• Published:October 22nd, 2008
• Comments:No Comment
• Category:Uncategorized

Yesterday, PHG Foundation project manager Caroline Wright went to a public lecture in Cambridge by Ben Goldacre, who writes the Bad Science weblog for the Guardian. She gave us a glowing account of How the media promote the public misunderstanding of science, leading us to the conclusion that he talks good sense. In particular, he talked about how the media frequently contributes to public misunderstanding of science because of what they choose to report, and how they do it (see Don’t dumb me down for a similar discussion).

Don’t get us wrong, we are not anti-science journalist; why, some of our best friends are science journalists, and they are often well informed (especially if they talk to us). True, not all that many are from a medical or scientific background originally (though Ben Goldacre himself is a practising doctor), but that isn’t a barrier to effective science journalism. Indeed, it may actively help in translating advances into terms that people without science training can easily comprehend. However, editors, it would seem - who generally don’t come from science backgrounds - are not too concerned with what is shown by reliable evidence to be true, but are very interested indeed by what makes good headlines. So, for example, the enduring furore over the MMR vaccine sparked by Andrew Wakefield’s highly questionable paper in the Lancet scored poorly in terms of supporting evidence, but highly in terms of provoking public concern. Similarly the assertion that vitamin C is superior to azathioprine (AZT) for the treatment of HIV infections (it isn’t).

Evidence, whilst of fundamental importance to scientists, is a concept that seems to be poorly understood in general. The bottom line is that all results are not equal; in fact they are very far from it. Any fool can conduct an experiment or gather a small series of cases and advance it as ‘evidence’ in support of a theory, but real evidence only comes from rigorous studies with reliable and reproducible results. These tend to include a selection of the following: independent studies, replicated findings, large numbers, good experimental design, respected scientists (with real and relevant qualifications - but don’t get me, or Ben Goldacre, started on that one…), and peer-reviewed literature. Contrast this with some bloke with a degree he bought over the internet doing dodgy experiments in his garden shed; he may be on to something, but it would be unwise to accept his theories without additional evidence.

The public can be seriously misled by reporting of science that fails to consider the quality of its sources. This is why consulting reputable (as opposed to self-styled) experts is always wise. Our take-home message today? We like evidence-based reporting, as well as evidence-based medicine. Oh, and Ben Goldacre.