I wanted to add a few words of support for the Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington’s ‘war against bad science’. At an annual conference of scientific civil servants last month, Beddington urged fellow scientists not to tolerate the misuse of science. His words were strong, and by likening tolerating bad science to tolerating racism, they are bound to ruffle a few feathers. But strong words are what’s needed to fight back against the bad science that tends to get the good publicity.
Our favourite campaigner against bad science, Ben Goldacre, has also joined the fray and is quoted in Research Fortnight as saying: ‘Society has been far too tolerant of politicians, lobbyists, and journalists willfully misusing science, distorting evidence by cherry-picking data that suits their view.’
This is something I too feel very strongly about, and so do the rest of my colleagues in the Agency. We work hard to evaluate all the available scientific evidence so that we can deliver a clear and reliable message to consumers – but this isn’t always easy against a backdrop of politically-motivated pseudoscience. We’ve all heard the hysteria around artificial sweeteners, that carbohydrates should be banned from the diet, and that blueberries will cure all ails – but where’s the evidence? These are theories I’m not going to be able to support until someone can show me the facts and figures.
So what I would like to know is: why do journalists always feel they need to ‘balance’ views based on science with those that are not? To stretch the argument, surely these same people expect decisions to be based solely on good science when they board a plane, not ‘balanced’ with unscientific theories about navigation? So why insist on presenting views that are not supported by science as if they are as robust and valid as those that are science-based?
What do you think? I’d be interested in hearing the views of both the theorists and scientists…