The brilliant astrophysicist Dr. Stephen Hawking, who your correspondent personally admires, has become less lovable these days. It's no secret that Dr. Hawking does not believe in God, but for some reason, he has decided to become progressively more obnoxious about it. He said to the Guardian:

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

That is perfectly fine for him to believe. Intelligent people for millennia have disagreed on the existence of God. But what Dr. Hawking is doing is different; by calling religious belief a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he's essentially calling believers childish, perhaps even stupid.

What's worse is that he is still a well-respected and beloved figure, not just by scientists but by everybody. It's not an exaggeration to say Stephen Hawking is probably as popular as Albert Einstein. Most likely, Einstein didn't believe in God, either -- at least not in the same way that most Americans believe in a personal God. But, Einstein didn't go around telling people how childish they were; Hawking is. Why?

It's easy to speculate, but nobody except Dr. Hawking knows the answer to this question. It is worth noting, however, that some famous scientists, toward the end of their careers, behave in ways that make them look foolish. For instance, Linus Pauling, who won the 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, spent the latter half of his life peddling the idea that vitamin C could treat both cancer and the common cold.

One wonders if Dr. Hawking is on a similar path. Perhaps he is simply scratching a philosophical itch. Or, at the age of 69 and recently recovering from a serious illness, perhaps he is confronting his own mortality -- and lashing out at the very universe he has so beautifully described in his books. We'll never know.

But, it would be a shame if Dr. Hawking, instead of being remembered for his earth-shattering contributions to physics, is remembered as the man who spent the twilight years of his life insulting other people. Einstein would likely not approve.

Europe, birthplace of the Renaissance, has decided over the past decade that maybe science isn't so great after all. For instance, genetically modified organisms, which represent a true revolution in agriculture, are mostly unwelcome. Now, the European Union may soon set its sights on another clear and present danger: cell phones and wi-fi signals.

The UK's Telegraph describes how the Council of Europe (a powerful European organization that influences, but not does make, legislation) supports banning cell phones and wireless internet in schools:

A Council of Europe committee examined evidence that the technologies have "potentially harmful" effects on humans, and concluded that immediate action was required to protect children.

Oh no. They played the "child card." Who can argue against that? We have to protect the children. Surely, scientists everywhere agree.

The conclusions contradict advice from the World Health Organisation and the [UK] Department of Health, which says exposure to electromagnetic fields poses little or no risk to human health.

D'oh!

Perhaps the European Union should consider renaming itself the "Confederacy of Dunces."

The media notoriously over-reports epidemiology studies. One day, coffee is bad for you; the next day, it's the fountain of youth. This isn't entirely the media's fault; epidemiology studies, by their very nature, can be tricky and contradictory.

A new study has now possibly linked sexual orientation with cancer. The study was conducted by survey, which is not the strongest design. Participants were asked to report their sexual orientation, whether or not they ever had cancer, and the current state of their health. The study concluded NO difference in cancer prevalence between straight or gay women. However, gay men were 1.9 times as likely to have received a cancer diagnosis as straight men.

According to Reuters, the authors suspect that women also have a higher risk of cancer (even though their own data shows the exact opposite). The authors also appropriately warn us not to generalize the results of the study.

That's good, because studies like this should not be reported by the mainstream media. Why? Because it's really hard to draw firm health conclusions from studies based on surveys.

For instance, what if a particular group of people is more likely to go to the doctor than another group? That would skew the results. One of the authors contends that gay people are LESS likely to go to the doctor. But, that would seem to contradict the data. In this study, 8% of gay men had received a cancer diagnosis, but only 5% of straight men had. If gay men were indeed less likely to go to the doctor, then wouldn't one expect to see fewer cancer diagnoses among gay men, not more?

And, if sexual orientation is linked to cancer, then why is there no difference in the prevalence of cancer between straight and gay women?

Studies like this are very necessary, but are only preliminary. Until follow-up studies can confirm (or refute) the results, the media would be well-advised to avoid them.