Against bad science

I've recently discovered that The Guardian has a great column called "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, a doctor and science writer. It's not a new column by any means but I've never seen it before. (In my defence, I live in Australia and am not, therefore, in the habit of reading The Guardian. Still, I'm sorry I haven't come across it until now.)

This article, from 2005, seems to sum up a lot of what he's on about. The quality of science journalism, in particular the sensationalisation and appalling misunderstanding and misrepresentation of statistics, quite rightly gets his goat. Why? Because it filters down to a total lack of understanding of science in the lay person.

What can be done about this? Newspapers are never going to put an end to bad science communication. While Goldacre blames journalists, not scientists, for misrepresenting their research, I believe that scientists could do more to encourage correct representation. If every time a study was written up incorrectly, the researchers wrote in a letter to correct it, perhaps they might improve. Scientists frequently write in to New Scientist in this manner, so why not the mainstream press too? Of course mistakes will always happen -- science journalists can't be expected to be experts in every field they report on -- but if they're constantly pointed out, the bar might raise a little.

I also feel that science writers should have a background in science. In my experience journalists often fall into particular areas, but I think that a push from the scientific industry might be helpful in this.

In any case, until all this happens, it's good to know that there are people on the lookout for bad science.