It’s the summer, though in London where I was over the weekend the summer was not doing what summer’s are supposed to do: it was grey and wet all weekend long. And a good thing too, seeing as I decided to spend much of the weekend refuting the notion that MMR is vindicated with regard to autism. It is not, in my opinion. To my eye the evidence is simply not fit for purpose, in that the methods used are not adequate for the purposes of assessing whether or not MMR and cause autism. If you want to get the right answer in science, you do at least have to ask the right question. It doesn’t seem to have happened here.
I am not claiming MMR can cause autism. I say this because I’ve had that accusation levelled at me a few times now, even though I’ve stated that is not my position many times. It occurs to that the accusers would like to force me into an indefensible position. Yet, to my mind it is their position that is indefensible, though you wouldn’t know it from their hubris and the way they talk.
Just to give you a some indication of the sorts of ‘discussions’ I’ve been having over the weekend, you may like to peruse the exchange between me and Anthony Cox, who is a pharmacovigilance pharmacist in the UK, and whose job it partly is to ensure that things like drugs and vaccines are not harming or killing too many people (sorry, but sometimes it’s best not to sugar-coat things). You can find it here.
Anthony comes in at comment 35. If have the patience to read through the posts you will see what looks to me like a quite bewildering example of someone who purports to take a scientific approach, but then resorts to insults, misrepresentation and evasion, not to mention some distinctly unscientific and illogical thinking. Please try and remember as you read this exchange this is not an intellectual exercise (well, not for me), it’s about the safety of MMR as it relates to autism which I take to be of grave importance (and I know there are plenty who share this view).
If you want to cut to the chase, just read posts 52 and 54, where Anthony Cox launches a quite desperate attack, to which my response was to critique his position and the evidence he cites for it. I’ll warn you, post number 54 is a bit lengthy, and it goes into excruciating detail regarding why I think that the assertion that MMR has been proven safe with regard to autism is baseless. It’s long, but I do think it’s a worthwhile read for seekers of the truth and those who are of balanced, rational and relatively objective mind.
Anthony Cox refused to engage further, but he has his own site, so I went to put some questions to him there. You can see the debate continue at his own site here.
Now, I say ‘debate’, but it’s not really a debate, because it basically consists of me asking utterly reasonable and actually very important questions and Anthony Cox, err, refusing to answer them. It culminates in him insulting me (again).
My experiences over the weekend have reminded me of just how unscientific scientists can be. The exchanges here, on Anthony Cox’s site, and elsewhere have taught me that there are common (but lacking in substance) tactics that are used to discredit and refute my assertion that we don’t know if MMR causes autism or not.
Here, I think, are the main ones:
1. Claim that I should provide the evidence that MMR can cause autism (even when that it’s not my position that MMR causes autism).
2. Argue that because we don’t have evidence definitive evidence that MMR causes autism, then that MUST mean it doesn’t (this is illogical, but you’d be surprised how many times this card is played scientists who really ought to know better).
3. Misrepresent the strength of the science (this is actually the most common one, and my assertion is that the evidence used to vindicate MMR with respect to autism, from a scientific perspective, doesn’t amount to a hill of beans)
4. Insult me (e.g. call me ‘wilfully ignorant’)
5. Say nothing
The last two are easily spotted, the first three less so. The third is actually the hardest to spot of all. I highlight them just in case any of you come against this sort of thing, and would like to be somewhat forewarned. Do not think for a moment, by the way, that using any logical, scientific arguments in this issue means for sure that you’re going to get anywhere: far from it, those involved in this battle (on both sides) are usually quite firmly entrenched.
Would you believe, and this is the honest truth, that when I woke up this morning I had no intention of writing about MMR and autism? In fact, a mere week ago, I didn’t have any plans to dip my toe into this most charged and contentious of arenas either. What I had planned to devote this blog to was some evidence that relates to its capacity to protect the skin from sunburn.
But, I honestly got sidetracked. Some of that has to do with the fact that the weekend has been spent with my head relatively full of the arguments and scientific evidence as it relates to the MMR/autism issue. And also as those who are regular readers of this site will know, my stated aim is for it to be a portal of balanced and trustworthy advice about a wide range of health issues. And to this end, my thoughts on this debate fit that brief, although I know that many individuals disagree with my views. I am only too aware that my views on certain matters are unpalatable to some, but thinking about that and not expressing them would, I believe, not be the right thing for me, or for you. Actually, I believe it would not be the right thing ” period.
I am well aware that, at this rate, this site risks becoming a single issue one. But I have made a mental note to myself not to let this happen. However, I do think this subject should get the attention it deserves. It deserves it, I think because, I maintain that with the state of the evidence as it is that we don’t know beyond reasonable doubt that MMR does not cause autism. And we have quite a lot of people who believe that too and are asking for the appropriate scientific work be done. When the stakes are this high, is that really too much to ask?
Normal service will be resumed ” with piece about sunburn (probably) ” on Wednesday.
JS – you said you are a persistent blogger, do you have a blog? If you don’t, I suggest you set one up and write about your bugbears there instead of shoehorning them into CiF etc. with monotonous regularity. I’d read it.
Ross
As usual, double standards rule. Ben praises “determined” bloggers, but I am a “persistent” blogger. Let me tell you I am a very determined blogger.
The points I was making on CiF were all entirely germane. All this ad hominem stuff you are producing is because you don’t have an answer, and – as far as I can see – nor does Ben.
I have been challenging him over the science in the ‘Never mind the facts’ article for well over a year – even, actually, in less detailed terms, going right back to December 2003. Let him speak. We are all ears.
JS, you didn’t answer me.
You said you are a persistent blogger, do you have a blog?
If you don’t, I suggest you set one up and write about your bugbears there instead of shoehorning them into CiF etc. with monotonous regularity. I’d read it.
Ross
I am not shoe-horning in anywhere. CiF is supposed to be open and my comments were relevant. You keep on introducing the same red-herring in an attempt to distract from the uncomfortably point that BG does not disclose his professional ties in his column, and got the science on MMR wrong. Of course, there are any number psychophants to say “great article, Ben” every week, but that is not having a discussion, and if Guardian prune adverse comments it is not free discussion either. The “shoe-horning” accusation is ridiculous. Perhaps you are “shoe-horning” here.
But:-
1) John Briffa has made an important point about epidemiology not refuting the Wakefield hypothesis
2) Cochrane points that the autism studies have too many biases, confounders etc to demonstrate there is no population effect
3) BG did not disclose GSK patronage in journalistic articles, and IoP to which he is professionally affiliated seems to be committed to a genetic hypothesis for autism, come what may, and he does not mention that either
4) The IoP has its finger in many other pies too
These are all legitimate areas of concern. You have no answer.
You claim to be a blogger. Do you have a blog?
Do, I have my own blog site? No, but I have initiated many threads in JABS Forum.
You seem to be splitting hairs.
Not splitting hairs, just looking for a simple answer to a simple question, and, finally, after 4 attempts, you have admitted you are not a blogger.
Why did you say you were in the first place?
Why don’t you start one?
Yes, splitting hairs. Couldn’t see the point you were trying to make.
JS, see comment 99. I said
“JS – do you have a blog then?”
That was your opportunity to say “No”.
Why did you say you did and why did it take you so long to answer?
No, for instance, articles in CiF are blogs. So are pieces in JABS Forum. Contributing to blogs is blogging in a general sense in my book. I was in no way trying to be evasive. What has this got to do with the safety of MMR? You were complaining about me not being on topic. Well, BG has a lot to do with the topic, whereas whether I have my own blog has nothing do with it.
Rather than split hairs why don’t you address the problem that BG – who is very influential – cited flawed evidence in a GSK award winning article? Indeed, why does he not address it?
“Rather than split hairs why don’t you address the problem that BG – who is very influential – cited flawed evidence in a GSK award winning article? Indeed, why does he not address it?”
Here’s an idea – you are the one making these claims so provide some evidence for them. Here’s another idea – why not start your own blog and write about it there? That would make you a blogger, rather than someone who leaves comments on other people’s blogs or forums.
Ross
You seem to be repeating yourself, making an abstruse point relating to the recent Goldacre blog in which I referred to myself as a blogger – you dispute the definition, but it makes no difference of substance. You are an unidentified troll leaving remarks on other people’s websites, so I am not clear on what basis you have the moral authority to lecture me. I put my name to the things I write, and I have placed the evidence in the public domain, for instance here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7618/480
You will find other references above.
JS – what you cite isn’t evidence, it’s conjecture. And you have to talk up your ‘research’ to make the conjecture sound sinsiter, for example in comment 105 you refer to Goldacre winning the Association of British Science Writer’s award as “GSK patronage”. And you seem to think he should disclose this in each article he writes. Really? s this is the best you can do?
The point I was making was that comment 79 was a re-hashing of your frequent accusations of Goldacre having a conflict of interest. It was barely relevant and I think a blog of your own would be the best place for you to do this.
Ross
If the documentation is wrong, please say where. What have I said which is conjectural? Please be specific.
BG should certainly disclose the GSK award when writing about matters which bear on GSK’s interests, like MMR. He said so: “Journalists: anything to declare?”
PS The point is not primarily whether BG is biased, though he might be, but transparency, for which there are conventions. BG can trample on Alasdair Philips for selling radiation detectors:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=418
but IoP has financial interests too, and are funded indirectly by the mobile phone industry.
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/departments/?locator=364&context=975
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38765.519850.55v1
This demonstrates the problem clearly. In the name of transparency we should be told that BG works for the IoP, which has an industry funded unit.
PPS
If BG wants to defend the science in “Never mind the facts” it is up to him – I did not make up the Cochrane quotes, and they are not conjecture.
There is a fundamental problem which BG needs to address in article after article he has written on MMR. Given that the autism trend is rising, how can he tell whether MMR has contributed to it or not. Setting aside the problem that some of the key studies might inadvertently supply striking evidence the other way (Madsen, Honda/Rutter), which ought to be openly debated, how can he come to any certain view on this kind of evidence.
His case is that epidemiology has settled the matter, when it has come nowhere near.
“BG should certainly disclose the GSK award when writing about matters which bear on GSK’s interests, like MMR. He said so: “Journalists: anything to declare?””"
You really mean this don’t you? So should Dr B disclose in all his blog posts and journalism that he has done work for GSK?
Ross
Dr B has put this information on his website, and he is critical of MMR. I can’t find anything on Dr G’s. A different situation.
This all seems very strange. Ben Goldacre is at the Institute of Psychiatry under a “NIHR BRC [National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre] Preparatory Clinician Scientist Fellowship”. In other words, he works for the NHS.
Ben Goldacre’s blog: “Ben is 33 and works full time for the NHS”.
What’s the problem? The Institute of Psychiatry is an academic institution, and it’s no surprise that some of its work is funded by industry. But there is no evidence that Dr. Goldacre receives any industry funding. This seems to be a storm in a teacup.
I work at an academic institution (the University of Manchester). For the sake of transparency, should I list all the organisations that fund research at the university? That would be ridiculous.
Here identified as King’s College, IoP staff member:
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=11920
The issue of who exactly pays is not perhaps paramount, since BG obviously owes his employment to the institution. And presumably if he was challenging views held within the institution week after week he might not be tremendously popular.
wilsontown
Incidentally, can you tell “a hawk from handsaw”? On your website you quite rightly mention:
“I am a research associate in the School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental sciences at the University of Manchester, where I work on the tectonostratigraphy of rift systems.”
Obviously, if you were commenting on any of those topics, both the faculty and funding conflicts might be come relevant.
Ben G, on the other hand, only gets as far as:
“Ben is 33 and works full time for the NHS in London, England, on the third planet of solarsystem 0×0230B0 in the Milky Way.”
http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/
Perhaps he should update it?
I should have thought it was obvious that while Ben Goldacre does not need to say that he is employed in the Milky Way he ought to say he is on the staff of the Institute of Psychiatry. If it is not a big deal, why has he not done it?
John
“I should have thought it was obvious that while Ben Goldacre does not need to say that he is employed in the Milky Way he ought to say he is on the staff of the Institute of Psychiatry. If it is not a big deal, why has he not done it?”
You raise a good point I think. It’s tragic that some do not see this as an issue, including Ben Goldacre himself, it seems. Quite tragic, really.
Why is it an issue? What are the specific conflicts? (Try not to conflate winning an award with ‘patronage’ and ‘sponsorship’ like John Stone has already done). Do you have any evidence that these conflicts have affected his journalism?
John B
I am more impressed by the silence which has descended – I think they can see the issue.
John Stone
Yes, think you’re right: far too many uncomfortable home truths revealed by you here as well as here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7618/480
And as you say, Ben Goldacre remains silent on these very important subjects. Perhaps he’s hoping ross will help get him out of a tight spot. I don’t think so.
What tight spot? Why is it an issue? What are the specific conflicts? (Try not to conflate winning an award with ‘patronage’ and ‘sponsorship’ like John Stone has already done). Do you have any evidence that these conflicts have affected his journalism?
Ross
There is no distinction between GSK sponsoring ABSW awards or any other junket – quite apart from doling out sweeties – and I note the web-page has substantially toned down GSK’s involvement in the event recently. My guess, indeed, is that under present PMCPA rules, though probably not in 2004, this would not be allowed. So good try, but utter rubbish.
And, of course, the facts were wrong in Ben’s article, which he has still failed to address.
To quote:-
“The ABSW Science Writers’ Awards for 2003 were presented at a ceremony on 1 July at The Royal Society, London, by Pallab Ghosh, Chairman of the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW) and Science Correspondent, BBC News, and Dr Alastair Benbow, Vice President & European Medical Director of GlaxoSmithKline, the major sponsor of the Awards.”
http://www.absw.org.uk/Awards/abswwinners2003.htm
Do I see the words “major sponsor of the Awards”? Goodness me! And there Ben is at the top of the list:
“The best feature on a science subject in a national or regional newspaper:
Ben Goldacre for ‘Never Mind the Facts’ which was published in Guardian Life on 11
December 2003″
Note that Ben is pleased to record the award but not the sponsor:
http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre
just as he pleased to acknowledge being resident in the Milky way but not the Institute of Psychiatry:
Here he is at the ceremony with Dr Benbow brandishing his ABSW/GSK certificate with characteristic smile:
http://www.sciencewritersawards.co.uk/science/past/2003/gallery/cat1-L.htm
Well done Ben, but what about the facts in your article?
John S
ross states: “What tight spot? Why is it an issue? What are the specific conflicts?”
What’s the explanation for this, do you think? Has he lost the capacity to read, do you think? Or maybe he’s been struck blind? After all, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
John B
Ross has tried to make out that the ABSW award ceremony fell into a different category to the kind of patronage Ben was talking about in his ‘Journalists: anything to declare article?’ when it looks to be just the kind of junket Ben was talking about. So, now Ross is silent.
I note the peculiar reticence of ABPI regulator, Heather Simmonds, on these issues:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7634/0#187763
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7618/480#188132
JS – Is Ben G patronised or sponsored by GSK? Or did he win an award for science writers sponsored by GSK? Clearly the latter. You are attempting to conflate the two.
Do all the other recipients of the award declare it in their writings? Have you left comments on their blogs saying that they should?
Dr B – I’m not sure what you are getting at. I asked why Ben G is in a tight spot. I’m not sure that you have answered my question. There’s no controversy here for him to respond to. Unless an intrepid investigator (or blogger like JS) was to explain what the specific conflicts are and come up with some evidence that these conflicts have affected his journalism, then this just comes across as a bit if a cheap attempt to smear him.
Ross
“JS – Is Ben G patronised or sponsored by GSK? Or did he win an award for science writers sponsored by GSK? Clearly the latter. You are attempting to conflate the two.”
They are the same. You see Ben between Pallab Ghosh and Dr Alastair Benbow. All three looking immensely pleased with thmselves, Ben brandishing his prize certificate, complete with GSK logo.
http://www.sciencewritersawards.co.uk/science/past/2003/gallery/cat1-L.htm
Ben walks away with two thousand grand – don’t know whether he got expenses but he certainly got a banquet, and was made to feel good. No big commercial sponsor, no grand award ceremony.
“Do all the other recipients of the award declare it in their writings?”
No, of course, they don’t. But the point of Ben’s article, is that journalists pretend that they are above it all.
“Have you left comments on their blogs saying that they should?”
A bit like Santa Claus managing to deposit presents with every child? But Pallab Ghosh has an interesting Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallab_Ghosh
Sorry two grand, not two thousand grand…
But the truth is that the award winning article – allegedly the best scientific article of the year – was nothing special except in terms of its political effect.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,,1104095,00.html
Not only were the four cited studies flawed, but so was the fundamental premise either that epidemiology could demonstrate that Wakefield hypothesis was wrong in individual cases, or that the rising trend in autism – in so far as it did not correlate with the introduction of MMR – might actually mask its effect at the population level. We now have a warning about this from Bernadine Healy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/12/couricandco/entry4090144.shtml
Healy suggests that it is necessary to study sub-groups, which is exactly what Wakefield was doing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/12/couricandco/entry4090144.shtml
And what has happened is that autistic children with gut problems are being denied treatment because they have been proved not to exist on statistical grounds.
http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/adc.2007.122937v1
Admittedly Ben may not have been responsible for the most disgusting aspect of his article as it appeared in the newspaper: the picture of Isabella Thomas, mother of two MMR damaged children standing drenched in the rain outside No 10 Downing Street.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo031119/debtext/31119-43.htm
Is there anything more nauseating than casual fascism of the newspaper photo editor? Shame!
I’m afraid that I think Ross is quite right here. Ben Goldacre works at the Institute of Psychiatry. So what? There seems to be an attempt to smear Goldacre by suggesting that because the IoP receives industry funding, that must influence Goldacre. As I’ve tried to point out, that is ridiculous. Any academic institution attracts funding from a large number of different bodies. It would be impossible for Goldacre to declare every entity that funds research at the IoP.
This stuff about the science-writing prize is similar. There’s nothing to suggest any real conflict of interest, so you have to create one via a low-level conspiracy theory.
JS – The site you link to states “The Awards, of £2,000 each, are supported by GlaxoSmithKline, the Medical Research Council, the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust.”
Assuming that GSK stumped up a quarter of thecosts of the awards then the price of being a big pharma stooge is £500. And you still think this is ‘sponsorship’ and ‘patronage’?
Wisontown
As I have already pointed out you publish your institutional affiliation on your website and BG does not publish equivalent on his. If it is no big deal, why is it not there? It is precisely these things which are significant according to BG’s BMJ article. The stuff about third rock from the sun and the Milky Way are just whimsy – how about the hard professional details?
Ross
GSK are declared to be “the major sponsors of the awards” and their logo appears on the certificate BG is brandishing in the photograph, as he receives it from GSK director Dr Alastair Benbow. £500 is also very nice. And grins all round, please note.
The logo on the awards is a mark of non-independence.
JS – don’t you think that if big pharma were trying to subvert the independence of journalists they’d do it in a slightly more discrete way than via a public awards ceremony? And that their pay scale for shills would be a bit more competitive?
Ross
No, they were obviously promoting themselves, as benefactors of science and humanity, while fostering good relations with the journalistic profession. I would guess that ABPI/PMCPA code which was established following the Commons Select Health Committee report ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry’ would prevent them from doing it now.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf
You see at first glance it looks really good and philanthropic: then you realise the prime aim is to make money, while journalists like Ben Goldacre do not think they have to declare it.
Hold on JS, I’m confused. You said “The point is not primarily whether BG is biased, though he might be, but transparency”.
So, BG points out that he won the award here:
http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/
And if anyone was interested, like you, they could Google the details and find out the whole tedious non-story.
But now that isn’t the problem. The problem is that a commercial organisation sponsors an award to promote itself.
Well, it’s not really up there with Woodward and Bernstein.
Ross
Goldacre mentions that he won the award, not that the “major sponsor” was GSK. The fact that you could research it – which is what I did – is a red-herring. In the case of another award Goldacre jokes about the small amount of money. Perhaps we can afford the same “wry smile” to BG as he affords to other journalists in his article.
The Health Committee found the pharmaceutical industry’s manipulation of journalism to be a serious matter. And yes, the point, is transparency, because it is at least a minimal gesture towards admitting there is a problem.
As to the dodgy science in the article, Goldacre remains profoundly silent.
Ross,
Incidentally, I don’t think you are confused, you are just wasting everyone’s time.
There are other questions than the GSK award, and Goldacre’s refusal to discuss John Stone’s points. Goldacre has always written and been presented by the Guardian as an ostensibly independent journo and NHS doctor who can be trusted on matters of science – unlike his targets, who are usually portrayed as venal or moronic. So when he attacked another journo who had problems with wi-fi for instance, were people aware Goldacre was not being entirely transparent about his own institutional background?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/02/badscience.comment
John Stone mentioned here that the government and mobile phone industry research centre is based at the Institute of Psychiatry. Why not at a centre for bioelectromagnetic research, unless the aim is to distract from the biological issues around emf?
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm
Goldacre’s status as a psychiatrist at the Institute is a bit like a controversial scientific discovery (such as continental drift and tectonic plates). First it’s announced
http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/goldacres-conflicts-of-interest-exposed/
and immediately denied (see the combative and vehement Andrew claiming it’s a fabrication). Eventually, it’s admitted but said to be of no importance (wilsontown above). Finally, everyone will agree they knew all along, and it’s a jolly good thing. The Goldacre phenomenon is given a thorough workout in Martin Walker’s Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: free download available at http://www.slingshotpublications.com/dwarfs.html
Despite the conspiratorial stance, and a lengthy section on Patrick Holford which I skipped, the alleged web of conflicts of interest uncovered by Walker makes interesting reading.
“Goldacre mentions that he won the award, not that the “major sponsor” was GSK. The fact that you could research it – which is what I did – is a red-herring.”
I don’t think you mean red-herring, but whatever. As I said originally, the award is mentioned on BG’s blog and if anyone was interested in finding out the whole tedious non-story they could do as the information is in the public domain.
When it is pointed out to you that the information is in the public domain, your point about ‘transparency’ seems to have changed to a point about either a) GSK or big pharma buying the influence of BG or b) a commercial organisation using an awards ceremony to advertise itself.
If you are concerned about a) then please provide some evidence. (There isn’t a case to answer until you do so there’s really no need to provide evidence of BG’s concerns over the conduct of big pharma, the manipulation of trial data, the medicalisation of society etc, but here’s one to be going on with:)
http://www.badscience.net/2008/03/uk-government-does-what-i-tell-them/
JS – I’m confused as to why you think you have a smoking gun. You take every opportunity to shoehorn it into blog comments on the flimsiest of pretexts and then say that I’m a timewaster!
Ross
I do not know whether John B considers that I am shoehorning by posting on his blog or whether you are. The point is just another irrelevance. I have pointed out the funding of Ben Goldacre’s 2003 ABSW award, and the institution for which he works which is apparently unwelcome in certain circles. I have also pointed BG’s expressed view on the topic of pharma and institutional patronage in his article ‘Journalists, anything to declare’ and I detect inconsistency.
JS – this was a discussion about the evidence for or against the ‘MMR causes autims’ hypothesis which you derailed in comment 79 with an irreleevent aside abot Goldacre. You have detected an inconsistency, nobody else has. I note that your concern about conflicts of interest don’t seem so apparent when related to Wakefield and Stott. Or is it only an issue when big pharma is involved?
I have just turned up a profile of Goldacre from the Telegraph earlier this year. It is interesting because it promotes BG as a cultural guru and it places his influence on the media presentation of the MMR issue as his leading achievement:
“Public understanding of science is worse now than it was fifty years ago, says Ben Goldacre, scourge of science frauds everywhere. He spoke to Kate Stein about MMR, the “two cultures” of science and the humanities, and Brazil nuts. Additional reporting by Tom Chivers.”
Actually, there is not very much about MMR in the article:
“His most famous battle has, of course, been with the anti-vaccine campaigners over the MMR “controversy” of recent years. “If you look at what’s been covered, trivial and often completely unpublished alleged laboratory findings suggesting that MMR may cause autism or bowel problems have been given blanket media coverage,” he sighs.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/scigoldacre106.xml
This really does not present the true position (straw argument?), when what we have seen is the systematic stifling in the media of contrary views:
http://fionafox.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-we-need-best-journalism-on-public.html
Alluding to the CP Snow controversy has no relevance in todays culture. The real problem is the dominance of PR culture in the media. Goldacre, himself, has helped to drive out informed debate with his “quack-busting” style, and most notably in relation to MMR – he prefers to ignore the criticism than answer it (which, frankly, I do not believe he can do).
Given his media position, knowing a bit more about him than the fact that he is resident of the Milky Way is essential.
The real problem for Ben is lack of deference to institutions:
“He harks back to the famous lecture, given in 1959 by C P Snow, on the existence of “two cultures” in British society – science and the humanities, and how the two exist almost in contempt of each other. Goldacre believes things have only got worse since then. “At least in Snow’s era, science was just ignored – now people feel entitled to wade in and pass comment. It seems that science is being deliberately misrepresented and undermined.”"
So, if your child get maimed you should just doff you cap, and be very humble, because BG can prove by statistics that it did not happen.
It might be relevant that Goldacre’s father is Professor Michael Goldacre, of The Unit of Health Care Epidemiology within Oxford University’s Department of Public Health:
http://www.publichealth.ox.ac.uk/units/hce
Listening to individual patients and parents is not high on the public health research agenda. “We are building a new world.”