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).

If you're not dodging, you could have posted a yes/no in the time it took to -dodge post again.

Do you have a hidden agenda or something? :)

Its a bit odd to suggest someone starts a whole new thread elsewhere from a subject raised in an AIBU ... you can discuss anything in AIBU.

Aaannnywaaay.

Back to good old Ben.

I meant to post this ages ago but forgot. There seems to be some confusion about what the IoP is and how influential it is. People seem to think it is some sort of doctors club. It isn't.

www.kcl.ac.uk/iop/about/index.aspx

It just isn't possible for a journalist to have a research fellowship at the IoP and uphold basic journalistic standards (as cited helpfully by thunder upthread) unless he either;

a) never writes about anything or anybody related to the IoP (virtually impossible I would think)

or

b) is transparent about his affiliation with the IoP

Anything else just 'ain't ethical - regardless of any monetary ties.

T is a bit difficult to hide something that's in the first para of your Wikipedia entry...............

Not on my phone, I can't, JF. I just can't see enough of the thread. If I am failing to address points it is not deliberate.

But before I reply to your point about Cochrane (which i think you think i have dodged) it would be helpful to know if you believe there is a link between MMR and autism.

It would probably also be helpful to know in the context of a thread about Ben Goldacre.

Just a reminder of thunder's helpful posts;

thunderboltsandlightning Fri 13-Jan-12 12:32:56

Here's the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics. I know they are in the US, but the journalistic profession takes pretty much the same line everywhere.

The relevant section:

"Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

?Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
? Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
? Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
? Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
? Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
? Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
? Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news."

www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

thunderboltsandlightning Fri 13-Jan-12 12:36:06

Ha, ha, here's another one:

"Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

? Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
? Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
? Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
? Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
? Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others."

I am pretty sure you can't prove anything through the use of MN.

Anyway I just wanted to say that I am proud of you all for managing 610 posts without getting deleted. That if nothing else must be a cause for celebration.

here Particularly the declaration at the bottom.

beach wow! there would be literally nothing in some newspapers if people were sticking to that!

Seeker - oh good, thanks for clearing up what appears to have been a massive red herring.

As I have said a number of times (and in fact this is not a reversal of any previously held opinion - I have always believed it to be the case) BG is not super human or in any sense unbiased. Noone is. (I do still love him a bit btw).

But that is not a reason to think he should not attempt to uncover much worse cases of bias and publicly expose them. Or even to disapprove of him.

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that noone commenting on this board could defend forensically every single statement they have made. Does that mean that everyone should stay silent on all topics? I personally dont think so.

Certainly noone on here has disclosed any conflict of interest. (Well I have told you I work in a physics department).

So is there space in our collective philosophy for the idea that some cases of CoI are worse than others and some forms of bias are far more damaging to the lives of poor innocent sheeples with no access to primary research or the statistical knowledge to debunk it than others?

Oh he tells about his awards all the time. Good old Ben!

Shame he doesn't adhere to this basic journalistic standard; Admit mistakes and correct them promptly, by correcting the huge clanger he made in his award winning article mistaking the entire premise and total content of the Lancet paper.

JF because your personal opinion on the issue may colour you interpretation of the data. It happens.....

This thread is like some of Twilight Zone.

I never claimed the award was a CoI.

I said I was surprised he won it despite his lack of independence and his getting what the Lancet paper contained totally wrong.

I have never read BG's original apparently award winning article. Can someone link it?

Actually you only have to read The Millennium Trilogy - The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo et al - by Stieg Larsson to get an understanding of journalistic ethics.

Or are you referring to the 'no research funding' bit .

It doesn't matter whether he received research funding at the IoP. I wonder if he received any monies at all there during his fellowship - perhaps it was a purely voluntary role.

It doesn't change the fact that he was affiliated with the IoP and that this compromises his independant status as a science journalist.

this is getting a bit circular. Again, the IoP is an academic insititution. They do not have a position paper on MMR or whatever because they do not have a position. They support research. Any university respects the freedom of its academics, it's kind of a basic tenet. THere is no CoI in BG holding a fellowship (which I have already shown you is not actually funded through the IoP anyhow) at the IoP just because other people in this institute have published research which happens to coincide with his opinion.

If you find me a position paper of the IoP itself, as an institution, on any of the topics BG writes about, I'll happily stand corrected.

Beachcomber, that's a bit harsh - so someone with a research fellowship at, say, Oxford University couldn't ever write an independent, unbiased article about, well, anything?
Just because their institution researches it as well?
It's only a difference of scale.