Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!

Reasons to adore Nature: it has, in the recent past, featured the sentence "We believe the assumption that wizarding has a genetic basis to be deterministic and unsupported by available evidence." Sublime. This was in a rebuttal to a brief piece speaking about how Harry Potter analogies could be used to teach children Mendelian genetics. For instance, Neville Longbottom's poor wizarding skills demonstrate variable expressivity of the wizarding gene (as opposed to incomplete penetration, as stated by the authors of the original piece, "Harry Potter and the Recessive Allele"). Everybody and his Muggle-born brother is writing about HP these days, but hey, I'm definitely buying and reading Deathly Hallows the instant it comes out, despite the slightly lame title, so who am I to judge?