How to read a paper

January 29th, 2011 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, mail, statistics, sun | 49 Comments »

Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 29 January 2011

If science has any authority, it derives from transparency: you can check the claims against the working. Sometimes you hit a brick wall. Sometimes you might consider a shortcut. Let’s look at 3 types of checking. Read the rest of this entry »

Tell me now how do I feel

January 22nd, 2011 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, blue monday, churnalism, survey data | 24 Comments »

Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 22 January 2011

I’m not going to tell the same story once a year, like some kind of journalistic dirty protest, even if it crops up in parliament, every newspaper, and all over Radio 4: there are more interesting things to say than “Blue Monday is bullshit”, but before we get there, let me briefly clarify how Blue Monday is definitely bullshit.

Read the rest of this entry »

“None of your damn business”

January 14th, 2011 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, retractions | 13 Comments »

Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 15 January 2011

Sometimes something will go wrong with an academic paper, and it will need to be retracted: that’s entirely expected. What matters is how academic journals deal with problems when they arise. Read the rest of this entry »

Putting a number in its context

January 8th, 2011 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, numerical context, statistics | 28 Comments »

Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 8th January 2011

600 pregnancies despite contraceptive implant” said the BBC.  “500 fall pregnant after having contraceptive implant” said the Express. “Contraceptive implant alert” said the Daily Mail: “Hundreds of women fall pregnant after birth control fails”. Read the rest of this entry »