Bad Science

I've just started reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre and I must say I'm very impressed. There's just one quote I wanted to share on my other favourite subject to rant about, the MMR - Autism debacle.

"Surveys also say that doctors are the most trusted of all public figures, and journalists are the least trusted, but that doesn't seem to be the lesson from the media's MMR hoax".

I don't have much else to say that isn't summed up in that sentence except yes! Fucking YES! Anyway, the other thing that has come up in the book which I wanted to talk about was the write up of methodology and results in academic papers. I am now of the opinion that Bad Science should be on the reading list for all undergraduate courses that use the scientific method in their research. The way the write up of the method and results section was described to me (or maybe the way I interpreted it) was that there needed to be enough information in order for someone to replicate your study. Things like specifying how you randomised your participants, in the interest of transparency never occured to me. Similarly with the results section, which I have always found a bit of a drag to write - don't get me wrong I am perfectly adept at running stats and doing the write up (and I'm not just saying that to cover my ass in case any one I work with reads this) - but having to go through the exacts statistical tests and choosing what data to present has always seemed...............blah. Until now. Goldacre has given me a new perspective on those all important sections, so the next time I am writing up a report I shall just keep repeating to myself "This is for the good of science, for the good of science...."