![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/partnercomm.gif){kind=small}
"A few of us felt they were might [sic] not adequately address some of the key problems in their profession, which has deteriorated to the point where they present a serious danger to public health," according to the Bad Science website of Dr Ben Goldacre, who is turning into the bête noir of science journalists. The medics met in a pub in London last night to explain why the "mainstream media's science coverage is broken, misleading, dangerous, lazy, venal and silly". All three speakers are gainfully employed by the public sector so they don't actually have to worry too much about the sort of pressures and financial constraints the mainstream media are under. But they nevertheless condescended to offer some advice on the sort of "best practice guidelines" I should be following, for which I suppose I should be eternally grateful.
But their arrogance is not new. Medical doctors in particular have always had a lofty attitude to the media's coverage of their profession, stemming no doubt from the God-like stance they take towards their patients. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say their profession is broken, dangerous, lazy, venal and silly ? not yet anyway.
Museum's eBay treasures
I enjoyed a fascinating "backstage" tour of the Science Museum's vaults the other day. Staff there are busy preparing for a major exhibition to mark the 400th anniversary of the telescope, a simple enough instrument that has provided us with powerful insights into the complexity of space since Isaac Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope, below, in 1668.
I was shown the gold-plated mirrors of a sophisticated space telescope, a 400-year old drawing of the Moon and a special-edition box of "Space Monopoly", a board game where you can buy up different parts of the Solar System and space for an appropriate fee.
Curator Alison Boyle explained the board game was bought on eBay, like an increasing number of the museum's ephemera. "If we do buy off eBay we ask for back-up and where the object was originally sourced," she said. It just wouldn't do for Britain's most prestigious science museum to be dealing in hot property.
Less can be more
Thousands of fertility doctors are in Amsterdam this week for the annual meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. They will be discussing the latest advances in helping people have babies. I can't help wondering whether we need the same sort of effort to help people have fewer babies given that the world's population could double to more than 12 billion by 2100.
View full article here
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
chuckkw : Honestly, science journalism is often pathetic. [+0] - homo_vulgariter : lazy, venal, and silly [+0]
- leedsrob : he's not a medic [+1]
- vinnyr : Have you actually read Dr Goldacre's blog or articles? [+0]
- fastguyeddie : Trying Posting that on BBC [+0]
- lecanardnoir : "dangerous, lazy, venal and silly" [+0]
- reverendmilo : (no subject) [+1]
- leedsrob : I was wrong [+0]
- heartyfarty : as above [+1]
- martinsheron : Does the acronym "MMR" ring any bells? [+0]
- magicai : "lazy, venal and silly" [+1]
- magicai : P.S. [+1]
- smeles_1 : Disappointed [+0]
- dr_star_t : (no subject) [+0]
- trogblog : Boasting about your own ignorance is not a good idea. [+0]
- wahumba1 : RE: Lofty medics should stick to their day job [+0]
- drbell80 : Steve Connor deluded [+0]
- drbell80 : what you'd expect from an arrogant journo [+0]
- bigtrousers : That went well then [+0]
- heidistevenson : The medics should be glad! [+0]
- cliveking : Medics and NightJack [+0]
- elbyrne : Lofty "medics" [+0]
- dexcel13 : Lame [+0]
- wahumba1 : You've been called OUT [+0]
- amuchmoreexotic : (no subject) [+0]
Syndicate
Designed by chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
Unsubstantiated claims by vested interests are printed as facts. Press releases from researchers are printed as established fact. Assumptions are usually omitted. Reports on surveys don't include the questions asked (not even in the web version).
Press reports on science are so vague as to be meaningless, but they give the impression to lay people that something has been discovered.
Reports on the science aspect of non-science stories is even worse. Many political stories and decisions have a science aspect that can be factually disproved, but political reporters are blind to it.
Only people with some variety of BSc or higher degree should be reporting science.
http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-b
His interpretation of scientific journalism makes a refreshing change to the spurious and often dangerous medical "advice" that we are forced to endure in the media.
Try reading his articles in the Guardian or on his website: http://www.badscience.net/
His main point is that science articles in mainstream media tend to be written either without investigating the relevant peer reviewed papers, or without checking with the authors of scientific papers as to the meaning of the conclusions. The aim seems to be to produce sensationalized headlines that do not match up with the content of the scientific information they are based on.
In addition there is a huge amount of pseudo-scientific nonsense which is given column-inches/air-time at the expense of genuinely interesting real-world scientific discoveries. If the journalists in question took the time to read up on and learn something about what is going on in the scientific world, they could focus on those elements instead of (e.g.) "Dr" Gillian McKeiths poo analysis.
By the way leedsrob, Dr Goldacre IS a medical doctor (not that it should make any difference)
But seriously Its good to see that someone is prepared to question the arrogant attitude of the medical profession and I would like to see more; importantly where their domain ends (long before policy) - and who they work for.
He mentions the old, patrician stereotype of the doctor which is getting rather tired and worn out now but is lazily wheeled out, whenever someone who has no real criticism to make, feels like it. It's a good marker of gormless criticism of the medical profession; constructive criticism usually has a point.
'All three speakers are gainfully employed by the public sector so they don't actually have to worry too much about the sort of pressures and financial constraints the mainstream media are under.' So I suppose regurgitating drug companies press releases wholesale is all right, then.
Perhaps the public sector employment makes doctors a more reliable source of information than you, Steve. In which case, what IS the Indy paying you for?
Whilst it may be true that medical doctors have had a paternalistic attitude in the past, today's medical training focusses on developing a more balanced doctor-patient relationship, on critical analysis of one's own practise (and limitations), and above all the value of disseminating accurate and useful information.
It appears to me that science journalists are, in general, poorly informed and either do not understand what they write or are not prepared to do the basic research that would allow them to place it in context.
One sentence in particular is almost laughable, concerning how they...
don't actually have to worry too much about the sort of pressures and financial constraints the mainstream media are under
Has the author ever even heard of NICE/ cost effectiveness guidelins/ QALYs etc??!!
Mainstream science journalism is broken. The skeptics in the pub are providing a valuable diagnostic service and making useful prescriptions for its cure- rather than dismiss them out of hand the author should perhaps read or hear what they have to say.
Of course, as a scientist my opinion is liable to change with the arrival of any new (and robust!) evidence. If the author can demonstrate that he does, indeed, delve beyond the press release and is therefore immune to criticism, I will quite happily shut up :)
All contributors are equally critical of poor health practice as we are poor science journalism.
Sadly this piece proves our point - and supports our reason for hosting this event.
Petra Boynton
Your article makes it abundantly clear that you don't know anything about at least one of the 'medics' who'll be giving a talk tomorrow evening.
When did you last fact-check an article before you lazily dropped it in the CMS? Or is it a habit of yours to fabricate entire stories just to get copy in on a deadline?
Perhaps you should come along tomorrow evening, I'm sure you'll welcome an opportunity to respond to some of the condescending advice you claim they dished out last night. If you're at the bar before me, I'll have an IPA.
"Your comment will be delayed up to 5 minutes before it's dispayed [sic] on Independent.co.uk."
I think they have sacked them all; I'm noticing three or four typos in each day's paper nowadays, (including the one in this article), where there used to be none.
I can't tell whether this site is going to show my LJ name, so I'll add it anyway, as I don't like to be anonymous.
DorsetGirl
I don't think he realises the implications of the media reporting clinical trial data in a misleading way. I wonder how many phone calls he has taken from worried patients who are in a state of panic after reading some horror story about their medication in the newspaper, or has he had to reassure patients who are so scared that they have stopped taking beneficial treatments?
Wouldn't life be easy for all of us if we didn't have to critically appraise clinical trials...wouldn't it be lovely to indulge in opinion rather than fact- oh but as a public sector health professional, I would be fired!!
WHat was the advice, Steve? Was it anything to do with checking the dates? I'm responding to your article some 10 hours BEFORE the event.
Arrogance? Check.
Factual Inaccuracies? Check
Relying on 'own knowledge' rather than doing some actual research'? Check.
Misleading? Check
Lazy? Check
Seems Dr Goldacre has a fairly strong case.
It's patently obvious to everyone.
I dont suppose steve would actually give a critique of the guidelines this group has produced. I'm afraid you showed everyone your hand mate. We all know how you feel about medics now. I wouldnt expect any unbiased reporting from you regarding medical matters in the future.
Perhaps you should have been at the last 5 conferences. Might have helped knock the chip off your shoulder, and prevented you getting such a comprehensive pasting on this set of comments.
I have personal experience of working with mainstream media health/science journalists, and I knwo they have to filter through piles of self-promotional news releases from universities and companies seeking news coverage, but if you're so accomplished as a journalist you should be able to do some basic analysis of the info given to you before churning it out.
And don't get me on to health editors planting news stories on behalf of pharma companies. I can give several examples from personal involvement.
Basically take everything the media teall you with a pinch of salt, as it's not based on serving fact. Just notice John Walsh's long absence from this paper for evidence of that.
I have personal experience of working with mainstream media health/science journalists, and I knwo they have to filter through piles of self-promotional news releases from universities and companies seeking news coverage, but if you're so accomplished as a journalist you should be able to do some basic analysis of the info given to you before churning it out.
And don't get me on to health editors planting news stories on behalf of pharma companies. I can give several examples from personal involvement.
Basically take everything the media teall you with a pinch of salt, as it's not based on serving fact. Just notice John Walsh's long absence from this paper for evidence of that.
What interests me is the justification and implicit admission for lazy and innacurate science journalism being 'pressures and financial constraints.'
I'm sure the Doctors in question spend their days in the public sector eating cakes and filling in crosswords all day. That gives Ben Goldacre plenty of time to write his column and book inbetween the copious amounts of tea breaks those public sector types take every ten minutes.
http://gaia-health.com/articles/000
http://gaia-health.com/articles/000
I expected much better of the Independent. more evidence that Journalism != Profession
I think its "FAIL". Try googling it.
See you tonight hopefully.
Seems Ben Goldacre has read your piece
http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/s
Youve been called out. Watcha-gonna-do? Fight fight fight!!!!!! Ive got to say, I dont think the crowds on your side. If I were you I'd put my hands up and say 'Its a fair cop, I was insulting, arrogant, and factually incorrect. I will try to do better next time'. What are the odds? Minimal. Oh well.........
Your attempt to dismiss him as an arrogant medic who doesn't "have to worry too much about the sort of pressures and financial constraints the mainstream media are under" doesn't really hold water, since he writes a weekly science journalism column for The Guardian, so he probably understands the constraints science journalists operate under at least as well as you do.
Also, I can't resist pointing out that, although you highlight his "were might" typo in an attempt to cast him as semi-literate, you don't know how to spell the term bete noire* (you missed the 'e' at the end), and from your usage of the term, I'm not entirely sure you know what it means. Goldacre is rapidly becoming "particularly disliked or avoided" by science journalists, is he? Perhaps you are over-generalising from your own reaction to his justified criticism of what a shoddy job you're doing. I haven't seen evidence that any other science journalists are disliking or avoiding him, perhaps because they know his case against them is unanswerable.
*circumflex omitted because your hacky LiveJournal-powered comments system won't let me post it