioning the legitimacy of any of it, and the conclusion is that "the study lacks information on whether abusers were teens with ADHD, but anecdotal evidence suggests many are not."
... what? Really? Your conclusion is something that you left until the penultimate sentence to even bring up? And you're not going to expand on it? How the hell did Lindsay Tanner get the frontline with this thing? I'm almost more impressed with the public commentary... <shudders>
In effect, I think this article trammels the purpose of science writing, which is to translate primary literature into layman language. It is NOT to transliterate scientific discovery into utterances of empty and useless dribble. What is the purpose of this article? It can't possibly have had any other intent than to create hysteria, and that is the worst possible use of the media in general. First rule of translating: do not imply or directly suggest things that are completely irrelevant; please use intelligence.
I now firmly believe that if this Remicade business does not send me into remission and I am rejected from graduate school based on medical biases - yes, that is a legitimate possibility - I will have to go into science writing and do my utmost to revolutionize its currently upsetting condition.