A nice piece in Nature, by Tony Ballantyne (& hat-tip to PZ Myers, who somehow finds these things first), speculates on how things could be for those who selectively reject the bits of science they don’t like: in this instance, vaccination, but creationism could easily be substituted in this storyline.
T.Ballantyne (2012) If only… Nature 489: 170 doi:10.1038/489170a
herr doktor bimler says:
Don’t like it. The lady character seems to be guilty of poor risk analysis, such as can happen to anyone, i.e. RonL. I don’t see this as a broader rejection of science.
In addition, I have nothing against wish-fulfillment fantasies, but this one turns rather skeevy at the end where the protagonist gets to inject his opponent despite her objections. There is already enough S & M porn out there without Nature getting in on the act.
Alison Campbell says:
I read it as a cautionary fable; didn’t really pick up on the S&M fantasy side of it.
there is already enough S&M porn out there… – I fear nature (small ‘n’) has already got into the act. As in, deviant duck secks…. Joking aside, I do see your point.