Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 | Science : Teaching Science | print version Print | Comments

Document Quackbuster causes too much flak for university

by Ben Goldacre, Guardian

UPDATE:It now appears that UCL have changed their mind.
http://www.badscience.net/?p=432

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/

I've always said you'd get a lot more kids interested in science if you told them it involves fighting - which of course it does. This week, for example, Professor David Colquhoun FRS - one of the most eminent scientists in the UK - has been forced to remove his quackbusting blog from the UCL servers where it has lived for many years, after complaints from disgruntled alternative therapists.

They objected, for example, to his use of the word "gobbledygook" to describe Red Clover as a "blood cleanser" or a "cleanser of the lymphatic system". Somebody from the "European Herbal and Traditional Medicine Practitioners Association" complained that he'd slightly misrepresented one aspect of herbalists' practice. One even complained about Colquhoun infringing copyright, simply for quoting the part of their website that he was examining. They felt, above all, that this was an inappropriate use of UCL facilities.

Now I don't want to get into the to and fro here, but it is striking that none of them engaged the prof himself on the issue of the ideas. They ran to the provost, or rather, to teacher; and the provost asked Colquhoun to take his blog elsewhere, on the grounds that it was bringing the university too much flak.

This episode reveals some unfortunate contrasts. Firstly, in a world where most orthodox "public engagement with science" activity consists of smug, faux-radical "science meets art" projects, Colquhoun - a world expert on single ion channels - was showing the world what science really does. He took dodgy scientific claims, or "hypotheses" as we call them in the trade, and examined the experimental evidence for them, in everyday language, with humour and verve. I would say his blog is a treat for the wider public, and arguably a rather good use of the time and resources of a public servant who has devoted his entire life to academia, on its relatively low wages, never once working for industry.

Secondly, giving special attention to a blog shows that we may not have got to grips with new forms of social media yet. I've heard Prof Colquhoun speak about quackery in UCL lecture theatres. Was the electricity, the publicity material, the room rent, a misuse of public funds and resources? I've done talks myself, in universities and schools: are they all guilty of wasting public money on robust, challenging, childish and sarcastic discussion of ideas?

But lastly, if you're worrying about the appropriate use of a science departments resource, Prof Colquhoun is the bloke who made the fuss in Nature about British universities giving away science degrees in quackery. The people who run the BSc "science" degrees have refused to answer questions from David, and from me, about what "science" they teach.

Nobody is making the jokers behind these quackery BScs take their gobbledygook - a word that sounds best being snorted through Colquhoun's impressive nasal hair - off university webservers. Courses in gobbledygook make money.

· Please send your bad science to ben@goldacre.net

http://Badscience.net

Comments 1 - 16 of 16 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #49796 by Friend Giskard on June 13, 2007 at 1:31 pm

 avatarUgh! Nasal hair!

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

2. Comment #49806 by GodlessHeathen on June 13, 2007 at 2:55 pm

 avatarSeems he's reinstated, at least in part.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

3. Comment #49810 by D'Arcy on June 13, 2007 at 3:23 pm

 avatarHow come politicians manage to get so far in life without talking goblydeegook, or is it only the successful ones we hear about.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

4. Comment #49811 by D'Arcy on June 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm

 avatarApologies for the spelling of gobbledygook in above message. A person may talk 10 different languges but he may also talk nonsense in all of them!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

5. Comment #49812 by Bonzai on June 13, 2007 at 3:37 pm

To be fair, not only the 'alternative" medicine crowd resort to bully tactics. In my school a well known researcher was fired because she wrote some papers saying that certain drugs manufactured by a big pharmaceutical company had nasty side effects. She was reinstated only after she took the university to court.

According to my pharmacist friends there is much abuse of science in the drug industry for the sake of the bottom line, for example cherry picking test results to submit to regulatory agencies and journals. While much of "alternative medicine" is plain quackery, one shouldn't be overly confident in "scientific" medicine either.

Vested interests,--especially when money is involved,--can be a worse enemy to science and honest inquiry than sporadic irrational beliefs. CEOs are more powerful than priests in our secular, capitalist society.

Other Comments by Bonzai

6. Comment #49903 by h2g2bob on June 14, 2007 at 3:42 am

Good news - its back! http://www.badscience.net/?p=432

Other Comments by h2g2bob

7. Comment #49927 by Steven Mading on June 14, 2007 at 6:06 am


CEOs are more powerful than priests in our secular, capitalist society.

You're drawing a difference that doesn't exist. Ever seen a MegaChurch? Ever seen a Benny Hinn broadcast? Ever seen "mediums"? Ever seen an episode of Pat Robertson's TV show? Many preists ARE CEO's.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

8. Comment #49946 by Tyler Durden on June 14, 2007 at 8:09 am

 avatar
While much of "alternative medicine" is plain quackery...
Much of!?! How about "all of".
All together now: P-l-a-c-e-b-o

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

9. Comment #49952 by Bonzai on June 14, 2007 at 8:31 am

Much of!?! How about "all of".
All together now: P-l-a-c-e-b-o


No, never say "all" because that may paint myself in a corner. It is conceivable that some herbal remedies may contain active ingredients. Chemicals are chemicals, whether you synthesize them in the lab or find them in nature.

Other Comments by Bonzai

10. Comment #49954 by Bonzai on June 14, 2007 at 8:34 am

You're drawing a difference that doesn't exist. Ever seen a MegaChurch? Ever seen a Benny Hinn broadcast? Ever seen "mediums"? Ever seen an episode of Pat Robertson's TV show? Many preists ARE CEO's.


Yeah, these are "religious entrepreneurs" and their product is religion. They are very crass in their marketing techniques and are not very respectable in the mainstream. They certainly don't even appeal to sophisticated believers. They are against science, but in such a way that they cannot actually pervert the way science is done.(They may lobby school boards to not teach evolution, but this is not about research)

I am thinking of CEOs with much bigger influence in how science is actually carried out. They sell products that are supposedly based on science, they fund researches in universities and private labs and employ many scientists with Ph.Ds.

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #50059 by ghostbuster on June 14, 2007 at 7:35 pm

One must remember there is no alternative medicine; there is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't. Yes, herbs can be drugs; most of the drugs we take have their origins in nature but at very high concentrations in order for them to be effective. The difference between a poison and a medicine is dosage. The alternative industry is big pharm as well, only without any regulations. There's no Ma and Pa industry here, folks, it is just another ruse to get money. AM doesn't have to prove anything; they can get away with saying it's a cultural folk medicine here in Canada and that's good enough; most people forget the "lore" part of folk and think they have more control over their diseases because AM is "natural" and therefore "better". Wrong. What is worse, people who have deadly diseases choose alternatives believing the conspiracy theories about big pharms and opting out of scientifically proven therapies. Big pharm's major problem is monopoly and through monopoly can secure rights of ownership over medicines (patents) and where they will place their funding (what will make them money). yes, there are many problems with medicine's side effects--that's what the watchdogs are for--but AM has no such watchdogs. Here, in my town, a healthfood store is allowed to advertise colloidal silver as an antibacterial (not so) with no mention of its side effects (turning you blue permanently, affecting your heart and other organs because it sits in the flesh and never leaves--but no watchdogs out there to stop them from advertising or selling this junk). Nothing written on the label about side effects. Another one--essiac tea cures cancer and the saleslady actually advised me to stop chemo as the tea wouldn't work--I don't have cancer but she thought I must have because I was reading the label so carefully. No mention of anything. (Actually, recent studies have shown essiac tea to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells in vitro) The avergae person goes into a bookstore and sees row upon row of alternative therapies but who is going to see row upon row of articles from science medical journals?
Herbal remedies, like organic food, take a nugget of truth and make a mountain of lies out of it for one purpose---profit. Scare the hell out of you so they'll buy your product. I think medicine should be manufactured by the government, a non-profit adventure somewhere within the same spectrum of universal healthcare, the latter having been proven of great benefit to society as a whole.
Remember one thing; the large pharms now own much of the AM remedies, especially in Europe. Big conventional farms are buying up organic farming industries--and none of them are solving either monopolies or poor agricultural practices.
When exactly were priests NOT CEOs? The Chief and the Shaman ran the show pretty much from the get go.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

12. Comment #50062 by ghostbuster on June 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm

By the way Bonzai, the AM industry also funds university/hospital research, using their scientists with PhDs. Gets to be a who believes what, doesn't it, but it has to come down to clinical data, peer reviewed journals. Otherwise, why would we believe anyone about anything--which is precisely what religion would like. Science cannot be relative--it is either true, maybe true or it is not true. Kevin Trudeau thrives on conspiracy theories. We should not.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

13. Comment #50063 by Crazymalc on June 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm

 avatarDown with truth!

Other Comments by Crazymalc

14. Comment #50072 by Bonzai on June 14, 2007 at 9:14 pm

I am not arguing for AM. All I am saying is that there are abuses of science in so called scientific medicine as well.

How does the peer review process detect dishonest data without redoing the experiments? This is often not feasible as many of these experiments take long time and a lot of money to conduct. To add to the problem members of various watchdog organizations and advisory panels often have financial ties to the drug companies or are recieving funding from them. There is an incestral relationship between the pharm industry and the experts who are supposed to give unabiased, scientific opinions. Now some medical journals require submissions to reveal all their funding sources but this is not the norm.

The problem is not the scientific method, but integrity, which is being compromised because of the bottom line.

If this is a conspiracy theory why are researchers being fired for blowing the whistle on the big pharm?

Other Comments by Bonzai

15. Comment #50162 by slpeterson on June 15, 2007 at 11:20 am

I laugh at people who think the regulatory agencies who oversee the pharmaceutical market (or the medical profession) are in any way "watchdogs." They are a cartel-enforcement agency, an oligarchy.

There is a lot of "alternative medicine" quackery, but there is a lot of quackery in our chemical treatment/surgery industry. The difference is one group is well-funded, well-marketed, and has cartel protection. It is the same con as the priesthood in times of antiquity, don't trust someone's word just because he wears a white coat.

Peer reviewing just requires a culture of censorship (which we have) and more "experts" on the payroll. Or just the good-old boy system of you support my paper and I'll support yours.

Conspiracy theory is an emotionally-loaded term used to bring the hammer down on debates when facts won't work. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is an ad hominem attack.

Other Comments by slpeterson

16. Comment #51224 by hungover on June 22, 2007 at 2:02 am

I have no doubt that sometimes data is cherry picked for publication etc. However, if the pharma companies produce a drug it still has to show an effect in double blind placebo controlled trials doesnt it? Therefore if the drug is based on solid science it shoulf pass with flying colours.

Other Comments by hungover
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: