As one who, in the past, has committed most of the sins listed in this piece, I really don’t think that Melanie Phillips will enjoy reading Ben Goldacre today. You will though.
Ben Goldacre.
In
4 responses
-
So Phillips ‘cites “research data” of highly dubious status’ does she? Of course, in some areas of science the Guardian and other PC type publications decide that research data is highly dubious just because they don’t like the result of the research. IQ differences between the sexes is one example. All research into some topics is to be discouraged and rubbished because the correct scientific opinion is one arived at via an ideological and political method. On other topics, research is acceptable if it shows the correct results, for example that the USA is causing global warming and hurricanes. The Guardian and science have an uneasy relationship.
Tim adds: All true but not of this specific columnist,. Goldacre’s one of the good guys. -
The literature on “IQ differences between the sexes” is pretty dubious whatever your politics; it is actually quite obvious that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse the Guardian of here.
I would actually defend Mad Mel on one particular point, though:
“What’s more, she seems to misunderstand basic epidemiology. Large population surveys have greater power to detect a small increase in a given condition. Apparently not for Phillips: “Only a very small proportion are said to have been badly affected … ” she says.”But population-wide studies are considered too large and insensitive to pick up small numbers such as this.””
She is right and Goldacre has a lot of history in misrepresenting “basic epidemiology” in this way. No matter how large your sample, if a syndrome is very rare (like, say, 12 cases in the entire UK), an epidemiological study is not going to find a significant effect. Epidemiology very rarely gives definitive answers about causes unless it is coupled with other information (think how difficult it was to establish the link between cigarettes and lung cancer!). So it can give you answers to questions like “what are the risks of MMR relative to the risks of measles”, but it is never going to answer a question like “in some cases when children present with autism, gut diseases and measles virus in the gut, is this connected to their vaccination?” Goldacre is usually a good guy, but his statistics are weak. -
I simply assumed that the MMR scare was bogus until Blair started prevaricating on the subject of ickle Leo’s jabs. Funny how Toni pollutes everything he touches.
-
One of my favourite Guardian articles is this one, where 56% in fvaour of the death penalty shows the public don’t want it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,778091,00.html#article_continue
That was in 2002. The next year we got this –
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,12079,944386,00.html
containing this quote
‘Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: ‘Sadly, the majority view in this case is wrong.’
That’s the Guardian and research. It means whatever the Guardian wants it to mean.
Leave a Reply