Time for another book-related entry (I seem to be on a good run with my reading at the moment). I’ve just finished reading Ben Goldacre’s book “Bad Science”. Goldacre is a medical doctor and writer/journalist who has written the “Bad Science” column in The Guardian newspaper for several years (and also maintains the Bad Science blog where you can find out more about Goldacre and the book). I first became aware of his work a few months ago when a fellow user of a Plymouth Argyle (football club) fans website drew my attention to his writing (yes, football fans come in all shapes and sizes and, on PASOTI, the discussions can roam towards absolutely any topic you could think of from time to time). Intrigued by what I had heard, I bought “Bad Science” (the book) and so had a thoroughly enjoyable week’s worth of reading about how the media often twist scientific studies and findings when they report them (usually because of ignorance) and, more importantly, how this scientific naivity is utilised by unscrupulous pseudo-scientific practitioners to promote personal agendas and, ultimately, sell products (pills, diets, alternative therapies etc). The book does a brilliant job of dissecting lots of examples, in some cases revealing that what most of us take to be the case is actually more likely to be the reverse. One example of this is that most people think that increased intake of antioxidants provides some measure of protection against various forms of cancer; in fact, the scientific evidence suggests that the opposite might be true. Goldacre doesn’t simply rant though, he carefully explains the importance and uncertainties associated with various types of clinical trial, statistical procedure and outlines at some length the placebo effect such that the reader is left able to make up their own mind about the arguments he presents. However, it must also be said that if it’s a good rant that you want then Goldacre does do good rant…
In my opinion, anyone who is interested in science in general and health, nutrition and alternative therapies in particular, should read “Bad Science”.
Tim O'Hare 