Review of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

Collection of my explorations and reviews of parts of Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. The posts are ordered by topic, not in chronological order: there may be additional reviews in the future.

Standard preamble for most of the posts.

Niggles about Ben Goldacre’s ‘unattractive sneering’ about humanities graduates

Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science: Humanities Graduates as Pantomime Adversaries
Summary: In Bad Science, Ben Goldacre claims that ‘humanities graduates run the media’ and that they have an agenda the belittle science. His glib superficial treatment of this subject precludes any useful exploration of the evidence for a poor public understanding of science and why this might have happened. There is a short diversion involving the BBC 2-parter, The New Two Cultures, by neuroscientist and arts enthusiast Mark Lythgoe. Neither of these two scientists appear to have a broad understanding of (or interest in) the factors that may have led to these two cultures.

Niggles about sloppy editing, the references and some careless mistakes

Who edited Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science?
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science is a useful and timely book but it is riddled with annoying mistakes such as the lack of titles for graphs. It is difficult to understand what point the graphs and figures are there to illustrate and all too often the reference is missing or obscure so it is difficult to check. The prose can be niggling and uncomfortable to read, not just for the awkward phrasing but the interminable and impenetrable sentences. The book needs better editing before it can fulfil its potential as an educational and cultural epiphany for humanities graduates and the remainder of the general public.

References in Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science contains an annoying number of errors in its references and several important references are missing. However, most of his references are relevant and he has reported the crux or results of the papers appropriately.

Ben Goldacre, the Book of Daniel and Some Confusion About Trials
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science book is a useful and timely introduction to basic scientific principles. As such, using some of his guidance to assess some of his examples and explanations of clinical trials, some of them seem inappropriate or inaccurate. Examples include his over-glib and over-ambitious reference to Daniel 1:16 as “the first clinical trial”; in addition, there is some confusion (or difference of opinion) about what makes a controlled experiment. However, overall the book is a good introduction to assessing detail in science reporting.

Commentary on various topics in Bad Science

Ben Goldacre and the origins of nutritionism
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science might have delivered a fuller understanding of The Rise of the Lifestyle Nutritionists in the UK if he had used british or european rather than american historical figures in nutritionism to set the scene for his discussion. Great Britain has a rich history of social reformers who promoted food and radical health reform as part of an agenda for transforming society. There are notable and colourful examples of patent medicine men who have bequeathed us not only credulity for the message of supplement entrepreneurs but business and legal practices that have contemporary consequences. Given that there are rumblings of a separate US version of the book, it might have been more relevant to use more local examples for the UK edition.

Bad Science, Ear Candling and Misappropriating Culture for Profit
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science entertains with the theatre of goo: there is a short sketch involving ear candles as a detox method. It might have been useful to highlight how often bad science goes hand in hand with an egregious re-imagining of history and misappropriation of other cultures in order to lend CAM or a particular product a false sense of authority.

Bad Science and the Cosmetics Industry
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science is an illuminating guide to the semantic funambulism of people who write advertising copy for the cosmetics industry. The industry relies on the suggestion of magic and alchemy although any magical ingredients are present in sub-therapeutic quantities in over the counter products. Potions containing DNA or stem cells look to convert their purchasers to Elizabeth Báthory, bathing in the blood and life force of young girls to preserve her loveliness. Goldacre dryly remarks that costliness is no guarantee of efficacy and most skincare needs can be met with a basic moisturiser.

Bad Science: Dr Mary Staggs and the Detox Foot Spa
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science has a lively discussion of the theatre of goo and the value of cleansing rituals. However, although the term detox is borrowed from medical addiction literature, it is meaningless except in marketing terms. Goldacre discusses the detox footbath which has been debunked but is still popular. Undaunted, naturopath Mary Staggs, who introduced them to Europe, has issued an explanation of how the ionising footbaths are really effective if you take account of the “memory phenomenon” of water and homeopathy; reflex points and meridians from Chinese Medicine; electro-magnetism; integration of the bio-energy fields; kinesiology and Contact Reflex Analysis.

Ben Goldacre, Bad Science and Placebo: some references
Summary: Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science has a lively, extensive chapter on The Placebo Effect in his book. The studies that he cites are intriguing however, we do not learn about some dissenting voices that do not find evidence for the power of the placebo effect. I provide online links to most of the placebo references in the book.

Tags: Bad Science, Ben Goldacre, review