Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

[Freewheeling Andy]

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.

[Freewheeling Andy]

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.

[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...

[Freewheeling Andy]

Yep. There's a thread of mine on it down the page. I think it's possibly the best, most important book of the year. Everyone should read it.

[Michelle]

Thanks Andy - threads merged.

[Tintin]

I quite like the sound of this book Andy, thanks for the review.

[The Library Nook]

I started reading this earlier in the month so must get back to it, thanks for the review.

[Ernie]

This sounds brilliant, especialy the bit about the big drug companies, they have too much power.

[Nellie]

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?

[Freewheeling Andy]

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.

[Michelle]

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.

[Nellie]

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...