The current issue of the Economist carries a piece (its cover story, in fact) examining whether video games are as wicked as some say. The debate is prompted by the disclosure that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contains lurid sex scenes which can be unlocked via a patch from the internet. The game itself is fast-paced and violent, as many are, but does that make it evil?

Those who have yet to decide might note that Hilary Clinton recently blamed video games for "a silent epidemic of media desensitization." She accused them of stealing the innocence of our children. The Economist is laidback about the whole subject. It points to the neophobia which has always pitted the old against the entertainments of the young. Rock'n'roll was denounced for its lewd degeneracy.

The accusers say that video games have bred a violent generation, and encouraged aggression, but the Economist does not see it that way.

Much of the research on whether video games encourage violence is unsatisfactory, focusing primarily on short-term effects. In the best study so far, frequent playing of a violent game had no effect on participants' level of aggression. And, during the period in which gaming has become widespread in America, violent crime has fallen by half.

The Economist also points out that games are widely used to train pilots, soldiers and surgeons, and are used in schools and businesses. It suggests that "anyone who has learned to play a handful of games can generally figure out how to operate almost any high-tech device." Furthermore, games require players to construct hypotheses, solve problems and develop strategies. They can, in other words, do a fair measure of good.