For example: it drives me mad when people on TV mispronounce ‘coup de grâce’ as ‘coup de gras’ (say: grab without the B). They are saying ‘blow of fat’. It happens more than you’d think. But it’s hardly as important as misinforming people into fear and over-reaction that can put lives in danger.

“Your immune system is compromised daily by chemical exposure due to air, water, ground pollution, and by stress.”

Is there an “and” missing before “ground”? And if earth, air, and water are dangerous, what about the fourth element, fire?

You’ve also got a discussion going over humanities graduates. There’s an interesting point here for anyone with expertise in some particular area X – it doesn’t matter what X is. Look at the way the press in general treat your particular area X; do you really feel that they really know what they’re talking about? Would you feel confident about relying on them? Would you feel happy about people you know relying on what they say? What fraction of the press would you say is broadly sound on your area X? Would you accept 10% as a reasonable estimate? But now consider every other specialist area. If you, Ben, happen to read something about racing or economics, do you automatically apply a 90% discount to it, on the basis that the press is pretty much of a muchness in all areas? Or do you assume that most of what’s in the papers is more or less right, and that it’s only in science that they get things so absurdly wrong?

I suppose that we are all broadly prepared to accept what other people say – we assume that they’re fools or liars. We discover by experience that in our own specialities, they (or at any rate those in the media) are fools, in that they don’t know what they are talking about and have little or no idea of the extent of their own ignorance. But we don’t transfer that insight beyond our own area of expertise.

It’s not just science that gets it from these fools. Any area you wish to name comes under assault from such self-appointed experts (this is opinion, for the hard of understanding), whether it be economics, religion, fine art, or topiary (go on, I’m sure there’s an article out there professing the benefits of the topiarist’s art for the control of bovine TB or some such nonsense).

Ben, and your band of Farringdon Road Irregulars, keep up the good work, it makes for fascinating and hilarious reading.

However, there is a special place in hell reserved for the endless parade of self-appointed “humanities graduate science reporters” (I quote) who consistently get things wrong. It’s the grandiosity of it all that I find especially baffling. Do I write an economics column? No. Do I write a racing tips column? No. I know about science, and I write a science column.

These ignorant “science” reporters are ignorant because they have not bothered to learn about science, not because they _have_ bothered to learn about other subjects. “Humanities graduate” is not a synonym for “ignorant”, and it does not even necessarily imply “clueless about science”. Surely as a scientist you should pride yourself on saying what you actually mean… which is that these reporters are ignorant?

Not to mention that for as long as you foster this attitude of “scientists good, humanities graduates bad”, you will drive them away from your column in droves, and the ignorant ones even more than the educated ones. Do you _want_ to condemn yourself to preaching to the choir, or do you think perhaps leaving some of the jibes out might actually help you spread the word about the difference between good science and bad?

Is it a requirement of these journalists to have at least a basic knowledge of science before they can write articles that “inform” (mislead, scare…take your pick) the general public? It really frightens me the amount of, for want of a better word, stupid science stories that get published each week. A substantial section of the general public will get their science knowledge from these newspapers, how are they to know to search on PubMed for up-to-date papers on topics and critically evaluate the papers they read? Which is why badscience is such an amazing column (not being a complete suckup really), in at least it will inform some as to the rubbish that gets reported, and more importantly why it is wrong.

And as for the garden shed….isn’t it a little frightening that you can buy a shed, some basic kitchen worktops and a few other things like media and suddenly you have your own lab (well by Chemsol standards)? Damn, if only my garden was big enough…

Your latest trifecta of columns is grossly entertaining for another personal reason: as a member of the ~10% of the population who normally carries non-MR Staph aureus, I find this whole hullabaloo about the MRSA ‘Superbugs’ supremely idiotic. Having done the testing myself (classwork for my B.S. Microbiology, Univ. of Washington, ’94), I personally know that it is very easy to differentiate between S. aureus and S. epidermis. Mannitol-salt agar is incredibly easy to make, and darned cheap, to boot.

That tabloid reporters don’t even take the time to learn an absolutely infinitesimal amount of science before they raise the hue and cry… dumbfounds me. That’s one of the reasons I’m teaching the course as I am. The vast majority of people see science as something too arcane for them to ever understand, when really, if you take just a little time, it’s mostly a trifle to understand the state of current affairs in the field(s).

Keep up the good work. I’m quite enjoying it from over here.

Bob (with a PhD in epidemiology. Plant epidemiology alas)

MChem (Hons) MRSC AMInstP

And I know nothing about microbiology, or bird ‘flu – but I can spot a quack at fifty paces (no pun intended).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1599980,00.html

However, this weekend there was an article in The Guardian supplement about circumcision:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1602139,00.html

It quoted this figure and also said that a paper by the British Journal of Urology had found exactly the opposite. How come the first article didn’t mention this? I suppose it wouldn’t make much of a headline – ‘One study finds this really impressive figure but another one doesn’t’.

On the subject of PhDs – it’s not just people who have bogus ones, it’s people who have real ones commenting on subjects they are not qualified in. Mine is in French (soooo useful) so I feel that qualifies me to call myself Doctor when talking about any subject, from science to knitting. What do you mean, no it doesn’t?

By the way, I’m also an internet ordained minister of the Church of Universal Life, so if anyone wants me to conduct their wedding, absolve their sins, circumcise their children….

Bagsy Provost.