Category Archives: science

Guardian: ‘Laughing stock’ libel laws to be reformed, says Nick Clegg

Posted on by
Reply
"Nick Clegg will [on Friday] set out the most ambitious plans yet to relax Britain's libel laws, saying he will back a raft of reforms including a statutory public interest defence. ... Britain will become the first country to ask parliament to set out its libel laws, and provide greater clarity ... He also wants large corporations to show they have suffered substantial damage before they sue individuals and non-governmental organisations. A new limited privilege will be given to newspapers when reporting the proceedings of foreign parliaments."

Guardian: Man flu and the difference between mice and men

Posted on by
Reply
Ben Goldacre: "what if the media was no longer the public's key source of information on health? The NHS Choices website gets about 6 million unique visitors a month, with no publicity. There you will find Behind the Headlines (around 200,000 visitors), a service I played a tiny role in helping set up: they take the biggest health news stories each day, find the real scientific evidence behind them, and precis it, clearly, for a lay audience. What's amazing is that there is a need for this service."

Nature: Science journalism: Supplanting the old media?

Posted on by
Reply
"A Nature survey of 493 science journalists shows that jobs are being lost and the workloads of those who remain are on the rise ... At the same time, researcher-run blogs and websites are growing apace in both number and readership. Some are labours of love; others are subsidized philanthropically, or trying to run as businesses."

Jeni Barnett: MMR and Me (updated)

Posted on by
4

Jeni Barnett's defense of the MMR programme that is the focus of a legal dispute between LBC and Dr Ben Goldacre. To her credit, she allows those who disagree with her to comment.

Update 9/2: It seems my pleasant surprise at Barnett's willingness to engage with her critics was premature. As Holford Watch points out, the critical comments have now been removed from her site.

Barnett also added second, more snarky post condemning Ben Goldacre as a "Bad Scientist". The (quite reasonable) comments on that post have also been removed.

If you publish non-fiction in any public medium — be it a blog or something with a considerably larger audience like a radio programme — you must expect people to question the factual veracity of your reporting and the logical consistency of your analysis. If this happens, you should be willing to take it on the chin, defend your position, or even honourably withdraw claims that don't stand up to the critique.

This is the standard that scientists hold themselves to, and it would be nice if those with the power to disseminate ideas to mass audiences would hold themselves to the same standard.

Complete Tosh: Journalists as experts

Posted on by
1
Neil McIntosh: "[T]here’s a strong argument for journalists in the future to be experts in what they write about, especially when they cover complex fields. Experts make fewer mistakes, and say fewer sillier things. Read Ben Goldacre’s summary of The Year In Bad Science to see what a potent mix of innumeracy, scientific ignorance and bad reporting can bring readers over 12 months. ... A rise in specialism in journalism - and more true experts working in journalism - is going to be a central plank in journalism’s recovery from the hole it’s in. It’ll keep it relevant, and make it better."

Guardian: Bad Science: How the Sun boobed over Britney Spears equation

Posted on by
1
Ben Goldacre: "[M]y frighteningly anal chums at the Apathy Sketchpad blog have performed quantitative analysis on this question, by doggedly documenting every single equation story to appear in the Telegraph, a serious paper that covers science properly. ... These stories tell us nothing about science. They are what PR companies call 'advertising equivalent exposure' ... "

Alone In The Dark: Strange Ontology: Week Beginning 8th October 2008

Posted on by
8
A Daily Mail watch-blog looks at Ben Goldacre's observation that the Mail is "engaged in a philosophical project of mythic proportions: for many years now it has diligently been sifting through all the inanimate objects in the world, soberly dividing them into the ones which either cause - or cure - cancer."

Alone In The Dark: Strange Ontology: Week Beginning 8th October 2008

Posted on by
8
A Daily Mail watch-blog looks at Ben Goldacre's observation that the Mail is "engaged in a philosophical project of mythic proportions: for many years now it has diligently been sifting through all the inanimate objects in the world, soberly dividing them into the ones which either cause - or cure - cancer."