Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks

By Ben Goldacre

The informative and witty exposé of the "bad science" we are all subjected to, called "one of the essential reads of the year" by New Scientist.

We are obsessed with our health. And yet—from the media's "world-expert microbiologist" with a mail-order Ph.D. in his garden shed laboratory, and via multiple health scares and miracle cures—we are constantly bombarded with inaccurate, contradictory, and sometimes even misleading information. Until now. Ben Goldacre masterfully dismantles the questionable science behind some of the great drug trials, court cases, and missed opportunities of our time, but he also goes further: out of the bullshit, he shows us the fascinating story of how we know what we know, and gives us the tools to uncover bad science for ourselves.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
• Release date: Oct 12, 2010
• ISBN: 9780771035760

Ben Goldacre

Ben Goldacre is a doctor and writer. His first book Bad Science was an international bestseller, and has been translated into twenty-five languages. He lives in London.

Reviews for Bad Science

[karenduff · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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

[lycaenidae-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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.

[devil_llama · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[lizday-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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.

[themulhern · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A companion volume to Bad Pharma, or vice-versa. Fun, but not enough science in it.

[jetangen4571 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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.

[elfreako-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

We are all doomed.

[sasham-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[reakendera · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[martensgirl · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[ajbraithwaite_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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.

[vguy_6 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[quantum_flapdoodle · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[satyridae · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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.

[adzebill · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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).

[paulmorriss · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I love the way Ben just manages to keep his anger in check. I think this is a very important book, not something to say lightly. I think it's important to understand how science is done, and the shortcomings of the way it's reported in the press. As the T-shirt you can get from his website says 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that'. I'm impressed how he manages to do all this research and digging, while being a full-time doctor. I'm glad he does manage it.

[dtw42 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The title is perhaps a little too broad: there's nothing about bad astrophysics here, or bad geology. It's all about the healthcare side of science: medicines, pseudo-medicines, nutritionists, health fads and scares, and the role of the media in dumbing down the communication of scientific research. Mostly clear and understandable, often scathing and occasionally hilarious, this is recommended reading for anyone who gives a fig about the difference between fact and flim-flam.

[malcrf · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Excellent! Easy to read, weighty content

[soylentgreen23 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Surely a 'must-read' if ever there was one, 'Bad Science' looks at all the ways people misinterpret science, and the results of these misunderstandings. From the so-called alternative therapy field all the way to big pharma and the media's MMR hoax, Goldacre explains clearly and concisely just what exactly is the problem, and how any one of us could easily come to a better understanding of the world around us. Terrific stuff.

[markalexander_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Bad Science uncovers the bad reporting of science and medicine in the media. It is written in a humorous and very readable style. The author, Ben Goldacre, has a talent for explaining complicated concepts in a way that is interesting to the general reader. He is up there with Malcolm Gladwell as a non-fiction writer who produces page turners you can't put down. Anyone who cares about science, ethics and informed citizenship should read this book.

[pondlife_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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.

[cspooner_6 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A fantastic book, that not only has an interesting topic but is very well written. Goldacre has a humourous flair that is at its best when he's clearly biting back his anger at badly portrayed results, for example, or when his best attempts at holding back sarcasm aimed at Gilliam McKeith fails. Brilliant stuff.

[ariadnearanea · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is simply brilliant and should be compulsory reading in schools - for the teachers as well as the pupils. Goldacre is standing ready to give us all a sharp lesson - tempered by humour and compassion - in critical thinking. Meanwhile... If you've ever got annoyed at a sloppy newspaper report that dumbs down or completely miscontrues a recent scientific development or discovery, this book is for you. If you've ever asked yourself why the government pays scientists to do studies into which celebrity has the wiggliest bottom, this book is for you. If you've ever found yourself wondering why the NHS still aren't funding complementary therapies, or the latest miracle drug, this is the book for you.

[charlytune · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I occasionally read Ben Goldacre's column in the Guardian, so had an inkling of what to expect, and the book is very much in the same vein as that column if you've ever come across it. Ben Goldacre very simply and clearly explains how 'evidence' is manipulated by pharmaceutical companies, vitamin pill peddlars, and various quacks and TV 'doctors'. I usually pride myself on my healthy cynicism and my intelligence, but this book made me realise how much I accept claims made in the media, and trust what I read in supposedly respectable newspapers. I found the book is easy to read , apart from a section on statistics which had me drifting off elsewhere - but thats not his fault, it needs expalining as part of the book. Quite simply this book quickly and effectively demolishes many of today's widely held beliefs (such as vitamins prevent cancer), and educates the readrer in how to look at things objectively. After reading this I felt liberated, and want to spread the word by buying everyone I know a copy - especially the hardcore homeopaths & crystal healers among them... Highly recommended for anyone who values rational thought over hysterical ignorance.

[nwdavies-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Worth the price just to read his chapter destroying Gillian McKeith (or however you spell the stupid woman's name)

[pat_f. · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[wyvernfriend · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

An extension of his blog, this is a collection of basically rants about how science and statistics are abused by a variety of people. It also looks at faulty science behind some nutritionists and some of their dodgy "credentials". His emphasis is on making people question "facts" and double check the evidence.However, people don't have the time for a lot of this, and when you're offered a glimmer of hope people tend to take it. The placebo effect is explored here and he does admit that it works and works well if people load it with belief, so maybe examining everything doesn't always work as well as it might.It's a book worth reading, if only to read why he is so virulently opposed to some people's "science", I must admit to having read some of the books involved and having some reservations but it wasn't until I actually read this that I truly realised what was bothering me about them. This is part of the problem, I do have a background in Science but I really didn't have enough energy or time to really exhaustively research some of the "facts" given to me by some of these writers. The fact that there are people like Ben Goldacre out there help me sort the truth from the fiction.The only unfortunate thing is that, in general, those who should read this won't and those who do already have sceptical minds.

[glennbell_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[comixminx · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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.

[shanaqui_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

"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.