Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Unavailable
Bad Science
Unavailable
Bad Science
Unavailable
Bad Science
Audiobook13 hours

Bad Science

Written by Ben Goldacre

Narrated by Rupert Farley

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

Unavailable in your country

Unavailable in your country

About this audiobook

We are constantly bombarded with inaccurate, contradictory and sometimes misleading information-until now. Ben Goldacre masterfully dismantles the dubious science behind some of the great drug trials, court cases and missed opportunities of our time. He also shows us the fascinating story of how we know what we know, and gives us the tools to uncover bad science for ourselves.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateFeb 1, 2010
ISBN9781407456034
Unavailable
Bad Science
Author

Ben Goldacre

Ben Goldacre is a doctor and science writer who wrote the 'Bad Science' column in the Guardian from 2003 to 2011. He has made a number of documentaries for BBC Radio 4, and his first book Bad Science reached Number One in the nonfiction charts, has sold over 500,000 copies. . His second bestselling book, Bad Pharma, was published in 2013.

More audiobooks from Ben Goldacre

Related to Bad Science

Body, Mind, & Spirit For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Bad Science

Rating: 4.168701136514984 out of 5 stars
4/5

901 ratings61 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I love this kind of non-fiction, so I found this book to be incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. I really enjoy anything that challenges my ideas and teaches me useful things at the same time, which is certainly what this book did. An excellent book, and pretty much everyone in the first world needs to read it.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is a tremendously important book in exposing and debunking much of the pseudo-science that bedevils much public discourse in this country. He focuses on a whole range of issues, including homeopathy, faddish nutritionists and health scares such as the MRSA and anti-MMR hoaxes. These cases have a number of factors in common, including the media's misunderstanding of basic research techniques and their misinterpretation of evidence and statistics, and the desire for medical stories to fit common templates such as "killer disease", "miracle cure" or "brave maverick doctor defies medical establishment", which leads to over or under-reporting of research depending on its findings and origin. These faults are, of course, not unique to the media, but the media's role as the bridge between science and the great majority of the public puts them in a unique position to influence public perceptions (as in other issues). The book is not perfect, there is a fair amount of repetition (though he covers very important points that are worth hammering home) and I found the author's tone occasionally a little patronising. However, its central messages are crucial to a healthy public debate about the opportunities and limitations of scientific research, not only within the medical sphere.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I love this kind of non-fiction, so I found this book to be incredibly interesting and thought-provoking. I really enjoy anything that challenges my ideas and teaches me useful things at the same time, which is certainly what this book did. An excellent book, and pretty much everyone in the first world needs to read it.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    An entertaining and scientifically solid look at critical thinking. The author discusses a number of places where people go wrong in critical thinking, and uses examples from contemporary society to illustrate them. His writing style is casual enough to be accessible without talking down to readers and it has enough meat to still be interesting to someone who is already steeped in the information he's detailing (I did get a bit of a laugh toward the end when he says in a footnote that he'd be intrigued to know how far you would have to go to find someone who could tell you the difference between mean, median, and mode - he obviously didn't gear this book at those of us who have years of statistics under our belts). The book was fun and informative, and gives a pretty good rundown of the dispute over vaccines. I do feel, however, that he tends to downplay the risks of sloppy thinking throughout much of the book, and seems to think that homeopathy isn't really that serious a problem. I know too many people who are taking their kids strictly to homeopaths to buy into that. Otherwise, a good, solid, entertaining outing.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    "Just as the Big Bang theory is far more interesting than the creation story in Genesis, so the story that science can tell us about the natural world is far more interesting than any fable about magic pills concocted by an alternative therapist." Well, no. Stories are important. They tell us what people's preoccupations are, what people want and what they're scared of. Scientifically, Goldacre's right -- but science isn't the only thing to be concerned about. I'm sure he'd think this reaction typical of an arts student who has a belief system that, wishy-washy, may or may not involve a god, and who rather defends people's right to believe whatever damn fool thing they want to as long as they don't force it upon me. That's very much Goldacre's style -- flippant, funny, but at the core you get the sense that he'd like to hit you over the head with the book to batter the concepts into you. Science Is The Only Thing. If You Can't Test It, It Isn't Real.

    For what he's talking about -- "brain gym", which I was subjected to, for example, or homeopathy -- he's totally right, but the way he talks just sets my teeth on edge. I'm quite sure we couldn't get on if we got onto questions with subjective answers. So yeah, his writing about science is good, and perfectly clear to a relative layman (I did a biology AS level, and my mother's a doctor, though), but something about his attitude just narks me.

    I mean. "The people who run the media are humanities graduates with little understanding of science, who wear their ignorance as a badge of honour. Secretly, deep down, perhaps they resent the fact that they have denied themselves access to the most significant developments in the history of Western thought from the past two hundred years..."

    That's a direct quote from Goldacre. And watch! I can do it too: "The people who [write books like Bad Science] are [science graduates] with no understanding of [the important things in life], who wear their ignorance as a badge of honour. Secretly, deep down, perhaps they resent the fact that they [do not understand the power of stories, and resent their limitation of thinking that Western thought is the pinnacle of human achievement]."

    Oh, and SSRIs: to be honest, I do subscribe to the theory that if they work for me, I'd rather not question it. (And they do. I haven't reacted to them in the exact way I'd been told I would: I had no side-effects, for example, and they began to work fairly quickly. Within a couple of weeks, all the major symptoms of my depression were gone, and though I wept when my grandfather died while I was on antidepressants, my feelings were in proportion to the event, unlike when my dad's mother died and I took to my bed for a week. I have not experienced any increase in anxiety, or that much trumpeted criticism that SSRIs make people want to kill themselves.) So I'm probably too biased to accept a word that Goldacre says on the subject, even forgetting the fact that a close relative has done research into antidepressants and I typed up their results! Of course it would be galling to accept that SSRIs are rubbish and I've been duped. But still, even trying to keep my own bias in mind, that doesn't sit right with me.

    I wonder -- has Goldacre written anything about his own biases? My humanities degree has at least taught me that no one acts without some kind of stimulation. If you're looking at post-colonialism in literature, it's probably because the theory speaks to you (in my case, because I'm Welsh and some postcolonial theory can be applied; for others it's the issue of kyriarchy, the way that all kinds of things intersect, so that racism sometimes looks and acts a bit like sexism or homophobia, and so the theory can be applied elsewhere). If you're a feminist, you can find sexism in every text you read (and I'm not saying it isn't there, or you don't experience it as there). More harmlessly, perhaps, I'm a lover of Gawain, and I can interpret any given text as sympathetic to Gawain based on the social mores of its time -- or it's a shitty book, of course.

    So yeah, watching Ben Goldacre froth in this book made me sort of want to know why it's so important to him. That's a bit of an ad hominem attack on his work, I suppose, but I do wonder how careful Ben Goldacre is to make sure he doesn't just find the results he's looking for, as he accuses other people of doing, or if he assumes that because he's debunking it in other people, he's immune.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Goldacre writes a regular science column in England. This is a good book which attacks the medical establishment (all the way from homeopathic practitioners to the big drug companies). His main attack is on how studies on new medicines or medical procedures are often done badly, or biased toward a particular result and what you should look for when you read about medical studies.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Highly recommend the chapters about Statistics and about HIV/AIDS treatment in South Africa -- would rate those chapters a 5. The rest of the book was in need of better editing and less pomposity.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A companion volume to Bad Pharma, or vice-versa. Fun, but not enough science in it.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    audiobook, crooks, education, greed, medical, nonfiction, reference, science, social-issues, whispersync, fraud A detailed reminder to verify claims and rationality of products that are aimed at desperate people reaching for an answer and finding snake oil instead. Very well worthwhile read. Jonathan Cowley does come off rather pedantic, but that does not diminish the value of the material.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    While this book confirmed everything I already suspected about science and the media I found it a bit dry. I don't think it would appeal to non science geeks
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    A great book that is about how science and scientific language is manipulated to be used by pseudo-scientific and bad products services and people to spread misinformation. This is a book about scientific thinking and it should be a set text in every school.
    Ben Goldacre is very clear and readable. If you have ever thought "that doesn't sound right... but i cant't work out why" this is the book for you. It will give you the tools to be able to listen to an explaination of a scientific theory or process and analyse it, break it down and work out if you are listening to complete bullshit or the real deal.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The author made some good points and I did learn more about the placebo effect, statistics, and indicators of my own biases. However, a good portion of this book was boring/over my head. Overall, I enjoyed the book and I'm glad I read it.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Worth the price just to read his chapter destroying Gillian McKeith (or however you spell the stupid woman's name)
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Should be required reading for high school students

    Got this one for Christmas--my family knows me! Goldacre debunks the pseudoscience used by the cosmetics, drug, and complementary/alternative medicine industries, among others. Accessible, engaging writing--this book has some of the clearest explanations of sneaky statistical tricks I've ever read.

    I wish this book could be taught in high school, especially to future science journalists...we'd have a lot fewer "Broccoli cures cancer!" stories floating around, that's for sure. Highly recommended, needless to say.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This book should be required reading for everyone. It teaches essential skills for wading through the barrage of poorly researched media pieces and fiendish marketing ploys that aim to make you make poor and costly decisions about your health. It should be an eye opener for anyone. It is a bit UK-centric, but the lessons are universal.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5


    Goldacre explains how scientific trials work, their flaws and strengths, how they can be assessed and how they can be misrepresented; the perils of statistics; the immense shortcomings of media science coverage. At every stage he clearly outlines the reasons why each problem is bad for us (well, the UK, but I'm extrapolating to everyone).

    All this he does in language so straightforward that it's hard to think of anyone, no matter how "non-sciencey", having trouble following him. He does it with tongue sometimes in cheek, but also forcefully while remaining polite; no-one is demonised, though many are criticised. He goes out of his way to place the blame largely on the media machine, who amplify the relatively small transgressions of the individuals named in the book.

    Bad Science does have a problem with repetition: though the examples are different, I felt at times Goldacre had told me the same thing in slightly different ways four or five times. Perhaps this is no bad thing for his audience, but there were a few times I felt like saying "Yes, Ben, I understand, what's next?" He also makes repeated references to things that come later in the book, especially the media MMR debacle which is covered in the final chapter.

    Despite those little things, I recommend everyone who has ever been in an argument about about the safety of immunisation or the effectiveness of alternative medicines - on either side - read this book. You'll be richer for it.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Ben Goldacre skewers bad science generally, but especially medically related bad science - homeopathy, eccentric nutritionalism, the autism-MMR vaccination hoax etc etc. But perhaps his greatest target is the lazy popular media that glories in the beat-up and distortion of science in the interest of boosting circulation/audience. He has an energetic writing style which is engaging and relaxed, while still successful in getting across complex concepts. At times I found his sentence structure a little convoluted - like he was writing by dictaphone and failed to properly edit, but this is a minor quibble. The issues are sometimes relatively trivial - companies flogging vitamins rather than better diet, but others are supremely tragic - the tens of thousands who died, particularly in South Africa as mental pygmies and science-illiterates pushed the line that retro-viral drugs were poison, and what AIDS sufferers needed was a good dose of garlic! I admire Goldacre's energy in pursuing these nut-cases in spite of the vitriol and law suits - I hope he keeps it up, and maybe more will start to listen.Read Feb 2014.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I really liked Goldacre's TED talks and was excited to read this book but was left a little disappointed. Some of the information was really basic (which I expected) and there's significant time devoted to debunking things like homeopathy which I already new was bunk (again, which I expected), but the only real thing that bothered me was how entire chapters of the book were devoted to debunking specific media personalities that are famous only in the UK. Those parts still had good general information, but it's hard to stay interested when he's combating the high and mighty, who I just happen to have never heard of.

    The book is still over all quite interesting and gave me a fair deal of good information (his explanation of how stats are manipulated was a particular highlight for me), I just wish it was more generalized for an international audience.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I adore books about modern myths and this is among the best. Though the title is fairly generic, the science in question here is largely related to health: medicine, disease, and diet, and the media's role in the spread of misinformation. I was surprised both by the debunking of myths I'd long thought to be true, as well as those myths and charlatans I'd never even heard of. As an American, reading about the British perspective was extra fascinating. Goldacre also has quite an amusing way with words, which helped dilute some of the anger a bit. Exasperation can be exhausting, but when tempered with humor it's much more enjoyable. Sure, there are some tales, like the AIDS denial in South Africa, that are simply horrifying, but by and large it's more eye-opening than depressing. Definitely recommended to anyone who's ever had any interest in those big "such-and-such causes/cures cancer" tales constantly blasted over the airwaves.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Ben provides a nice analysis of what good science is an why it is needed to support claims made by health related companies. Dr. Goldacre is a physician in the UK and has a good understanding of clinical study design. He applies this knowledge to false claims made by homeopaths, vitamin companies, and those involved in the MMR scare. I enjoyed his common sense, honesty, and critical thinking. I strongly recommend this book.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Very good, very readable, very worthwhile. Will need to remember various choice snippets - I already knew the one about standard homeopathic dilutions being to the level that if you had a sphere of water 8 light seconds in diameter then there would be just one molecule of the active ingredient in it, but there are plenty of others in there. Lots of lovely outrage and information, too, which is cool.

    Less cool is an infelicity of language that he needs to look at. There's a couple of places where he either refers to the reader as "he", or to doctors as being male. Somewhere else he says that the Toys R Us microscope can amusingly be used to look at "your sperm". None of it is egregious, but there's enough that I noticed it in the first place and then noticed more of it. And FFS, he's only mid-thirties - no excuse for not either paying attention to this or already doing it reflexively.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Not much unfamiliar here- but then, this is the sort of debunkery I enjoy, so it stands to reason that I've come across most of the examples here. Goldacre's got a whimsical tone that I enjoyed, a matter-of-fact "you're not stupid, your brain just isn't trained to deal with this sort of obfuscation and complexity" attitude. Recommended, especially if you have ever believed anything presented in the media as a staggeringly important, health-affecting statistic.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    An entertaining and scientifically solid look at critical thinking. The author discusses a number of places where people go wrong in critical thinking, and uses examples from contemporary society to illustrate them. His writing style is casual enough to be accessible without talking down to readers and it has enough meat to still be interesting to someone who is already steeped in the information he's detailing (I did get a bit of a laugh toward the end when he says in a footnote that he'd be intrigued to know how far you would have to go to find someone who could tell you the difference between mean, median, and mode - he obviously didn't gear this book at those of us who have years of statistics under our belts). The book was fun and informative, and gives a pretty good rundown of the dispute over vaccines. I do feel, however, that he tends to downplay the risks of sloppy thinking throughout much of the book, and seems to think that homeopathy isn't really that serious a problem. I know too many people who are taking their kids strictly to homeopaths to buy into that. Otherwise, a good, solid, entertaining outing.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I wish all doctors, scientists, and (especially) journalists could write like this. Unlikely, I know, but they could at least read Goldacre to see how it's done. A fine, inspiring piece of work, recommended for anyone who has to weight up the claims of medical researchers and alternative-medicine practitioners (and that's al of us these days).
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    We are all doomed.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Brilliant. Funny, educative, committed, deeply informed. The clinical trial - blind, controlled, randomised, peer-reviewed - is the hero of the book. I was familiar with it in outline but Ben really makes clear how it works and why it matters; and far from blinding us with science he shows it to be common sense pursued to the utterance. There are tricksters aplenty and some villains, the most egregious being the guy who persuaded Mbeki to torpedo the the South African AIDS programme . We also learn how the media, especially it seems the British, swallow fistfulls of alarmist nonsense and ignore anything resembling real science. He explains not just what happens but how and why. Ben tells great yarns with good jokes (getting "Dr" McKeith's degree for his dead cat is one of the best) but an underlying high seriousness. Appreciate how he does not blame us ordinary folk for credulousness, but calls on both the scientists and the media to take proper responsibility for their communication.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The sort of book which makes you feel a little smarter after reading it, a bit more confident in your ability to see through the bunk that gets published in the popular press. It's also the sort of book which makes me feel that there is a real gap in the literature between scientific papers and the sort of things that regular people read every day. I will go and look at journal articles if I'm particularly interested in a topic, but they're inevitably filled with statistical jargon which is hard for a non-specialist to interpret. As Goldacre points out, science journalists aren't often given the big stories that they are best placed to explain.I found the tone of the book rather condescending and self-satisfied in places, but generally it's an interesting read and a good introduction to the important of rigorous experimentation and analysis.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is a great read for the lay person wondering why scientist get their pants in a twist about alt-med and various health scare-stories put out by the press. I would also strongly recommend this to people studying their A-levels as it would make a good basis for many essays in General Studies. It is a witty, informative read, covering some pretty heavy academic stuff without getting bogged down in a load of statistical nitty-gritty.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I thought I'd like this book because I consider myself a scientific person, and I agree with most of the fundamental points the author makes. But I was disappointed, mainly because of the presentation and style rather than the factual content.The first half of the book is the worst: the author makes snide comments about professions he doesn't like. For example, he says "[nutritionists] lack ... intellectual horsepower". He also indulges in ad hominem attacks against specific individuals who he disagrees with. I think he has a good argument, and is probably right about most of what he says. But he should really let the argument speak for itself rather than bashing the professions and individuals who oppose it.I can't imagine this book doing much to convince people who believe in "bad science", and that's a shame because a lot of the points are valid.I found the second half better. This covers how the media distorts findings, heath scares like MRSA and MMR, and how big pharma manipulates results.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Three and a half stars.I really wanted to like this book. I went through the first four chapters highly entertained and thinking this was going to be a four or even five star book, but Goldacre's tone started to grate on me in the second half of the book.Goldacre is a science writer with a background in both medicine and psychiatry. This book exposes ridiculous claims in the medical world and explains the importance of the scientific method and its nuances. "Well, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" is the theme throughout the book. He covers homeopathy, the placebo effect, nutritionists, the MRSA scare, and the MMR vaccine drama. He also really hammers the media for its biased and sensational coverage of health news, its lack of understanding of science, and how it perpetuates that lack of understanding in the general population. He talks about cognitive illusion, how drug companies can skew results of studies, and statistical tricks. All of this was highly enjoyable and insightful.Here's the thing. This book will appeal to people people who fancy themselves a bit smarter than everyone else who are interested in (but not immersed in the world of) science in general and health & medicine in particular. This book was clearly written for people who already agreed with Goldacre--it could not have been for those who disagree with him because those people would be too highly offended. And the trouble is that I agree with Goldacre. I think he's right and I think this book delivers an important message that should be widely distributed, and I still couldn't get past his tone.You can be right and explain how you're right without being an ass.