If you’re searching for one last gift for the nerdy, science-y type who’s hard to please, it’s not too late to get British physician-journalist Ben Goldacre’s book, “Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks.” I just finished reading it and recommend it to readers of this blog. Even for the non-nerdy. It’s a fun read. And it’s really meant for the non-nerdy to help them “win – or at least understand – any argument you choose to initiate, whether it’s on miracle cures, MMR, the evils of big pharma, the likelihood of a given vegetable preventing cancer, the dumbing down of science reporting, dubious health scares, the merits of anecdotal evidence, the relationship between body and mind, the science of irrationality, the lexicalization of everyday life, and more.”
Goldacre, who writes a “Bad Science” column in The Guardian and publishes a “Bad Science” blog, helps readers analyze evidence in clear, understandable language.
In the book, he criticizes “how the media promote the public misunderstanding of science, their single-minded passion for pointless non-stories, and their basic misunderstandings of statistics and evidence.”
He slams homeopaths, nutritionists, former British prime minister Tony Blair, and the South African health minister.
He does a brilliant job explaining “regression to the mean” and placebos.
And way back in the book, he even cites my 2008 analysis in PLoS Medicine, “How Do US Journalists Cover Treatments, Tests, Products, and Procedures? An Evaluation of 500 Stories.”
Here’s what some other reviewers wrote:
“Ben Goldacre is exasperated . . . He is irked, vexed, bugged, ticked off at sometimes inadvertent (because of stupidity) but more often deliberate deceptions perpetrated in the name of science. And he wants you, the reader, to share his feelings . . . There’s more here than just debunking nonsense. The appearance of `scienceiness’: the diagrams and graphs, the experiments (where exactly was that study published?) that prove their efficacy are all superficially plausible, with enough of a “hassle barrier” to deter a closer look.” —- The New York Times
“He particularly loathes (most) nutritionists, especially Scottish TV personality Gillian McKeith. To prove that her American Association of Nutritional Consultants membership isn’t so impressive, Goldacre describes registering his dead cat Hettie for the same credentials online. Goldacre shines in a chapter about bad scientific studies by writing it from the perspective of a make-believe big pharma researcher who needs to bring a mediocre new drug to market. He explains exactly how to skew the data to show a positive result. ‘I’m so good at this I scare myself,’ he writes. ‘Comes from reading too many rubbish trials.'” —- The Washington Post
“While it is a very entertaining book, it also provides important insight into the horrifying outcomes that can result when willful anti-intellectualism is allowed equal footing with scientific methodology.” —- The Boston Globe
“Goldacre … has been a star in the effort to set the record straight on woowoo `nutritionists,’ doctors who claim that AIDS can be cured with vitamins, and vaccination/autism scares. Bad Science is more than just a debunking expose (though its that): it’s a toolkit for critical thinking, a primer on statistics and valid study design, a guide to meta-analysis and other tools for uncovering and understanding truth . . . The book should be required reading for everyone who cares about health, science, and public policy.” —-BoingBoing.net
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like