<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bad Science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badscience.net</link>
	<description>Ben Goldacre&#039;s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>These Guardian / Independent stories are dodgy. Traps in data journalism.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s an interesting problem with data analysis in general, and so, by extension, data journalism: you have to be careful about assuming that the numbers you&#8217;ve got access to&#8230; really do reflect the underlying phenomena you&#8217;re trying to investigate. Today&#8217;s Guardian has a story, &#8220;Antidepressant use in England soars&#8220;. It&#8217;s much more overstated in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Bad Science&#8221; is £2.49 on Kindle for the next week</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/bad-science-is-2-49-on-kindle-for-the-next-week/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/bad-science-is-2-49-on-kindle-for-the-next-week/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:04:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Briefly: I thought this was a pricing error, but it turns out it&#8217;s deliberate, so&#8230; My book is £2.49 on Kindle for the next week or so. When it&#8217;s this cheap you might as well use it to test the Kindle app on your phone (I&#8217;m a massive Kindle dork, it helps me get more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/bad-science-is-2-49-on-kindle-for-the-next-week/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why won&#8217;t Professor Susan Greenfield publish this theory in a scientific journal?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/why-wont-professor-greenfield-publish-this-theory-in-a-scientific-journal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/why-wont-professor-greenfield-publish-this-theory-in-a-scientific-journal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic pr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dodgy academic press releases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[susan greenfield]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 22 October 2011 This week Baroness Susan Greenfield, Professor of pharmacology at Oxford, apparently announced that computer games are causing dementia in children. This would be very concerning scientific information: but it comes to us from the opening of a new wing at an expensive boarding school, not an academic [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/why-wont-professor-greenfield-publish-this-theory-in-a-scientific-journal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Great piece in .net magazine about nerdydaytrips.com</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/great-piece-in-net-magazine-about-nerdydaytrips-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/great-piece-in-net-magazine-about-nerdydaytrips-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:46:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[onanism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi, just to say, there&#8217;s a great piece in this month&#8217;s .net magazine about www.nerdydaytrips.com, the crowd-sourced dorky-days-out Why-Don&#8217;t-You project I built with Applecado, Aaron Rudd, and Jo Brodie. Snippet: Tanya Combrinck: Tell us about your ideal kind of day trip. Ben Goldacre: I&#8217;m not really interested in guide book stuff, I&#8217;m interested in stuff [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/great-piece-in-net-magazine-about-nerdydaytrips-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New edition of &#8220;Testing Treatments&#8221;, best pop science book on Evidence Based Medicine ever.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/new-edition-of-testing-treatments-best-lay-text-on-evidence-based-medicine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/new-edition-of-testing-treatments-best-lay-text-on-evidence-based-medicine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[great popularisers of science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methods]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[People often ask if there&#8217;s one good book that is accessible to all, about how evidence based medicine works. The answer is undoubtedly &#8220;Testing Treatments&#8220;. I name-check it to death in Bad Science, I learnt a huge amount from it, and it&#8217;s just come out in a new edition. You can (generously!) download the full [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/new-edition-of-testing-treatments-best-lay-text-on-evidence-based-medicine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What if academics were as dumb as quacks with statistics?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neurostuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2405</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You might also enjoy my second blog&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/my-other-blog/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/my-other-blog/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:44:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As well as being here I&#8217;m also there: here&#8217;s a quick round-up of recent posts from my other blog where I post scatty, brief scribbles in between bouts of real work, they&#8217;re in the sidebar on the right too.: - - How accurate is turnitin? And a brief scribble on plagiarism - This man&#8217;s reasoning [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/my-other-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cherry picking is bad. At least warn us when you do it.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/cherry-picking-is-bad-at-least-warn-us-when-you-do-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/cherry-picking-is-bad-at-least-warn-us-when-you-do-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic pr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academic publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aric sigman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[systematic reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 24 September 2011 Last week the Daily Mail and the Today programme took some bait from Aric Sigman, an author of popular sciencey books about the merits of traditional values. &#8220;Sending babies and toddlers to daycare could do untold damage to the development of their brains and their future health,&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/cherry-picking-is-bad-at-least-warn-us-when-you-do-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benford&#8217;s Law: using stats to bust an entire nation for naughtiness.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/benfords-law-using-stats-to-bust-an-entire-nation-for-naughtiness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/benfords-law-using-stats-to-bust-an-entire-nation-for-naughtiness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[structured data]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 17 September 2011 This week we might bust an entire nation for handing over dodgy economic statistics. But first: why would they bother? Well, it turns out that whole countries have an interest in distorting their accounts, just like companies and individuals. If you’re an Euro member like Greece, for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/benfords-law-using-stats-to-bust-an-entire-nation-for-naughtiness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Academic papers are hidden from the public. Here&#8217;s some direct action.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/academic-papers-are-hidden-from-the-public-heres-some-direct-action/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/academic-papers-are-hidden-from-the-public-heres-some-direct-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bullying]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 3 September 2011 This week George Monbiot won the internet with a long Guardian piece on academic publishers. For those who didn’t know: academics, funded mostly by the public purse, pay for the production and dissemination of academic papers; but for historical reasons, these are published by private organisations who [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/academic-papers-are-hidden-from-the-public-heres-some-direct-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brain imaging studies report more positive findings than their numbers can support. This is fishy.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publication bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulating research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 13 August 2011 While the authorities are distracted by mass disorder, we can do some statistics. You’ll have seen plenty of news stories telling you that one part of the brain is bigger, or smaller, in people with a particular mental health problem, or even a specific job. These are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sampling error, the unspoken issue behind small number changes in the news</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncertainty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 20 August 2011 What do all these numbers mean? &#8220;&#8216;Worrying&#8217; jobless rise needs urgent action &#8211; Labour&#8221; was the BBC headline. They explained the problem in their own words: “The number of people out of work rose by 38,000 to 2.49 million in the three months to June, official figures [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I made a documentary about cohort studies in epidemiology, on BBC Radio 4</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/i-made-a-documentary-about-cohort-studies-in-epidemiology-on-bbc-radio-4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/i-made-a-documentary-about-cohort-studies-in-epidemiology-on-bbc-radio-4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[onanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I made a documentary about prospective cohort studies in epidemiology, they&#8217;re the tool we use to find out if one thing is associated with another, where trials are impossible. It&#8217;s really good. Instead of reading about it, listen here: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012wg2q/Science_From_Cradle_to_Grave/ Or listen live when it&#8217;s repeated tonight on Radio 4 at 9pm. Hurrah! &#160; Previously [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/i-made-a-documentary-about-cohort-studies-in-epidemiology-on-bbc-radio-4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I&#8217;m talking at Glastonbury, Saturday 1:30pm Free University in The Park! (Also SGP, Latitude&#8230;)</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/im-talking-at-glastonbury-saturday-130pm-free-university-in-the-park/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/im-talking-at-glastonbury-saturday-130pm-free-university-in-the-park/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:19:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onanism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi all, just to say, I&#8217;m doing a talk in the Free University of Glastonbury, 1:30pm (or thereabouts) on Saturday. Free University is the literarature tent in The Park field, based inside HMS Sweet Charity, which sounds like it&#8217;s probably a big silly boat. www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/news/the-free-university-of-glastonbury-returns I&#8217;m also talking at Secret Garden Party (speakers tent, no [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/im-talking-at-glastonbury-saturday-130pm-free-university-in-the-park/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>There&#8217;s something magical about watching patterns emerge from data</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/theres-something-magical-about-watching-patterns-emerge-from-data/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/theres-something-magical-about-watching-patterns-emerge-from-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2338</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre The Guardian Saturday 11 June 2011 We all know one atom of experience isn&#8217;t enough to spot a pattern: but when you put lots of experiences together and process that data, you get new knowledge. This might sound obvious, but following it through – watching patterns emerge from the noise – still gives me [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/theres-something-magical-about-watching-patterns-emerge-from-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nerds at the parliamentary committee on the Draft Defamation Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/nerds-at-the-parliamentary-committee-on-the-draft-defamation-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/nerds-at-the-parliamentary-committee-on-the-draft-defamation-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:04:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[onanism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s me, Simon Singh, Phil Campbell from Nature, and Fiona Godlee from the BMJ giving evidence on libel reform in parliament yesterday. It&#8217;s all interesting, if you like that kind of thing, our session starts at 17:30 and I do a bit more shouting in the second half of it. I&#8217;m afraid that for some [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/nerds-at-the-parliamentary-committee-on-the-draft-defamation-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kids who spot bullshit, and the adults who get upset about it</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/kids-who-spot-bullshit-and-the-adults-who-get-upset-about-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/kids-who-spot-bullshit-and-the-adults-who-get-upset-about-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[brain gym]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bullying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[childishness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 28 May 2011 If you can tear yourself away from Ryan Giggs’ penis for just one moment, I have a different censorship story. Brain Gym is a schools program I’ve been writing on since 2003. It’s a series of elaborate physical movements with silly pseudoscientific justifications: you wiggle your head [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/kids-who-spot-bullshit-and-the-adults-who-get-upset-about-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Existential angst about the bigger picture</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/existential-angst-about-the-bigger-picture/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/existential-angst-about-the-bigger-picture/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 12:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic pr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academic publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publication bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulating research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 21 May 2011 Here’s no surprise: beliefs which we imagine to be rational are bound up in all kinds of other stuff. Political stances, for example, correlate with various personality features. One major review in 2003 looked at 38 different studies, containing data on 20,000 participants, and found that overall, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/existential-angst-about-the-bigger-picture/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We should so blatantly do more randomised trials on policy</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/we-should-so-blatantly-do-more-randomised-trials-on-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/we-should-so-blatantly-do-more-randomised-trials-on-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence based policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 14 May 2011 Politicians are ignorant about trials, and they’re weird about evidence. It doesn’t need to be this way. In international development work, resources are tight, and people know that good intentions aren’t enough: in fact, good intentions can sometimes do harm. We need to know what works. In [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/we-should-so-blatantly-do-more-randomised-trials-on-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asking the wrong question: how crap research gets drugs to market</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/asking-the-wrong-question-how-crap-research-gets-drugs-to-market/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/asking-the-wrong-question-how-crap-research-gets-drugs-to-market/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 May 2011 17:40:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 7 May 2011 Some of the biggest problems in medicine don’t get written about, because they’re not about eyecatching things like one patient’s valiant struggle: they’re protected from public scrutiny by a wall of tediousness. Here is one problem that affects millions of people. What if we had rubbish evidence [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/05/asking-the-wrong-question-how-crap-research-gets-drugs-to-market/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

