The birth of Ben Goldacre and his Bad Science
“In 2003, the new anti-quackery, pro-industry campaign, which I have called The Lobby, was in place….‘Goldacre’, came on stream. Ben Goldacre, an apparently practising medic with next to no experience in journalism, was given a plum job on the Guardian…..a paper which, over the years, has turned steadily in support of multinational corporations, should give the untried Goldacre a prominent place on its pages. His ‘Bad Science’ column quickly became an influential springboard for the anti-quackery, pro-industry, drug company arguments now so familiar to large numbers of irritated Guardian readers.
However, all the superficial make-weight arguments, the scientific falsifications and the hand-carved character assassination built in to all quackbuster production models, were there in the mischievous campaigns ignited by Goldacre. And, inevitably, all the same targets were set up to be knocked down; Patrick Holford’s peace was about to be shattered.
The object of the essay is not to argue the correct position on all the issues raised, but to describe the position argued by Goldacre and his skeptical friends, and so place him within an understandable area of social campaigning and power.
Away from specific issues of science, thinking sociologically, it is easy to comprehend the linkage between HealthWatch, Sense About Science, the Science Media Centre and industrial chemical and pharmaceutical interests, without viewing secret documents or finding whistle blowers. All refute multiple chemical sensitivity; all refute ME and CFS as organic illnesses. All support the government stand on MMR. There is an absolute denial of damage done by MMR – in fact, of any adverse reactions to any pharmaceutical products. Electro-magnetic fields (EMF) do not damage health. None of the organisations or individuals accepts nutritional ideas that might conflict with pharmaceutical medicine. All characters and organisation are vehemently against homoeopathy. All CAM is said to be quackery.
All characters and organisations are in support of in- vitro fertilisation and other new reproductive technologies. All believe that the media have to be stopped from publishing irrational information. GM technology and all other high-tech ‘advances’ such as head transplants are to be encouraged and even forced upon, a reluctant population.
After almost 20 years of studying quackbusters, two things are clear to me. First, whatever the public appearance or acknowledgement, they are usually in touch with each other, and behind their front of independence they toe a clear collective line.
In quackbusting circles, you can certainly tell a man, or a women for that matter, by the company they keep, and this is clearly true of Goldacre. The next section of this essay looks at some of his views and received opinions, while pointing out who else shares them. For those who consider that this is ‘guilt by association’, I can only agree. If, however, we consider the views directly expressed in his writing as ‘evidence’, we are dealing with something more than association. Anyway, I have always had a relatively common-sense approach to these matters: if it cocks its leg against a tree to piss, barks and sniffs round bitches, it’s probably a dog.
Ben Goldacre is 31, a medical doctor whom it is said works as a junior doctor in a London hospital. He is also a journalist penning, since 2003, a weekly ‘Bad Science’ column in the Guardian.
He studied medicine at Magdalen College, Oxford, where it is said he edited the student magazine Isis. He left Oxford in 1995 with a First. He was an honorary lecturer for a year, at the University of Milan, doing research at the same time into neuroimaging on MRI brain scans, examining language and executive function. Following this, he studied clinical medicine at University College London (UCL) graduating as a doctor in 1998. He claims to have paid his way through medical school by repairing vintage 1970s analogue modular music synthesisers.
After working for a short time as a registrar, he was funded by the British Academy to do a Masters degree in philosophy at King’s College, University of London.
Goldacre is often self-depreciatingly modest when describing himself, although he is always at pains to stress his serious academic credentials, describing himself on his website 1 as ‘a serious fcuk-off academic ninja’. However, the only way in which academic status can be measured is by the number of peer-reviewed papers or other notable publications such as books. Despite his claim to be a serious academician, and despite the fact that a number of his PR puffs say that he ‘has published academic papers in neuroscience’, there is no record on the significant data bases of his having co-authored more than one academic paper, apparently written while he was a visitor at Milan University. It should be pointed out that the un-provable engorgement of academic credentials is one of the major points of criticisms he addresses when writing his quackbusting articles about individuals.
(1)www.badscience.net
Goldacre is, he says, a shameless geek2 who has always looked like a boy rather than a grown adult. In photographs he has the naïve, punky look of a television chef. One blurb says that he ‘appears regularly on Radio 4 and TV while attending obscure geek science and arts events. He is usually ranting about the public misunderstanding of science. He cycles everywhere and eats his greens.’
(2) At the kindest, this is defined as: ‘an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity,’ or ‘The definition most common among geeks themselves is: "one who is primarily motivated by passion," indicating somebody whose reasoning and decision making is always first and foremost based on his personal passions rather than things like financial reward or social acceptance. Geeks do not see the typical "geeky" interests as interesting, but as objects of passionate devotion. The idea that the pursuit of personal passions should be the fundamental driving force to all decisions could be considered the most basic shared tenet among geeks of all varieties. Geeks consider such pursuits to be their own defining characteristic.’ At its worst, however, the appellation could mean a circus geek — performers at carnivals who swallow various live animals, live insects, and so forth. Sometimes this would extend to biting the heads off of snakes, chickens, or other living animals. We leave it to you to decide what Ben means by being a Geek, one alternative is definitely ruled out, that of being ‘A person with a devotion to something in a way that places him or her outside the mainstream. This could be due to the intensity, depth, or subject of their interest.’ Goldacre is never outside the mainstream but always embedded deep within it.
Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ column in the Guardian claims to ‘debunk pseudoscientific nonsense in cosmetics adverts, alternative therapies, and flaky media science stories’. The column is disarmingly subjective, and often Goldacre publicly ‘wonders’ and ruminates, giving glimpses of an attractive but phoney uncertainty.
He has, his publicity claims, won numerous awards3, including ‘Best Freelancer’ at the Medical Journalists Awards 2006. Goldacre recently won ‘best feature’ at the Science Writers awards, for the second time. He has also received the HealthWatch award for ‘significant steps in improving the public's understanding of health issues’. All his awards have been given by organisations that are partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry or other corporate sources.Read the article in full on Patrick Holford's website:
http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=2187
