Well, the link to the Popsci article won't work (maybe their server is overloaded?), so I read a couple of other press releases as well as the actual article, which was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. It's a very interesting article, but these press releases really drive me nuts. For example:
No where have I been able to find evidence to support the idea that this new agent is "thousands of times stronger than DEET." In fact, I did not find DEET mentioned anywhere in the PNAS article, as a control compound or otherwise. I call "sensationalizing the data."
Also, "...stumbled across an insect repellant...", as if it just happened by accident? Really? Actually the authors searched through a library of >150,000 compounds, screening their activity with express intent to find a new insect repellant. That can hardly be considered stumbling across.
And underlying the entire article is the idea that somehow this new chemical is so much better than DEET, and, just a couple of tweaks away from being available for purchase at your local CVS. Right. First, tell me what problem (with DEET) we're trying to solve. Tell me how this chemical compound solves that problem. And show me that you haven't now introduced a host of other problems (i.e. toxicity in humans and other animals - not just acute toxicity, but from long term exposure). I'd bet the ranch that it's 10 years or more before there's any commercial viability to anything related to this article. If ever.
Sorry, I get a little worked up about these things sometimes... Good PNAS article, good idea, good science, extremely misleading delivery via the media (not blaming the media - the authors almost certainly had a huge role in drafting most of the press releases that have been written). Nothing like over-hyping your own science.
