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).

Not harsh... totally unrealistic. Sorry Beach, you're barking up the wrong tree without a paddle.

I already linked to a page from the IoP which outlines their work within the Mobile Phone Research Unit.

There are three helpful links on the page which demonstrate the IoP's position on the matter.

As I said earlier when I linked to this, they may well be totally right about treating manifestations of electromagnetic hypersensitivity as a psychiatric matter. But they do have a page which certainly appears to present their current scientific conclusions on the matter.

I mean if someone where to ask me where the IoP stood on mobile phone masts, I would link to that page, and not think that I was doing the IoP a disservice or misrepresenting them by doing so.

I think it compromises Golacre, as an independent commentator writing for a national newspaper, that he worked at the Maudsley hospital - Maudsley research fellows have been very vocal on ASD, they have produced lots of research and studies on ASD, the researchers there appear to be in accordance with each other when you read their work. They are clearly in disagreement with Wakefield. Rutter, one of the most important researchers in the field of ASD, (and expert witness) holds a senior and influential position there. Rutter co-authored the infamous, much cited (including by Goldacre himself) and influential Japanese epidemiological study on ASD.

You don't have a problem with that. Fine.

I do.

And it isn't true to claim that places like the IoP allow researchers a free rein. There are certain subjects that you just won't get funding for and certain ones that you will - this is partly due to the fact that so much funding comes from industry.

There is no academic utopia where the pursuit of learning may be followed no matter where it may lead.

The point is also that an institution doesn't do the research. It's not, say, a think tank. It's the researchers within that institution who do the research. So Beach is saying that someone at Oxford University couldn't write an independent unbiased article because someone else at OU is also researching it
It's just mud-slinging because they don't like what BG says.

Some of the harshest critics of one researcher will be others on the other side of the corridor.

Given that there is 'no academic utopia', then it follows that everyone with expertise in a subject will by your definitions may be 'compromised'. So should only amateurs be allowed to write about science?

No that isn't what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is just a teeny bit more complex.

As far as I'm aware Oxford doesn't produce internationally influential studies on medical controversies. Oxford dons don't affect how certain health conditions are treated and viewed by the NHS. Neither do they affect public health policy or act as expert witnesses defending the safety of drugs which are given to pretty much every child in the country.

Are you suggesting that the IoP fiddles its research to suit its own ends, Beach?

Of course they do!!! Have you never heard of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit - just an one example!!!!

That was in answer to Beach's post, noble, not yours

And on the subject of think tanks, Goldacre worked with Simon Wessley at the Maudsley.

Wessley is an advisor to the lobby Sense About Science.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/sense-about-science-celebrity-observations

Coincidently, Goldacre holds many of the same views as those put out by the PR team at Sense About Science.

As I said before this is all just too cozy for my liking of what makes one an independent journalist and influencer of public opinion on controversial matters.

switch and change tactics.

So now the problem is that BG worked with at the same place as someone who was in a thinktank of sorts? Is that right? And that is meant to be some sort of CoI?

Then I stand corrected on Oxford.

In which case the same would apply. If Goldacre held a position within the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit and wrote in the Guardian about a major perinatal controversy (citing studies from people within the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit and dismissing an opposing view), I would consider him to not be an independent journalist on the matter.

"They are clearly in disagreement with Wakefield"

Bur so is everyone else in the academic world. Which means that anyone who holds a fellowship or is in any way connected with any academic institution cannot, by your reckoning, write anything impartial on MMR.

Goldacre, writer of the Bad Science column shares many views with Sense about Science and this is supposed to be surprising or suspicious?

beach So I actually am a researcher. If I do some research then I might like to write an article in the main stream press about it. Are you saying that would be inappropriate? That I would be in CoI with myself somehow?

To be clear, and ignoring Zac Goldsmith's weird comments about Marxists, this it what Sense about Science say about themselves:

"We are a charitable trust that equips people to make sense of scientific and medical claims in public discussion.

With a database of over 5,000 scientists, from Nobel prize winners to postdocs and PhD students, we work in partnership with scientific bodies, research publishers, policy makers, the public and the media, to change public discussions about science and evidence. Through award-winning public campaigns, we share the tools of scientific thinking and scrutiny. "

And you are suspicious that Ben Goldacre might have contacts there? Or share their views?

That's still not a CoI beach. He has nothing to gain from it personally.

Sense About Science is a pharma lobby.

www.gaia-health.com/articles351/000395-sense-about-science.shtml

I almost don't want to join this thread, but I can't help it. None of the supposed conflicts of interests are remotely conflicts of interest in the sense that these are used in the journalistic or any research codes.

It doesn't matter what your father does, as long as he is not paying you to do research agreeing with him.

It doesn't matter if you have colleagues who agree or disagree with your position in your research institute. The IoP is absolutely huge, and many many of the best addiction/mental health researchers in the UK have done work there, taught there, been taught there, research there. They ALL publish on similar topics, and may even agree with each other. This is not a conflict of interests unless the individual or small research group takes money from a pharma company and does unindependent research on it and then doesn't declare this in their publications.

These supposed conflicts of interest wouldn't interest a journal editor, or an ethics body or anyone who assesses real conflicts of interest.

What authority are you speaking from Hardgoing? Or is that just an opinion?

"a journal editor"

How about a newspaper editor? That's what we're talking about.

Hardgoing Tricky not to get sucked in, isn't it

Nobody is saying he's done anything unethical in the research field, not least because he only published one piece of research in his career, 15 years ago.

"Goldacre worked with Simon Wessley at the Maudsley. Wessley is an advisor to the lobby Sense about Science"

Have you any idea how tenuous that link is? So the guy is going to be strung up because of people he once worked with! This is getting ridiculous.

Ben Goldacre has actually gone up in my estimation having read this thread - he must have to deal with these crap accusations all the time.

"Sense About Science is a pharma lobby."

That's interesting. I donated to their libel reform campaign. They are interested in scientists being able to discuss scientific arguments without being sued. One particular case mentioned was that of Dr Peter Wilmshurst who was sued by a medical company for criticising its clinical trials.

It is odd that a lobby for big pharma would also lobby for something that would make it easier for people to whistleblow on bad practice by big pharma.

The attack on Sense about Science is written by this woman. Hardly impartial!

Yes, seeker. Gaia-Health - I notice next to the attack on Sense about Science they've got box where you donate money to them. That's something you don't see on the Bad Science website.