to be a little in love with Ben Goldacre?

[entropyglitter]

Just read 'bad science' (finally) and I think I am in love.....

my favourite bit was Gillian McKeith thinking that oxygen (generated by chlorophyll) in your gut is not only plausible, but at all a good idea....

presumably this is at the same time as main lining anti-oxidants (which had been shown to increase your risk of disease rather than decrease it).

Agree, books like "bad science" which teach critical thinking should be required reading in schools.

"Not as qualified in science as he claims? Are you confusing him with Gillian McKeith?"

He's a medical doctor, not a scientist. He doesn't have a PhD.

Send him a Christmas cake as a token of your affection.

Where does he claim he's a scientist? I've never heard him introduced as anything other than a medical doctor and science journalist.

Unless you've been hearing he's a doctor and assuming it meant PhD?

I assumed that someone who sets themselves up on what is good or bad science would be scientifically qualified.

And no I didn't assume that his Dr was anything but a medical qualification, but I don't think many people know that he has no qualifications in science.

He doesn't have a research qualification i.e. PhD, which is the basic requirement to be a scientist.

He's a populist hack, quite like the people he rails against.

Random fact which for some reason surprised me: he's a smoker.

Not sure why that surprises me, think it's something to do with him
studying disease and risk all day long, so I assumed he would be quite a clean living type.

It is a bit worrying that you think that a medical doctor might know nothing of science.

Given that he mainly writes about health research, journalism, pseudoscience, the pharmaceutical industry and clinical trials and tends to remain silent on the subject of astrophysics, I think I'm not that scandalised that he doesn't have a PhD.

His medical qualifications seem top-notch, btw, and he has been made an honorary doctor of science by two different universities.

Ben Goldacre's qualifications are as follows:

Goldacre was educated at Magdalen College School, Oxford then studied medicine at Magdalen College, Oxford where he obtained a first class degree in his preclinical studies in 1995.

While at Oxford he also edited the student magazine Isis.

He was a visiting researcher in cognitive neuroscience at the University of Milan, working on fMRI brain scans of language and executive function, and then he went on to study clinical medicine at UCL Medical School and qualified as a medical doctor in 2000.

He received a master's degree in philosophy (funded by the British Academy) from King's College London.

He passed the MRCPsych Part II examinations in December 2005 and became a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

In 2008 he was a research fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.

As of November 2009, Goldacre is a psychiatric registrar and Guardian research fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford.

So hardly a stranger to research....

Isn't a BSc. the basic requirement to be a scientist? Although strictly speaking you don't even need that to work in science, depending on the field.

You don't need a PhD to be a scientist.

Trying to avoid getting the massive hump about that little nugget.

WHAAATTT there are people disagreeing with me on here!

I didnt count the number of times he has said he isnt a scientist but it is certainly a non-zero number. Also, as the book demonstrates, you dont need to be a scientist to understand scientific method.

Unfortunately our children are too busy learning from (government sponsored) Brain Gym that 'processed food doesn't contain water' to be able to read 'bad science'.

Never mind the personal stuff read the book and then buy copies for all the anti vaccination, homeopathy supporting, detox following friends you no longer have the energy to argue with.
If all else fails at least get them to read the chapter on the placebo effect.

I think being a medic is pretty important for the stuff he challenges, which is often quackery rather than just Bad Science. And most medics do know a bit of science.

I think he is good. He's brave and confident. I could see how that might come over as cocky and I think if you put yourself in his position you would have to have a reasonably big ego and a lot of chutzpah. He's been sued which can't be pleasant and still keeps going with this stuff (google Burzynski as an example) so he must be a bit bonkers. Most medics keep their neck in and their head down.

As for being a populist hack - well, you have to fight people on their own level. Medics and scientists (to distinguish between them!) aren't always very good at getting their views and messages across.

So, it takes all sorts, but generally - I like him.

He smoked more than that at college.

He's fantastic! But he's the devil incarnate to the tin-foil wakefield supporting gang on here

I wish more people would read Bad Science. I thought he was great until I read on here that he's a smoker.

I didn't say a PhD makes someone a scientist, I said it was a basic requirement.

List of publications if he's a research epidemiologist Sydney? I've not been able to find anything.

As far as I know he's a psychiatrist at the Insititute of Psychiatry within the Maudsley hospital.

"So hardly a stranger to research...."

Look forward to seeing the publications list then.

A few publications for you here I think, thunderbolt

He seems quite busy from that little list. Some of them are even peer -reviewed.

Does it matter what he is like as a person? I don't know and I don't care whether or not he is a twat.

Surely what matters is that his work is important. I can't think of anyone else who is as effectively educating large numbers of people to become more research-literate, which is really valuable given how crap mass media coverage of scientific research is. We may agree or disagree with some things he says, but most of us are able to do so in a more informed way because of his columns.

Good for him.