Jump to content

Bad Science by Ben Goldacre


Freewheeling Andy

Recommended Posts

I've just started reading this, but so far I think it might be the most important book of the year.

 

Goldacre is always right, and always fantastic, in his newspaper columns, and wry and funny to boot. So it's already got rock solid pedigree.

 

But just starting to read it, it's fantastic, eviscerating the garbage that masquerades as science in the health and nutrition fields in particular, and in the gormlessly clueless reaction of journalists who know nothing. So far, after a couple of chapters, it's looking like my book of the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

OK. Finished this now and it is supremely fantastic. Possibly the best book I've read this year.

 

It's well written and funny. Which helps. But it's really the eye-opening subject matter that's key.

 

He covers firstly how alternative medicine falsely sells itself, with fascinating insight into their false use of stats and research and reports, and all the failings in that research.

 

Then there's a brilliant, brilliant section on the placebo. Stuff I never knew - how not only does believing you're taking a medicine make you healthier, whatever you take; but even if the doctors prescribing a medicine believe it will work, it improves outcomes. Astonishing stuff.

 

Then there's a wonderful section on nutritionism and the nonsense and lies and mendaciousness of people like "Dr" Gillian McKeith.

 

Then an even more eye-opening discussion on how pharma companies deliberately spin and shape and change their research, how they hide data by not publishing, and so on.

 

And finally there's the wonderful section on the mis-reporting of science by the media, and how the media deliberately and consciously buy into the myth of science being difficult, and of science being done by boffins in white coats, and of the "Eureka" moment, or the Galileo myth, where "good science" is the stuff that's done on the outside, by the maverick researcher. And where all science has a balance and must be reported like politics with both sides commenting. Imagine (my example, not Goldacre's) the papers reporting on gravity. These days they wouldn't just talk about what it does, but they'd need to find some counter-balancing viewpoint explaining that gravity doesn't exist. Because the journalists and editors don't understand science.

 

And finally, all this leads to proper descriptions and explanations of the horrors that were the MRSA scare, and worst of all, the shockingly bad journalism that led to the MMR scandal which has resulted in deaths and more thanks to journalistic incompetence.

 

A very important book, and interesting, and funny too. Lend it to your sciencey friends. Then lend it to your crystal healing new age homeopath gibberish talking friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest softmachine

Has anyone read this book? I've just finished it and am now slightly scared about what I read in the newspapers about medical research. It's all a bit Daily Mail really...

Edited by Michelle
link removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've just finished reading this after the recommendations on this thread. It's brilliant. Very well written, with some excellent points argued well and with humour.

 

I thought he had a very valid point when he was discussing how science is dumbed down in the press, but the financial pages and the literary ones were not. Why the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fascinating, isn't it? There's an assumption that people who read about science have to be utter idiots; yet when there are reviews of books, the newspapers are happy to assume that the reader is as intelligent and knowledgeable as the journalist.

 

And it probably does come down to the editors - they are trained in literature, usually, and therefore are happy to assume others know what they do. In science they assume others are as ignorant as they are.

 

Financials is a less obvious thing, because the financial pages are often highly esoteric and hard to get a grip on. But, probably because it's such a key part of their reporting and more visibly essential to the economy, they're probably obliged to report properly.

 

The more I think about the book in general, the more important it seems to me. It's really influenced the way I read so much science reporting, health reporting, and so much of health advertising. It really has added a very useful layer of healthy cynicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pleased to see that it's not just the pharmaceutical companies that are examined, but also alternative medicine, tv 'personalities', and also (especially) the media. Working as a health professional has already made me question all sorts of things, but I'm actually starting to think that I may take a look at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fantastic book. It's well written and easy to read (not dumbed down though!) depsite the subject matter.

 

I've never really looked to see what qualifications the "science correspondent" on different newspapers have. I had always assumed they had some sort of science background... but maybe not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm bringing this back to the top partly because Michelle's reading it at the moment, but also to let you all know that you can get the missing chapter from the book here:

 

http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/

 

It is released by Goldacre under the collective commons license.

 

The chapter wasn't in the initial print of the book because he was being sued by the protagonist, Matthius Rath. The material is now allowed out. And it's really, really shocking. I mean, really shocking. Probably the worst of all in the book in terms of the impact of pseudo-science quackery. Jaw dropping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chapter wasn't in the initial print of the book because he was being sued by the protagonist, Matthius Rath. The material is now allowed out.

I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the link.

 

This is one of those books that I think everyone should read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't finished yet, but what I've read so far has been brilliant, and I've had trouble putting the book down!

 

I thought the MMR section was very well done.. he doesn't try to tell you whether to have the jab or not, but simply outlines what happened, how it was SO badly reported, how research was ignored by the media etc - he explains so well everything that I try to tell parents.

 

I agree with Andy that the chapter about placebos is very enlightening.. I already knew some of it, but not all, and it will probably have an influence on the way I sometimes communicate with patients.

 

Throughout the book he also gives good information about what makes good research, and what to look out for.

 

For anyone interested in health stories, it's definitely a great read.

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the MMR section was very well done.. he doesn't try to tell you whether to have the jab or not, but simply outlines what happened, how it was SO badly reported, how research was ignored by the media etc - he explains so well everything that I try to tell parents.
I agree. The MMR chapter was especially interesting because, as well as illustrating the things he talked about in previous chapters, it showed how devestating the combination of bad research and bad reporting can be. Bad research can be refuted, but bad reporting goes unpunished.

 

If I remember correctly, Ben Goldacre points out that the science journalists trained to cover articles on MMR were taken off the story, and were replaced with "big name" journalists---people who perpuate the myth "that science is hard". Then you had the columnists who wrote from a position of ignorance, but assumed a position of authority, simply because they thought they knew better. The blame, of course, lies with the editors, who are keen to push out a good story before proper background research has been done. This is the kind of problem Nick Davies talks about in his book Flat Earth News and the kind of thing you don't expect in a country where "education, education, education" were supposed to be top priorities. Bad science reporting continues as Ben Goldacre points out in a recent Bad Science article. It seems the press and media are able to continue as if they did nothing wrong. This is why I think his chapter on the press and media's attitude to health stories is so important, especially for those of us who form part of the ill-informed masses.

 

Throughout the book he also gives good information about what makes good research, and what to look out for.

 

For anyone interested in health stories, it's definitely a great read.

It's wishful thinking that the administrators in charge of the livelihood of others, especially children, should read this book. Hopefully, I won't read any more stories along the lines of Brain Gym or fish oil supplements in the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said up-thread, I think this is such an important book for precisely the reasons Seiichi says. It's sufficiently accessible that those of us in the ill-informed or semi-informed masses can read and understand it, and will become far better able to interpret the data when it's presented by either incompetent or deliberately dissembling journalists.

 

Even if the editors think they have a good story, the more people who treat the stories or reporting with the disdain they deserve, the better.

 

The media coverage is, perhaps, even more important than the invidious presentation of bad research by pharma companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this will be one book on my list to get tomorrow when I make a pilgrimage to Waterstone's. I remember hearing about it a while ago, and thought about getting it, as both my other half and I are very interested in science and health writing, and I think it will be one we'll both want to read, especially after reading this thread.

 

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts on the book, as it's reminded me that I want to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...