Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks [Paperback]

Ben Goldacre (Author)

Book Description

Release date: October 12, 2010

Have you ever wondered how one day the media can assert that alcohol is bad for us and the next unashamedly run a story touting the benefits of daily alcohol consumption? Or how a drug that is pulled off the market for causing heart attacks ever got approved in the first place? How can average readers, who aren’t medical doctors or Ph.D.s in biochemistry, tell what they should be paying attention to and what’s, well, just more bullshit?

Ben Goldacre has made a point of exposing quack doctors and nutritionists, bogus credentialing programs, and biased scientific studies. He has also taken the media to task for its willingness to throw facts and proof out the window. But he’s not here just to tell you what’s wrong. Goldacre is here to teach you how to evaluate placebo effects, double-blind studies, and sample sizes, so that you can recognize bad science when you see it. You’re about to feel a whole lot better.

Product Details

• Paperback: 304 pages
• Publisher: Faber & Faber; Reprint edition (October 12, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0865479186
• ISBN-13: 978-0865479180
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (69 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #34,671 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #22 in Books > Science & Math > Essays & Commentary

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

British doctor Goldacre is funny and blunt as he bashes journalists, nutritionists, homeopaths, politicians, and pharmaceutical companies—his favorite targets. Many supposed experts, he writes, are actually people like Gillian McKeith, who recommends enemas for forehead pimples and whose PhD comes from a nonaccredited correspondence course. Goldacre also criticizes South Africa’s health minister, who turned down antiretroviral drugs for AIDS sufferers, instead advocating for raw garlic, lemons, beetroot, and potatoes. Weaving in medical history, he covers famous mistakes, such as Dr. Spock advising moms to put their babies to sleep on their bellies (now known to increase the risk of sudden infant death syndrome) and Dr. Andrew Wakefield erroneously linking vaccines and autism (which led many parents to stop immunizing their kids). No coward, he takes former prime minister Tony Blair to task for refusing to say whether he had vaccinated his son. Some readers may wish for more American examples and institutions because this was supposedly retooled for the U.S. market. But all in all, Bad Science is a fun, informative read. --Karen Springen

Review

“Ben Goldacre is exasperated . . . He is irked, vexed, bugged, ticked off at sometimes inadvertent (because of stupidity) but more often deliberate deceptions perpetrated in the name of science. And he wants you, the reader, to share his feelings . . . There’s more here than just debunking nonsense. The appearance of ‘scienceiness’: the diagrams and graphs, the experiments (where exactly was that study published?) that prove their efficacy are all superficially plausible, with enough of a “hassle barrier” to deter a closer look. Dr. Goldacre (a very boyish-looking 36-year-old British physician and author of the popular weekly Bad Science column in The Guardian) shows us why that closer look is necessary and how to do it . . . You’ll get a good grounding in the importance of evidence-based medicine . . . You’ll learn how to weigh the results of competing trials using a funnel plot, the value of meta-analysis and the Cochrane Collaboration. He points out common methodological flaws . . . ‘Studies show’ is not good enough, he writes: ‘The plural of “anecdote” is not data.’” —Katherine Bouton, The New York Times

“British physician and journalist Ben Goldacre takes aim at quack doctors, pharmaceutical companies and poorly designed studies in extraordinary fashion in Bad Science. He particularly loathes (most) nutritionists, especially Scottish TV personality Gillian McKeith. To prove that her American Association of Nutritional Consultants membership isn't so impressive, Goldacre describes registering his dead cat Hettie for the same credentials online. Goldacre shines in a chapter about bad scientific studies by writing it from the perspective of a make-believe big pharma researcher who needs to bring a mediocre new drug to market. He explains exactly how to skew the data to show a positive result. 'I'm so good at this I scare myself,' he writes. 'Comes from reading too many rubbish trials.’” —Rachel Saslow, The Washington Post

“Ben Goldacre, a British physician and author, has written a very funny and biting book critiquing what he calls “Bad Science.’’ Under this heading he includes homeopathy, cosmetics manufacturers whose claims about their products defy plausibility, proponents of miracle vitamins, and drug companies and physicians who design faulty studies and manipulate the results . . . While it is a very entertaining book, it also provides important insight into the horrifying outcomes that can result when willful anti-intellectualism is allowed equal footing with scientific methodology.” —Dennis Rosen, The Boston Globe

 

“I hereby make the heretical argument that it is time to stop cramming kids’ heads with the Krebs cycle, Ohm’s law, and the myriad other facts that constitute today’s science curricula. Instead, what we need to teach is the ability to detect Bad Science—BS, if you will. The reason we do science in the first place is so that ‘our own atomized experiences and prejudices’ don’t mislead us, as Ben Goldacre of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine puts it in his new book, Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks. Understanding what counts as evidence should therefore trump memorizing the structural formulas for alkanes.” —Sharon Begley, Newsweek.com

 

“Dr. Ben Goldacre’s UK bestseller Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks is finally in print in the USA, and Americans are lucky to have it. Goldacre writes a terrific Guardian column analyzing (and debunking) popular science reporting, and has been a star in the effort to set the record straight on woowoo ‘nutritionists,’ doctors who claim that AIDS can be cured with vitamns, and vaccination/autism scares. Bad Science is more than just a debunking expose (though its that): it’s a toolkit for critical thinking, a primer on statistics and valid study design, a guide to meta-analysis and other tools for uncovering and understanding truth . . . The book should be required reading for everyone who cares about health, science, and public policy.” —BoingBoing.net

 

“One of the best books I’ve ever read. It completely changed the way I saw the world. And I actually mean it.” —Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist

 

“Ben Goldacre lucidly, and irreverently, debunks a frightening amount of pseudoscience, from cosmetics to dietary supplements to alternative medicine. If you want to read one book to become a better-informed consumer and citizen, read Bad Science.” —Sandeep Jauhar, author of Intern

 

“This is a much-needed book. Ben Goldacre shows us—with hysterical wit—how to separate the scam artists from real science. In a world of misinformation, this is a rare gem.” —Timothy Ferriss, author of The 4-Hour Workweek

“Smart, funny, clear, unflinching: Ben Goldacre is my hero. Bad Science should be kicking up the dust on every high school science curriculum in America.” —Mary Roach, author of Stiff, Spook, and Bonk

“Ben Goldacre uses a brilliant mix of science and wit to challenge and investigate alternative therapists and the big pharmaceutical corporations. Bad Science is an invaluable tool for anybody who wants to protect themselves from the snake-oil salesmen of the twenty-first century.” —Simon Singh, author of Big Bang and Fermat’s Last Theorem

 

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 304 pages
• Publisher: Faber & Faber; Reprint edition (October 12, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0865479186
• ISBN-13: 978-0865479180
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 5.5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (69 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #34,671 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #22 in Books > Science & Math > Essays & Commentary

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

43 of 48 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Science for non-science people October 13, 2010

By E. Fields

Format:Paperback

Full disclosure: I am an ex-English major who hasn't taken a science class since high school. When I started reading this book (I got my copy when it was released in England), I was scared that I wouldn't be able to follow along. But I was SO WRONG- this book really gets beneath the pseudo-science (and flat out WRONG science claims) and explains everything in such a relaxed, simple, and intuitive way, I never had a problem. I learned so much from this, and I had considered myself pretty well informed BEFORE I read the book! This should be mandatory reading for ANYONE who is anti-vaccination, or pro-homeopathy. Brilliant stuff. (His blog is great too!)

26 of 29 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars We're on the same side Mr. Goldacre. June 15, 2011

By Anthony Fischetti

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

We're on the same side Mr. Goldacre.
That being said, I was a little disappointed in the way the author presents the subject. For example, his knocking of homeopathy and charlatan "science" frequently devolves into ad hominem. This is wholly unnecessary; we have the upper hand because science is on our side. Additionally, the author's style of writing is abrasively arrogant, which, is distracting. Most importantly, though, this book does little to promote critical thinking skills. The author spoon-feeds us the secret to the "magic" of those ludicrous detox foot pads without properly explaining why it sounds fishy, and the consequences of taking similar products' claims on its word. The reader may be left skeptical of homeopathy and the like (a good start) but lack the ability to personally assess *why* its claims are bogus and the science behind it.

Overall, however, the book was a interesting read. The reason I had to give 3.5 stars is the subject matter is *so* important that I have to hold this work to a very high standard. If you're interested in the *value* of skepticism and how to apply it generally, might I suggest "The Demon-Haunted World" (Sagan)? If you want to learn more about how statistics can be misleading... well, I'm currently reading "How To Lie With Statistics" (Huff) and a review is forthcoming.

28 of 32 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars recommended for all skeptics (and even more so for the credulous) November 4, 2010

By Neurasthenic VINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

Bad Science is an excellent entry to the genre of skeptical books that are, in this country, associated with Michael Shermer, James Randi, and Paul Kurtz. It is a pleasure to read, both because Goldacre writes well, and because the books from Shermer, et al, are very similar to each other and this one is in many regards refreshingly different.

Part of this stems from its national origin -- this is a very British book. As a result, it has a lot more about the MMR-vaccine-causes-autism nonsense than would have appeared in an American book, as the media panic in the U.K. was much greater than the one here. It similarly has less on faith healing and other topics that loom larger in the American consciousness.

But the book also differs in approach. In the quintessential American members of the genre, various bits of nonsense are debunked with a combination of common sense and powerful anecdote. American writers are particularly fond of grand gestures, sneaking into the back room and discovering the wizard hiding behind the curtain. That's not Goldacre's style at all. Instead, his favorite tool is the statistical blobbogram. The main targets of his scorn are holistic healers, vendors of pharmaceuticals and vitamins, who lie and abuse statistical techniques to mislead people into buying products that don't work instead of using ones that do. He similarly rails against the journalists who enable these malefactors.

Goldacre is a physician, so he spends most of his time on medical topics, but not all.

I enjoyed and appreciated every chapter of this book, and I hope many other people read it too.

28 of 33 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Simply Excellent October 12, 2010

By Gem Newman

Format:Paperback

I read this book several years ago, after ordering it from amazon.co.uk, and am very pleased that it's coming to North America. Although many of the examples used will be UK-specific, and thus perhaps unfamiliar to readers, the content remains very pertinent. Science and skepticism are sorely needed everywhere, but most especially in the field of medicine. In this book Dr. Ben Goldacre provides us with a wonderful primer on evaluating claims made in this most important of areas.

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars OK as far as it goes January 22, 2011

By DNA

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

The attacks on fraudulent and dubious claims about vitamins, drugs, miracle cures, etc., are on target, but they get a little tedious by the end. As a collection of newspaper columns, the book is fine, but the exposition of EBM, meta-analysis, clinical trials, etc., is not especially thorough or memorable.

28 of 35 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars Potentially great subject gets mediocre spokesman February 19, 2012

By michael

Format:Paperback

Upfront, I am a sucker for books with this sort of title and content. Just get me started on the errors in thinking that abound, and I can go for as long as the refreshments and good company hold out.

So maybe it was a case of me not liking my own medicine.

What is good about the book? He shows that in matters of science:
1) Things are probably more complicated than the media makes it
2) You have to be skeptical of any scientific report - whether it is from a university, a pharma company, a acupuncturist, or even your mother
3) Be very careful about any statistical statements
4) A lot of sham medicine has been and is being perpetrated

That's about it. And it is very good to have someone take the time to present arguments and examples from the real world to back up those warnings.

What I found unsatisfying about the book? His tone. He doth protest too much, repeatedly telling us that he does not have axes to grind, or that he is level-headed, objective, and only strictly presenting the truth. The number of times he bashes Homeopathy and all the idiots who follow it made me want to go out and get a Homeopathy treatment and get better, just to spite him. I did plenty of page flips through sections where he was on a tear, looking for when the vitriol cooled and he would get back to some facts.

He says outright that before 1934 doctors were useless. Wow. For a book that warns against making claims without empirical substantiation, that is a pretty strong statement. He lumps all other forms of medicine, throughout all time, into the useless bucket. And all humanity who has practiced or received medicine before 1934 in the West into the idiot bucket.... So I kept waiting for him to balance his rants with the facts about his implicitly superior profession of conventional medicine. He holds up the fact that doctors recently proved that smoking causes most lung cancer (and makes no mention of why this only started happening after WWII.) He implies that antibiotics have saved many lives.

He bravely admits that only 15% of existing conventional medical treatments are based upon statistical evidence that show benefit. Another wow. So what is it exactly that is so superior about our evidence based medicine compared to mumbo-jumbo, voodoo (quoting here) quacks if 85% of our treatments are based upon...nothing?

I do appreciate his attempt to stay focused on the topic of critical thinking, and evidence-based claims. But there is a big gap in the exposition that would justify his self-proclaimed superiority.

--Michael Clarage Read more ›