Great piece in .net magazine about

October 28th, 2011 by Ben Goldacre in onanism | 5 Comments »

Hi, just to say, there’s a great piece in this month’s .net magazine about, the crowd-sourced dorky-days-out Why-Don’t-You project I built with Applecado, Aaron Rudd, and Jo Brodie. Read the rest of this entry »

New edition of “Testing Treatments”, best pop science book on Evidence Based Medicine ever.

October 18th, 2011 by Ben Goldacre in great popularisers of science, methods | 6 Comments »

People often ask if there’s one good book that is accessible to all, about how evidence based medicine works. The answer is undoubtedly “Testing Treatments“. I name-check it to death in Bad Science, I learnt a huge amount from it, and it’s just come out in a new edition. You can (generously!) download the full text as a PDF for free here, and there are translations in various languages for free on that page too. I recommend getting a paper copy (they’re lovely and it’s very readable) here, there’s a proper Kindle edition here, and the publisher page is here. Meanwhile a website version with extra resources is coming shortly.

I genuinely, truly, cannot recommend this awesome book highly enough for its clarity, depth, and humanity.  My foreword for the new edition is pasted below. Read the rest of this entry »

What if academics were as dumb as quacks with statistics?

October 3rd, 2011 by Ben Goldacre in methods, neurostuff, statistics | 39 Comments »

Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 10th September 2011

We all like to laugh at quacks when they misuse basic statistics. But what if academics, en masse, deploy errors that are equally foolish? This week Sander Nieuwenhuis and colleagues publish a mighty torpedo in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

They’ve identified one direct, stark statistical error that is so widespread it appears in about half of all the published papers surveyed from the academic neuroscience research literature. Read the rest of this entry »