Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
Re-states well known issues with academia/research, particularly for anyone who has worked in this space.
Compulsory reading for everyone not well versed in how scientific research should work. Packed with not-so-fun examples of deception and lying in the medical and quasimedical industry. I have a lot of respect for how the author tracked down references and dubious qualifications and tried to bring this to everyone's attention via the media. And I was saddened by yet another reminder of how mainstream media's science reporting fails people every day.
Yet somewhere at the end, there was an idea that especially resonated with me. We have done this to ourselves. It's not as if the information isn't available.
***
"George Orwell first noted, the true genius in advertising is to sell you the solution and the problem."
"Science stories generally fall into one of three categories: the wacky stories, the ‘breakthrough’ stories, and the ‘scare’ stories. Each undermines and distorts science in its own idiosyncratic way."
Yet somewhere at the end, there was an idea that especially resonated with me. We have done this to ourselves. It's not as if the information isn't available.
***
"George Orwell first noted, the true genius in advertising is to sell you the solution and the problem."
"Science stories generally fall into one of three categories: the wacky stories, the ‘breakthrough’ stories, and the ‘scare’ stories. Each undermines and distorts science in its own idiosyncratic way."
This was a very interesting look a massaging data in medical and nutritional studies. In addition to that, shoddy journalism reporting on those studies is covered. I enjoyed it but it was dense at times.
A great book which has taught me absolutely loads about science and how the media covers it. I recommend it.
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Having read another science book, Mark Miodownik's Stuff Matters (4 stars!) a few months back, I was excited to pick up Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. The premise was seductive - a book unravelling all that pseudo science we see in the media today, helping people see past the lofty claims about the benefits of antioxidants, chia seeds, homeopathy, the Paleo diet or whatever the new health fad of the moment is.
Unfortunately, Goldacre's book is likely to preach to the converted. People who jump on the homeopathy/anti-MMR/detox foot bath bandwagon are unlikely to want to dig too deeply into the science (or lack thereof) behind these claims. Goldacre, I think, means to write in an accessible manner but citing a variety of scientific studies to bolster his own (valid) claims whilst nonchalantly dismissing the practitioners of homeopathy, proponents of new health fads, etc as quacks and using terms such as "the nonsense du jour" or "cargo cult science" is unlikely to win over the other side. Take his chapter on 'clinical nutritionist' Gillian McKeith, for instance, where Goldacre debunks her assertion that spinach, having darker leaves because of a higher chlorophyll content, is "high in oxygen" and "will really oxygenate your blood". Goldacre notes that this displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how photosynthesis works and "any chlorophyll you eat will not create oxygen and even if it did, even if Dr Gillian McKeith, PhD, stuck a searchlight right up your bum to prove her point, and your salad began photosynthesising...and by some miracle you really did start to produce oxygen in there, you still would absorb a significant amount of it through your bowl, because your bowel is adapted to absorb food, while your lungs are optimised to absorb oxygen. You do not have gills in your bowels." The snarkiness is perhaps entertaining to those already inclined to be dismissive of McKeith but I doubt it will help sway those who devour her books and TV shows.
Goldacre goes on to add that in McKeith's book, Miracle Superfood, which is apparently the published form of her PhD, she referenes experimental data from a magazine entitled Health Store News and an issue of a magazine entitled Earthletter. Goldacre criticises these as being inappropriate references in a PhD dissertation. It's a fair criticism but again, anti-vaxxers, homeopathy proponents, etc are actually likely to cite articles from publications such as Health Store News and Earthletter to support their stance. They don't really care if these publications don't quite have the standing of Nature or the Lancet.
If Goldacre wrote Bad Science for those already inclined to be skeptical of the "quacks and hacks" and are looking for more ammo to bolster their case, then the book is a great success. Readers can snigger and feel superior as they dismiss those too misguided or ill-educated to see through the hoaxes. But if Goldacre was hoping that Bad Science could persuade those who believe that there may be merits to homeopathy, that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits, that packing in the antioxidants can lower your risk of cancer, then the book probably fails miserably on this count. Take this excerpt for instance:
"Witnessing the blind, seething, thoughtless campaigns against MMR and GM, which mirror the infantile train of thought that 'homeopathy works because the Vioxx side effects were covered up by Merck,' it's easy to experience a pervasive sense of lost political opportunities, that somehow all our valuable indignation about development issues, the role of big money in our society and frank corporate malpractice is being diverted away from anywhere it could be valid and useful into puerile, mythical fantasies. It strikes me that if you genuinely care about big business, the environment, and health, then you're wasting your time with jokers like Pusztai and Wakefield."
Goldacre's points are valid but his scathing tone is simply too alienating. He could perhaps take a leaf from Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind on how he might reframe his arguments to persuade, rather than besiege.
Unfortunately, Goldacre's book is likely to preach to the converted. People who jump on the homeopathy/anti-MMR/detox foot bath bandwagon are unlikely to want to dig too deeply into the science (or lack thereof) behind these claims. Goldacre, I think, means to write in an accessible manner but citing a variety of scientific studies to bolster his own (valid) claims whilst nonchalantly dismissing the practitioners of homeopathy, proponents of new health fads, etc as quacks and using terms such as "the nonsense du jour" or "cargo cult science" is unlikely to win over the other side. Take his chapter on 'clinical nutritionist' Gillian McKeith, for instance, where Goldacre debunks her assertion that spinach, having darker leaves because of a higher chlorophyll content, is "high in oxygen" and "will really oxygenate your blood". Goldacre notes that this displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how photosynthesis works and "any chlorophyll you eat will not create oxygen and even if it did, even if Dr Gillian McKeith, PhD, stuck a searchlight right up your bum to prove her point, and your salad began photosynthesising...and by some miracle you really did start to produce oxygen in there, you still would absorb a significant amount of it through your bowl, because your bowel is adapted to absorb food, while your lungs are optimised to absorb oxygen. You do not have gills in your bowels." The snarkiness is perhaps entertaining to those already inclined to be dismissive of McKeith but I doubt it will help sway those who devour her books and TV shows.
Goldacre goes on to add that in McKeith's book, Miracle Superfood, which is apparently the published form of her PhD, she referenes experimental data from a magazine entitled Health Store News and an issue of a magazine entitled Earthletter. Goldacre criticises these as being inappropriate references in a PhD dissertation. It's a fair criticism but again, anti-vaxxers, homeopathy proponents, etc are actually likely to cite articles from publications such as Health Store News and Earthletter to support their stance. They don't really care if these publications don't quite have the standing of Nature or the Lancet.
If Goldacre wrote Bad Science for those already inclined to be skeptical of the "quacks and hacks" and are looking for more ammo to bolster their case, then the book is a great success. Readers can snigger and feel superior as they dismiss those too misguided or ill-educated to see through the hoaxes. But if Goldacre was hoping that Bad Science could persuade those who believe that there may be merits to homeopathy, that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits, that packing in the antioxidants can lower your risk of cancer, then the book probably fails miserably on this count. Take this excerpt for instance:
"Witnessing the blind, seething, thoughtless campaigns against MMR and GM, which mirror the infantile train of thought that 'homeopathy works because the Vioxx side effects were covered up by Merck,' it's easy to experience a pervasive sense of lost political opportunities, that somehow all our valuable indignation about development issues, the role of big money in our society and frank corporate malpractice is being diverted away from anywhere it could be valid and useful into puerile, mythical fantasies. It strikes me that if you genuinely care about big business, the environment, and health, then you're wasting your time with jokers like Pusztai and Wakefield."
Goldacre's points are valid but his scathing tone is simply too alienating. He could perhaps take a leaf from Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind on how he might reframe his arguments to persuade, rather than besiege.
Good examples of bad science. However, the personal opinion of the author was sometimes way to clear for a book talking about science.
This book was recommended by one of my teachers and it was because of it that I also found out about the Ted Talks (which by the way are amazing).
Obviously it's not going to be a book that everyone is going to be interested in. But for a non-fiction book it's actually very compelling. It's all about scientific studies, myths, media misleading information, diets that are trending and pretty much just demystifies all of it. And not only that, but Ben Goldacre as an amazing sense of humor which is fairly appreciated in a book that sometimes can get a bit heavy.
Overall, it's a very good book that will leave you thinking about some of the things you've thought to be true or have done in your life. Very thought provoking.
Obviously it's not going to be a book that everyone is going to be interested in. But for a non-fiction book it's actually very compelling. It's all about scientific studies, myths, media misleading information, diets that are trending and pretty much just demystifies all of it. And not only that, but Ben Goldacre as an amazing sense of humor which is fairly appreciated in a book that sometimes can get a bit heavy.
Overall, it's a very good book that will leave you thinking about some of the things you've thought to be true or have done in your life. Very thought provoking.
I enjoyed this - it was mostly pretty accessible (though sometimes I felt myself zoning out a little) and Ben Goldacre is funny, if quite intense and bordering on a big smug at points (sorry, Ben).
Even though it definitely shows its age, the principles still stand - it's just the examples that feel dated now. I am curious to look up what he's written about more recently.
I did think the humanities / science divide was oversimplified. His argument all the way through is that by reading this book, you'll be able to spot the media inaccuracies - but makes some sweeping statements that somewhat insinuate that people with humanities degrees are incapable of understanding science.
I also wasn't sure it has the snappiest structure, it did feel like it darted back and forth a lot. I think an abridged version would perhaps be cool - less in-depth on specific issues (and skip the dated examples) but give a really accessible look at some of the most pressing examples of 'bad science' or 'bad science' communication.
Even though it definitely shows its age, the principles still stand - it's just the examples that feel dated now. I am curious to look up what he's written about more recently.
I did think the humanities / science divide was oversimplified. His argument all the way through is that by reading this book, you'll be able to spot the media inaccuracies - but makes some sweeping statements that somewhat insinuate that people with humanities degrees are incapable of understanding science.
I also wasn't sure it has the snappiest structure, it did feel like it darted back and forth a lot. I think an abridged version would perhaps be cool - less in-depth on specific issues (and skip the dated examples) but give a really accessible look at some of the most pressing examples of 'bad science' or 'bad science' communication.