Select committees are almost the only place in parliament where MPs actually do what you’d naively hope they do all the time: sit down, hear a lot of evidence on an important issue, and then have a good hard think about it. The Science and Technology committee in particular have produced some fascinating and readable documents over the years. The report on the abortion act offered transparent, evidence based policy advice, package up in a very good piece of accessible popular science writing. (It also ended with a memorable tantrum from some christians). The House of Lords equivalent, meanwhile, did a very good piece of work on the public understanding of science in 2000, during the aftermath of GM and BSE.
Now SciTech has merged into DIUS, and they are asking us, which means you and me, “the public”, for topics that deserve a good hard think. We have until Friday 27th February to come up with something good, and I thought you might have some interesting ideas?
Off the top of my head, while I wait for the toilet to become free, here are a few quick thoughts:
- the inappropriateness of teaching quackery badly in university science degrees (far more important than consumers getting “ripped off” for pills, imho);
- the responsibility for accuracy in the media with regards to science, its impact on health risk behaviour, and most interestingly, the practicalities of regulation;
- the pharmaceutical industry’s ugly habit of hiding unflattering data;
- ways of improving the access that doctors and patients have to good quality summaries of clinical evidence;
- consent and regulatory issues around the use of anonymised health records in clinical research;
- given that we struggle to engage children with science, while half of all science coverage is health, and people are clearly very engaged in these issues around risk: should evidence based medicine, basic epidemiology and trial design, be taught in schools?
I’m sure you’ll have more, post them below, send them in to the committee directly (maybe copy us in the comments for archive), or just hassle me to write up your half formed ideas into a nice letter for you (and don’t forget to ask your MP to sign this Early Day Motion on MMR and the media, it only takes five minutes).
INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE & SKILLS
Select Committee Announcement
Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA
Tel. No. 020 7219 2794 Fax. No. 020 7219 0896 Email: iuscomm@parliament.uk
11 February 2009
No. 15 (08-09)
Subjects for scrutiny: have your say
The House of Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee is issuing an open call for topics suitable for an oral evidence hearing in Westminster in April or May this year. The Committee – which includes members from the former Education and Skills Committee and the Science and Technology Committee – has a remit to look at all matters within the responsibility of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Topics must be within this remit and should also:
– not already be under examination by the Committee as part of another inquiry (see the Committee’s website for details of current work)
– be capable of being covered in two hours of oral evidence, with two panels of witnesses (the second panel normally being Ministers or officials, no more than four witnesses on any panel)
– be timely
– not relate to individual cases/any matters before the Courts or Tribunals.
Please send us, in a total of 750 words or less:
(1) Your suggested topic
(2) Why it is timely to hold a meeting in April or May
(3) What value you think a hearing would add
(4) Your suggested witnesses.
You should also declare any interests you have in making the suggestion.
Please email your suggestions to iuscomm@parliament.uk by Friday 27 February.
Pro-reason said,
February 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm
At the age of twelve, I was taught about my teacher called “a fair test” in school. In fact, he went on about it in every lesson for years, with me thinking it was a waste of time, given that no one in the class would possibly be so silly to do a test without a control. Imagine my horror when I realised that grown-ups do that sort of thing all the time!
I think that what our lessons were missing was examples of nasty, real-world consequences of sloppy science.
Pro-reason said,
February 12, 2009 at 9:08 pm
…about *what* my teacher…
Topov said,
February 12, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Within a few seconds of reading the intro to this post I’d got my question – the one I’d ask to be subject to such an examination.
It’s the one at the top of your list.
I was horrified not only at this chilling extension of Mickey Mouse degrees into the scientifically unproven and philosophically indefensible but that it takes lavishly publicised place at my local FE bloc is a source of shame. That’s the Uni of Plymouth – just across the Tamar from Chez Topov in the Cornish bog.
As a poly it had a pretty good reputation. Science and engineering HNDs were in particular demand. It also got kudos for getting scientific method into social studies and developed a correspondingly well-regarded and sought-after CQSW course.
Now its a flashy, desparate go-get-em-tiger! clearing-grab. Local kids from the rural areas looking for a course to match their interests and ambitions seem to go elsewhere these days (tho I blame the system mightily too – the withdrawal of stuff like HNDs was a major mistake IMO.
Just goes to show how cleverly and ultimately how cynically marketed this stuff has really been…and its GOT TO GO.
I really cannot overstate how seriously worrying a development this is.
Nurse Topov, Thunderbird 5.
biggerpills said,
February 12, 2009 at 9:19 pm
@cardassiascot: very interesting post, thanks for sharing your experiences.
I have a feeling that calls to teach the scientific method would face strong opposition. My parents were appalled to find I wasn’t taught facts “parrot-fashion” at school, and I remember journalists voicing outrage over the ideas of pupils being able to pass GCSE history without memorising any dates, and of allowing calculators in maths exams. Even now coursework is thought of as the reason why exams are (allegedly) getting easier. Any deviation from old teaching methods is viewed with suspicion regardless of whether the change is an improvement or not. Progress could take generations, so for a radical shake-up some unpopular decisions will have to be made.
I was taught about designing experiments at A level and many of my uni tutors loved to inspire students with examples of beautiful experiments. I had bad teachers too, but fortunately the good ones outnumbered them. Not all students are so lucky and they’re the ones who are put off science.
clobbered said,
February 12, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Well since a select committee is a government function, it would be presumably be most effective in matters that can be addressed by government action.
So I would suggest defining a protocol for spending public money on matters subject to scientific evidence
For example, many topics covered by Bad Science (the fish oil trials, those ridiculous exercises inflicted on school children to oxygenate their brains, arbitrary interventions for combating obesity like banning crisps from lunchboxes) involve government funding or resources being expended on the basis of nothing more than woo.
Solution? We should set up a dedicated office to endorse the scientific merit behind such interventions – an Office of Scientific Merit if you like.
I believe there is some precedent for this in the UK, for example the office of statistics (I forget its proper appellation) that double checks government numbers to make sure they can be validly quoted. I guess NICE performs a related function as well (reviewing medical evidence on drug performance before approving it for the NHS).
So if I run a public agency (local government, ministry, whatever) and want to spend money on a program (medical, social, infrastructural) that relies on allegedly scientific evidence, I should have to go to this Office and get a seal of approval that the evidence I am basing my intervention upon is valid and solid.
I think that is a lot safer than trying to regulate what the media can or cannot say. On the other hand, such an office might be able to help by providing a counter-balance to media coverage. For example if the media has a story about fish oil turning babies into Einsteins, but the Office of Scientific Merit or whatever has turned down fish oil supplements to schools on the basis of complete lack of evidence, that would be a public fact that could be reported as “balance” to the story even by the most lazy journalist.
quietstorm said,
February 12, 2009 at 9:45 pm
My vote for “questions for the new SciTech committe” definitely encompasses:
A) Open access for publicly-funded research. I am sorely disappointed by the publishing houses bleating about how difficult it is to make money these days. It would be good if there was an international move to support open access – why can’t the British lead the way on this issue, we’re so keen on “fair play” after all!
B) Evidence-based reasoning is so important – for all of us, not just politicians, scientists and judges. In fact, why not change the 3 “r”s to reading, (w)riting and reasoning? (since (a)rithmetic is not as important as maths/stats any more since the advent of the electronic counting device)
C) Give the press regulatory bodies more teeth. In fact, it might be worth discussing the possibility of having a regulatory body whose remit was to ensure that all coverage of health and science in traditional media is responsible*. How much has the MMR scare cost us as a society? How much do alternative treatments that endanger people’s health cost us? It is hard to put an exact figure on it, but I imagine that the NHS uses a large amount of funds and human resources every year to put this stuff right, or mitigate the effects. Irresponsible health and science journalism costs us all, the press regulations need to be enforced.
*Responsible = well researched and prominently corrected when new evidence comes to light. I know these are vague, but I’m sure that smarter people could come up with better criteria.
Sarah_D said,
February 12, 2009 at 11:04 pm
For the National Curriculum to stop teaching group selection as the primary, gospel form of evolution in GCSE Biology. They did this for my GCSE year anyhow!
biggerpills said,
February 12, 2009 at 11:52 pm
@clobbered: add science teaching at the Emmanuel Schools Foundation to the list!
calj said,
February 13, 2009 at 8:21 am
“should evidence based medicine, basic epidemiology and trial design, be taught in schools?”
It would be wonderful if everyone in the country were able to analyse medicine as critically as users of Bad Science. But if a quarter of people leave school unable to read and write properly it’s unrealistic to expect them to understand the intricacies of placebo, RCTs and anecdotal evidence. It’s up to legislation to protect people who haven’t had the education (or got the time) to investigate every health claim for themselves. Simply being allowed to practise gives homeopaths legitimacy. (“Why would we have NHS Homeopathic hospitals if it didn’t work”? – who hasn’t heard that from otherwise intelligent people?)
If we must have quackery, the only solution is to take it off the uneducated, unqualified conspiracy theorists who practise it now and make it truly and legally complementary to conventional medicine. No doctor’s referral? No sugar tablet.
penglish said,
February 13, 2009 at 9:05 am
@drunkenoaf
Thanks for the clarification – point taken.
We also need clear and open decision-making by government (which we are largely getting, but it’s still not quite good enough).
-RobW- said,
February 13, 2009 at 9:53 am
I like Andrew’s idea; if the education establishment doesn’t catch up soon with the Internet, then too many people will believe that the first Google result == the truth. People need to know how to sift the vast amount of knowledge available; just saying “this is the truth, just ignore the rest” will make any average teenager think “bollocks to that, why should I believe X when Google has Y hits for Z?”
Also, please fix “You must bee logged in to comment” ;o)
paddyfool said,
February 13, 2009 at 10:04 am
I’d like to post an update/correction to my quick earlier analysis of party signatories to this EDM. I managed to miss 1 Tory before, and there have since been 9 further signings for a total of 28. So far, the proportion of each party’s MPs signing this is as follows:
2/193 Tory MPs (1%)
15/350 Labour MPs (4%)
11/63 Lib Dem MPs (17%)
0/40 Other (0%)
This includes the 6 sponsors, 5 of whom were Lib Dem, 1 Labour.
Fisher’s exact p-value for an association with party: <0.001
As well as being inaccurate, my prior analysis was a tad limited; along with the dearth of support in the Tory party, it seems that this was principally sponsored by the Lib Dems and that they were 4 times as likely to sign up for it as Labour. A pity they’ll never get in, really.
julie oakley said,
February 13, 2009 at 10:47 am
They all seem hugely important, but education seems to me the most important, particularly at school level. I would have thought that in addition to teaching ‘evidence based medicine, basic epidemiology and trial design’, some kind of basic education on how to work out which information on the internet comes from a worthwhile source and which doesn’t. Most of the people who read this blog can tell the minute they view a blog/messageboard/website whether it’s quackery but the rest of us are flailing around in this vast library with no librarian.
Michael Grayer said,
February 13, 2009 at 11:28 am
I couldn’t agree more about introducing a critical understanding of “epidemiology and trial design” into the school curriculum. I use the inverted commas because I don’t think this need be restricted to the medical field, but expanded to include misuse of statistics in a range of fields (medicine, environmental sciences, technology, economics, etc.)
With the benefit of hindsight, I’m quite shocked that I had no formal teaching as to what a confounding variable was until my MSc.
I do some demonstrating work in a quantitative methods (i.e. statistics) class in my department (which is a humanities department). I find that the students are easily turned off statistics as it’s seen as an impenetrable mathematical bore – partly because much of the course involves being slumped in front of SPSS doing glorified data-entry. If students were encouraged to engage more with the analysis and critical understanding of quantitative data (which requires little or no maths skills – just good reasoning and a knowledge of what to look for), then they would be in a much better position to write informed articles when they embark on their journalism careers.
Michael Grayer said,
February 13, 2009 at 11:53 am
@jonnyroberts, who said:
“‘should evidence based medicine, basic epidemiology and trial design, be taught in schools?’ would be a great question for the select committee to consider but are you sure it is part of their remit?
I’m not certain, but from the website it looks as if they are only responsible for further/higher education as opposed to secondary education.”
If that’s the case, perhaps the question could be rephrased to focus on the teaching of critical understanding of study design and statistical interpretations in undergraduate humanities degrees?
frazerp said,
February 13, 2009 at 3:03 pm
From a University perspective, one thing that would really make a big difference would be to have a single national exam board. Then there would be a unified curriculum for each subject and (say it quietly) the grades wouldn’t keep going up year-on-year.
Well, ok, might not keep going up, but at least it would be a start.
So, I’d include “How do we return to a realistic A-level mark distribution”.
Currently we have this;
news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/08/exam_results/a_levels/html/mathematics.stm
for A-level maths. 66% of the entrants get either an A or a B.
Andy Graham said,
February 13, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I got my PhD (from a reputable red brick university in the UK) in an mathematical/engineering discipline. I made it all the way through higher education without so much as a brush with empirical evidence, statistical analysis or experiment design. I accept that my first stop, upon commencing my PhD research, should have been these very disciplines. In retrospect I was lazy because they seemed boring, but then hindsight is 20/20, In the end I learned enough (out of necessity) to avoid publishing anything too embarrassing in my thesis. More recently, I have become an ‘expert’ from reading Ben’s book, “Bad Science” (Ben’s word not mine).
I think we would do very well just to teach these disciplines to every university student. It would be near impossible to invigorate the interests of every 16 year old in the UK. On the other hand, if you got all of the graduates you have a better chance of interesting and motivating, and you might at least catch all of the future employees of the BBC (and LBC Radio)!
elfy said,
February 13, 2009 at 3:39 pm
paddyfool: members of the government don’t sign EDMs, as a matter of convention/collective responsibility/etc. So of the 350 Labour MPs, 100 or so don’t really count. So that boosts their % a bit.
sideshowjim said,
February 13, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Teach Empiricism and basic philosophy in schools! Evidence based practice/learning/whatever from aged 5 and upwards! Think of all the problems it would solve!
Dunno if someone has already said that, if so, sorry.
jonnyroberts said,
February 13, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Re: 14,22,65.
My guess would be that the government couldn’t have that kind of influence on the content of undergraduate humanities degrees.
An alternative option: suggest that an introduction to EBM (/Scientific method in general) be included as part of the General Studies A-Level?
Diversity said,
February 13, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Questions such as the media’s role in propagating the dangerous MMR fallacy might be tackled from the point of view of the public service broadcasters having a duty to present scientific conclusions on any matter of public interest, and the evidence behind such conclusions. This is stuff that could and should be presented in ways which attract audiences.
used to be jdc said,
February 13, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Well, “the responsibility for accuracy in the media” is certainly topical as well as important.
Re: “should evidence based medicine, basic epidemiology and trial design, be taught in schools?” I would say yes in answer to that and I think this is the idea that would get my vote.
I’m only starting to learn about this stuff now – and it seems almost ridiculous to me that we aren’t given the tools to enable us to understand the issues that we find most interesting in science today. Haven’t got the book with me at the mo, but didn’t you write that in the 60s most of the media’s science stories were engineering/technology-type stories, whereas since the 90s it’s pretty much all been about miracle cures or what will kill us?
If we were all taught about EBM, epidemiology, and trial design in schools then I would think that this might lessen or negate at least some of the negative effects of the media’s systematic misrepresentation of science – and it might also (perhaps) lead to fewer people being interested in signing up to BS BSc courses.
bf said,
February 13, 2009 at 5:50 pm
How about they look into tightening up Ofcom and the PCC’s rules on the misreporting of science matters? (Particularly on matters in the public interest.)
calj said,
February 13, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I’m not sure if this is a serious discussion or not. The vast majority of people will never EVER understand clinical trials. It’s not appropriate for university-level material to be taught to most school pupils and only a tiny %age of people will ever need practical knowledge.
It isn’t the responsibility of the individual to understand how or why a drug has been passed as safe and effective. All he needs to know is that it IS safe and effective. With conventional medicine he can be fairly sure that this is the case. However, because quackery is both unregulated and promoted widely, the patient who makes the assumption that “homeopathy wouldn’t be legal if it didn’t work” is at a real disadvantage.
There will always be people who will fall for quackery and MMR scaremongering. Education can only go so far, and where it stops we need legislation.
Ben Goldacre said,
February 13, 2009 at 8:43 pm
calj, if i can speak fondly for a moment – because it’s clear that we have a great many views in common – that’s total cock.
evidence based medicine, the story of how we know what we know, is interesting and beautiful, and easy to understand, and a crucial life skill. there’s nothing complicated about the stuff on this site, there’s nothing complicated about the stuff in the book, and what’s more, i slightly suspect – although i wouldn’t necessarily recommend trying it, and i’m not using it to big-up the book, but as an illustration of how easy these things are – that the book would get you a pass on most undergraduate medical epidemiology courses.
you cannot regulate or legislate for foolish utterances by bigots, fantasists and bores, free speech is far too important for that. these are battles that must be won in culture, but more than that, there is pleasure in doing so. let the mainstream media spread nonsense, this is a time of autonomous publishing, where blogs, the NHS Choices website (which is okay, you know, especially Behind the Headlines), and more can act as parallel sources of both information and intellectual nourishment.
god that got a bit stirring, my mate john’s arrived, better go
great suggestions btw
calj said,
February 13, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Legislating against quacks would reduce their power. Ban homeopathic “remedies” until they are shown to work. Ban alt med practitioners unless they are working under the supervision of medical doctors. Ban children from school unless they are vaccinated. Yes, the Jeni Barnetts of this world will still scaremonger and promote nonsense – I’m not advocating banning free speech – but the damage they could cause would be limited.
It’s a nice idea, but the majority of the population will simply never have an understanding of the scientific method. Nor will they bother to read science books or blogs. It needn’t and shouldn’t place them at a disadvantage when it comes to their health.
The Biologista said,
February 13, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Legislation is a stop-gap. There’ll always be a new kind of snake oil around the corner. The key, as Ben suggests, is education of the public. So very few people understand how science itself works. How evidence is not “weighed”, but supporting or utterly falsifying of some proposition. The way that science is taught often skips these most fundamental concepts.
I’ll echo Andy Graham here and admit that very little of this was apparent to me during my Science B.Sc. or even in the early years of my Ph.D.
kathrynhobson said,
February 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I’m an English Literature graduate and find even within this sphere that many people are reluctant to look for evidence to back up their opinions on novels, play, poems etc with evidence from the texts. They want just to have opinions. Similarly with social or political views. And teachers in schools do try and teach about evidence – my husband teaches English at secondary level and is constantly urging students to back up their opinions with evidence. It must be the same in History, Sociology – perhaps even Religious Education? It can’t be that science teachers don’t teach evidence-based topics, surely. Or am I very naive? If the public are to be educated then it’s really going to have to be drummed in, hard.
DrPaul said,
February 15, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I’m a science teacher, a Head of Biology, and government has already tried to address public ignorance of how science works by re-working the GCSEs around the theme of How Science Works. The intention may be laudable, even necessary, but the outcome is a disaster, a stultifying course with virtually no scientific content around which the children are expected to form opinions, evaluate data, and so on. It’s like Yasmin said to Jeni, if you don’t know what goes in the MMR vaccine, you’re not qualified to comment on it. So I teach basic immunology, even though it’s not on the specification, and the students think it’s fascinating. Only when armed with that knowledge and understanding, do we take a look at Andrew Wakefield’s study and the ensuring media frenzy…
Yes, let’s improve public understanding of science, but not at the cost of interesting and worthwhile science courses.
emen said,
February 16, 2009 at 1:11 pm
It is an interesting question and I think both calj and Ben have a point.
I agree with Ben that evidence-based medicine is not that difficult to
understand as people perhaps think. I believe that most people are capable
of understanding complicated things if you know how to explain. Also, the
ethical question of freedom of speech etc. put aside for a moment, silencing
quacks would just reinforce the conspiracy theories (“You see, they ARE
being paid by BigPharma”).
On the other hand, it is a very long process and calj is right, people do
often say, “Homeopathy must work if there are homeopathic hospitals”. As far
as they are concerned, they are getting conflicting messages.
Do you know, Ben, what percentage of the population live their life thinking
that that “flu and cold remedies” are something special that really work on
their symptoms? You tell them it is the same paracetamol that they take for
their headaches plus some decongestant stuff, and they will have the shock
of the week. Maybe you spend your life among highly educated people, but
most people don’t tend to have degrees or, sadly, even basic literacy
skills, and they trust us, the educated ones to make some of their
decisions for them. Yes, we shouldn’t write them off because then they will
stay that way!, so you keep up your work.
But what are we going to do in the meantime?, just allow them not to
vaccinate their children, or not to give them their asthma medicine because
their quack has told them it has “chemicals” in it? While for us it is just
annoying, the fact that people will die of illnesses they shouldn’t is a
TRAGEDY, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Lemonade Lily said,
February 16, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Just add my vote to Ben’s ‘the inappropriateness of teaching quackery badly in university science degrees’.
As one attending such a wooniversity on such a course I can say I am universally challenged by the woeful lack of science and the promulgation of pseudoscience, non-science and even antiscience. If you want any lecture notes Ben for evidence just shout!
I am fighting from within but it is a lonely battle.
Eliza said,
February 16, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Just a comment about teaching in schools, and critical thinking etc.
In Hisory, from about year 7-8 you are taught to evaluate source material – to look at who said what, what the contradictions are, and why it happens – why is x putting across a certain viewpoint, and is it valid. Surely in schools this can just be built upon to teach this type of awareness in science.
Also, I think that those who are carrying out research should be encouraged to improve their communication skills – to explain their research in simple terms, to try and help it be interpreted in the correct way. I know there is a lot of intentional interpretation from journalists and the media, but researchers could do with using more ‘plain English’ summaries to explain their work. Perhaps communication skills could be something that is taught at universities, for those that want to disseminate their work more widely.
Sean Ellis said,
February 16, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I would ask the Government why they have set up a two-tier system for certification of medical treatments.
For conventional medicine, they have to be subjected to multi-million pound clinical trials, over several years, and must be demonstrably safe and effective before being allowed near the general public.
For Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Treatment, you can get your certification from OfQuack for £45 and the cost of an insurance policy.
(Insert obligatory link to my Number 10 petition here: petitons.number10.gov.uk/CNHCsafety.)
jonnyroberts said,
February 17, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Sent an e-mail to the office of the committee inquiring about which qualifications come under their remit. Here’s the reply:
“The remit of the Committee mirrors that of the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills. Hence degrees (not A levels and GCSEs); and also scrutiny of the Government Office for Science.”
paddyfool said,
February 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm
One important immigration issue which afflicts further education institutions is the barriers faced by students coming into this country. Long visa application procedures, costing hundreds of dollars exist for any non-EU national and probably put a lot of people off, and I’ve heard a fair few horror stories about a disruption to studies persisting even following the start of a course. All of which is a pity for the country as a whole and its universities in particular, because:
1) Foreign students bring in a lot of money.
2) Studying in the UK might lead to positive feelings about it among future movers and shakers in other countries.
3) At the undergraduate level, bringing in people who are enthusiastic enough to travel around the world for their studies tends to provide a boost to the overall mood of sessions etc., in my experience.
4) At the graduate level there’s even more to offer, since getting in the best and brightest of the world helps with research output and fosters future collaboration with research institutions.
5) What real terrorist threat is posed by a typical student, especially a graduate student, anyway? There are much easier ways to get into the country which don’t require going through a university application on top of a visa application.
I don’t know if this comes under the committee’s remit, but if they could be persuaded to quietly lobby for, fast-tracking student visa applications in general and graduate visa applications in particular, this could surely only be a good thing.
sciteach@comp said,
February 19, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I don’t know if this comes under the committee’s remit, but I think they could look at the use of un-necessary scientific jargon, in scientific papers.
I teach students to look critically at evidence in lessons, particularly when doing their Science In The News coursework. However, a lot of students get put off when they link back to a scientific paper as it is can be difficult enough for me to understand what’s been done, nevermind a bright A grade GCSE candidate or your everyday interested person who’d like to have a balanced informed opinion, but does not have a science background and therefore can’t access the information in the paper.
We complain about unecessary legal jargon in terms & conditions etc, but our scientific community is not exempt, from the same issue.
DHR said,
February 20, 2009 at 11:51 pm
My topic would be the undue influence of the Pharmaceutical industries over medical practice in the UK to the detriment of patient care and at considerable expense to the NHS and social services through unnecessary ill health as a result.
It is common practice for NHS senior consultants to receive large payments from Pharmaceutical companies. Not just for directly promoting some product but by recommending treatment protocols which lead to a requirement for a product that is unnecessary, damaging to the patient’s health, career and family life and would not exist if they received the actual healthcare they needed. This is not as straightforward as simply saying “Everyone must take Statins no matter how bad the side effects or the fact it will probably only add a couple of months to your lifespan”, it’s also a case of withholding simple cheap cost effective treatment for well know diseases because they make way more money treating the symptoms than they do the cause. The fact that lives are ruined and it costs the NHS huge amounts of money that then can’t be used to treat other people bothers no one.
Simple, very cost effective treatments that people have used for decades are increasingly being withheld for no good medical reason and on no concrete evidence to the great harm of many hundreds of thousands of people and the only reason anyone can figure out is that by treating the symptoms instead of the cause a lot more drugs are sold.
Pharmaceutical companies pay for conferences, often somewhere sunny with good golf courses, pay money directly to consultants for “advice”, pay for research studies that tend to be skewed to the results they want and famously gloss over “adverse effects”, they have a huge influence over medical schools and the business in general. Senior consultants make huge amounts of money. Huge. This does not come from the NHS.
Treatment protocols are decided by self appointed “experts” who do not produce any actual evidence or work from unbiased studies but have the backing of many long standing networks that are basically old boys clubs who play the game. Many of them have fingers in so many pies it’s a wonder they have enough fingers. Editorships of influential journals (so they can dictate what is published, very important) seats on dozens of committees, various lectureships.
Medical training is also dictated by these same bodies. There is no independent body, uninfluenced by these institutions who are influenced by commercial gain, who can verify or arbitrate or protect patient care.
Any doctor brave enough to dissent on behalf of his patients is risking his entire career.
Metadata analysis, which can be angled to prove any point you want, feature heavily. Actual proper unbiased research is rarely available and any research that proves a counterpoint is completely ignored. In some instances you get senior policy making doctors doing a complete 180 turn on their own recommendations (which are really diktats which less powerful doctors dare not ignore) so that 10 years ago they were recommending sensible well researched treatments and diagnostic procedures and now they are far higher up the professional tree, they are demanding the complete opposite in the teeth of all the evidence and ignoring the justifiable protests of the patients affected.
What happened in between to change their minds is not explained.
In parts of America a law was passed that every doctor and every Pharmaceutical company had to declare money from any source. They are still having a hard time enforcing it but at least they are trying.
Drug reps have come out and said publicly that it was their job to target consultants in useful positions and offer them money and professional advancement, another key incentive for many, to promote the treatment protocols the company wanted to use to sell more drugs.
It is going to be very hard at this stage to rectify such a well entrenched and corrupt system but all our lives and our families health depends on the extent of the problem being recognised and dealt with. That’s you and your family too if you ever get ill.
All senior doctors and medical researchers should be banned by law from taking any personal payment or any form of professional advancement from pharmaceutical companies, their representatives or anyone other than their hospitals and private patients.
MP’s have to declare their interests to prevent exactly this sort of thing. Doctors are at least as powerful in their way and they are completely unregulated by any independent body. You cannot count the GMC, the BMA, the RCP or any of that lot because they are up to their eyes in it. They enforce the status quo.
Payment from the pharmaceutical industry to Universities should be preferably banned or at the very least properly overseen and situations such as the Actinel rent a researcher scandal at Sheffield: A should not be allowed to happen at all, and B if they do, should be dealt with heavily and with firings of the entire senior staff instead of ignored as it was that time simply because the UK has no form of enforcement that deals with this sort of corruption.
Simply propose a law to outlaw the payment of any moneys from any source other than their day job to doctors involved in the formulation of treatment protocols on the grounds that it undermines impartiality and lays them open to a charge of a risk of undue influence.
Then wait to see who starts kicking up a fuss and what their excuses are. If they are not getting money to influence them they why would they make a fuss?
This is a very serious problem that is kind of known about but everyone ignores unless they personally fall foul of it.
Please investigate as a matter of priority. Or as I say, just pass a law banning all doctors but most especially senior consultants and professors from taking any sort of payment or advancement from drug companies on pain of being struck off. Easy. If there is no problem then why should they complain? They got into medicine to help people didn’t they?
Not make money.
billyboots said,
February 21, 2009 at 3:14 pm
In addition to what Eliza said (post #82):
I teach secondary science. In my school we actually do teach about all of the following at GCSE:
– Correlation + cause
– Forming correct/incorrect conclusions from data (e.g. ice cream sales rise in the summer + cases of hay-fever rise in the summer = ice cream causes hay fever?)
– Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (science and ethics of)
– Planning experiments (understanding how control variables and sample size are important)
– Epidemiological studies (understanding that data are more reliable from a study with: more people, mixed race, mixed sex, wide age range etc)
– “Real difference” (a horrible term – but the idea is recognising that if two sets of data have values that overlap there is not a ‘real difference’ between them
– Placebo effect (blind and double blind trials)
– Vaccinations, vaccine policy, herd immunity (covering the science of vaccines but also the moral, social and financial issues of compulsory vaccination)
All students also do a “Case Study” which makes up 20% of their GCSE. They have to research a topic and weigh up evidence and arguments on both sides before discussing their own conclusion. We encourage them to chose one of the following in Biology:
Is the MMR vaccine safe?
Is there an obesity gene?
Is the British Government right to allow stem cell research?
Is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis ethical?
Is the new cervical cancer vaccination value for money?
Should smoking related lifestyle diseases be treated on the NHS?
Creation or evolution?
Students get marks for showing understanding of the science, finding evidence for both points of view, referencing where they found the information and commenting of how trustworthy each piece of evidence is (i.e. increased confidence if found in peer-reviewed journal) and deciding on their opinion based on all the evidence that they have found.
I hope you agree that all this is beginning to move things in the right direction. Words like “reliable, trustworthy, valid, accurate and precise” are becoming more and more prevalent in the syllabus content and in the exams too.
All is not lost.
ethicspiedpiper said,
February 27, 2009 at 3:54 pm
is it possible to produce a standard for what critical thinking is – including the relationship with creative expansive thinking – and blinkered straight line and etc –
In other words – is the scientific model enough – in the ‘real’ world – with all the fiddly bits “its not that simple”? “whole is more than the sum of the parts”? – “limits of our language{s} are the limits of our world{s}”?
how many people could we get to agree:) – to a declaration of bill of rights – of the human thought – creationist revolutionary to hard line straight as a darwin die progression hard – diversity? 🙂
Thrinity333 said,
March 1, 2009 at 6:11 am
Hi my name Theresa and I am a science/education student at the University of New South Wales in Australia and I would like to say how much I agree with you. I’m currently in my 3rd year and we’re beginning to study the syllabus, how to implement it (a seemingly mandatory skill many teachers have forgotten), and introducing the concept of scientific literacy and its importance over content knowledge. I feel, and I am sure I would have followers that scientific literacy (the ability to critically analyse information, design and implement experiments, read and interpret graphs and scientific data, all summing to the ability to detect bullshit) is far more resourceful and imperative to a constructive, well informed, scientifically sound community then knowing in 1901 someone invented something that did something.
I have just started reading “Bad Science” and I am extremely amused by its content. I think it is a fascinating read and should be a prescribed text for any aspiring scientists and the whole population, who have had a lack of exposure to scientific literacy.
I think all universities need a regulatory process that insures the main points wanted in science students and teachers are enforced. For example: posing to the United Nations that all school, in every country, implement scientific literacy as a goal for their graduating pupils. This would also entail universities and colleges cooperation in instructing prospective teaching staff, on how to use the syllabus, and develop their students in this form; because as it has been seen in Australia, where scientific literacy has been the goal of NSW syllabus for the whole 9 years of its instatement, teachers are still found that don’t know how to use the syllabus and who completely ignore the crucial aspects of it and insist on making their students learn the top 20 elements off by heart.
If you have reached thus far into my post then I congratulate and thankyou for taking the time to read my comments. I would like to end with one last point:
When I graduate and become a teacher, if I cannot teach my students anything I at least want them walking out of my class room being scientifically literate so they can contribute to society, actively get involved in discussions in a scientifically correct manner, and not be bamboozled by bad science.
Ben Goldacre said,
August 4, 2009 at 10:50 pm
here is what i sent in (as you can see i suggested myself among others as a witness, like the giant cock that i am).
wayscj said,
November 21, 2009 at 6:20 am
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
wayscj said,
November 21, 2009 at 6:21 am
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids s