Given to me by my daughter, for releasing....

Decided to read this before releasing, especially as I was going into hospital.... Proved to be interesting in bits, bit having worked the last 14 years in Clinical research, I didn't like his attitude towards pharmaceutical companies, and doubted that some of his statements about drug companies distorting data etc were correct. However, I did agree with most of what he wrote about homeopathy and 'natural' medicine. But then I lost trust in him towards the end of the book, so can't recommend anyone to do what he says. Also he had so much in the way of 'facts' and complicated ideas for non-academical people to use to check out on research, that I doubt if anyone would actually do what he said...

Thank you for picking up this book & I hope you enjoy it. You have not only found yourself a book, but a whole community of book-lovers dedicated to sharing books with each other and the world at large.

I hope you will make a journal entry letting me know that this book has found a good home with you. You can do this anonymously if you wish. When you finish the book, please visit here again and share what you thought about the book.

Feel free to read and keep the book, or pass it on to a friend, or even set it free 'in the wild' for someone else to find like you did.

If you register you will be alerted by email each time someone makes another journal entry. It's completely confidential (you're known only by your screen name and no-one is ever given your email address), totally free, and spam-free.

If you do decide to join BookCrossing, please tell them that peaceangel sent you.

I hope you enjoy the BookCrossing experience!

I've read a few books lately which, while they're about different subjects (e.g. The Bronte Myth by Lucasta Miller; Contested Will: Who Really Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro), have one thing in common: they explore a controversy within a particular field not just by explaining the range of opinion/theory, but by investigating why interested parties believe what they do and what the cultural impact of those beliefs has been.

That's what Ben Goldacre does here, but the other thing I appreciated about his book was that it reminded me that scientific thinking doesn't have to be the sole preserve of scientists. It's easy to think of science as so complex and remote that as laypeople we can't possibly understand it and must look to the media to decode it for us, but Goldacre exposes how limiting and dangerous this thinking is, as the public get bamboozled by commercial interests (think of the vulnerability of a patient who has a bad experience with mainstream medicine to a beguiling alternative therapy sales pitch), misled by "churnalism" recycling biased press releases on science issues (amongst others - there's even a handy website to check whether a given news story originated this way), and intimidated by manipulation of statistics. While Goldacre's explanations of statistical science can be challenging, and I'd like to re-read to enhance my understanding, the book introduced me to ways I can approach media claims I'm dubious about - or those I'm complacent about, which it's just as important to question.

I like that his approach is 'let's illuminate why we're so psychologically vulnerable to pseudoscience and illogic' rather than the 'you're idiots for believing nonsense' attitude that poisons so many conversations about any issue that turns on scientific proof vs. misplaced faith in unproven claims. It clarified my thinking about a number of issues, condensed my vague unease about others into rational counter-arguments, and generally encouraged me to look at science coverage in the news more skeptically - which sounds like a small thing until you consider, say, how big an influence newspaper coverage of medical stories has on our thinking.

As a freelance journalist (though in the arts field), it was an illuminating and cautionary experience to read about the parlous state of newspaper science coverage in the hands of non-experts, and I was surprised to find myself agreeing with Goldacre re: the problematic suspicion between liberal arts and science graduates. The arts vs. science bias in our culture is a big, big part of the reason many people are turned off thinking about science in the first place, and he's wise in reminding us that it doesn't have to be either/or.

To be released at the Belfast Bookcrossers' meetup in the John Hewitt Bar. We're usually in the snug to your right as you go in, so come and join us. :)