Entertainment For Lively Minds
Naughty Dr Goldacre
Posted by Mark Gould on 5 November 2009 - 9:44pm.
I love Ben Goldacre, am a regular reader of his website and Guardian column, and even seek mental sustenance at his delicious.com fountain. But Jude was very restrained in her treatment of him (although I suppose it doesn't do for interviewers to give their subjects a slap). He really doesn't do himself or his just cause any favours does he?
- More from Mark Gould.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Who'd have thought it?
What a total arse!
He's still right on the big stuff, of course, but I must admit to a definite sense of disappointment.
Any chance of a link?
My other half has had dealings with the man and doesn't have that many good things to say about him personally, although she thinks he's a good thing professionally speaking.
I did raise an eybrow.
Change the byline from Jude Rogers to Tom Hibbert and ask yourself Who The Hell, etc..
Just another little thought. Is it possible that Ms Rogers is an enthusiastic fan of homeopathy and other forms of CAM and, perhaps, had a little personal axe to grind? I'm sure this isn't the case.
God no, I'm no big advocate of homeopathy
Just someone who's not very keen on people being unpleasant in interviews! I was very surprised indeed by our half hour together, but, yes, still think Dr G's work is important. It would go even further if he was a little nicer.
That's that excuse out of the way..
He does come across as a bit irascible but I didn't think he'd be that rude. I suppose it's sort of nice in a way that he's someone who's not honed by PR's but you shouldn't need meeja training to be polite. Particularly if you're supposedly a well brought up middle-class doctor..
Oddly enough
back when I were a writer, interviewees I previously liked or rated tended to be touchy, defensive and generally crabbier than a Cleethorpes supper. Conversely, those I had little admiration or respect for beforehand were in actualite gleaming beacons of niceitude. Bonnie Langford was luvly, whilst a one-time highly-regarded American comic was boringly brusque and, whisper it, not particularly funny
You're thinking of ...
Andrew Collins. He's the one who thinks we should lay off Gillian McKeith.
Lay off Gillian McKeith
Sounds like a sensible plan for Channel 4's cost reduction requirements.
Sexism alert
but I'm not entirely sure I even want to lay on Gillian McKeith.
Minger
the merciless, and stater-of-the-bleedin-obvious home-spun homilist. All wrapped up in a toxic yet consumately self-regarding package. IIf she was on fire, I'd be buying a few gallons of unleaded
Yes
I think Jude is in agreement with him on his work. It's to her credit that despite her, by all accounts, serious misgivings about him as a person, she still praised his overall stance.
As you'll see, the You Are What You Eat hitmaker is mentioned...
Or in Goldacrean vernacular
"That Awful Poo Lady"
I'm afraid, and I do hope I'm not being libellous here, that Goldacre doesn't have the very best of reputations at all among scientists and science journalists, although almost all would strongly support his work and public stance.
Erm...
How does that go? If the Goldacre is generally supported for his work and public stance among scientists, in what respect is he poorly regarded?
I've no idea one way or the other, just curious.
That's just what I was thinking
Is it that people don't like him personally, or is there something about his approach to science they dIsagree with?
I just don't think
that Jude's experience was unique.
Blimey
I can see why now. He's all for making judgements based on the evidence, and from the evidence of that interview he's a self-righteous, rude prima donna.
Good on him for pointing out all the bad science about, but what a prat.
Methinks...
that the 'charismatic, cool young doctor standing alone against institutional ignorance and vested interests' thing has gone to his head.
As it would do, I suppose...
So he is a prat
So oddly enough is Gillian McKeith. The thing is he is trying to expose the nice, plausible (and not so nice) charlatans who want us to waste money on vitamins we don't need, and replace drug treatments for AIDS with beetroot. Shame he doesn't seem to be a nice guy, but that is not actually the point.
I totally agree.
I'm absolutely with him on just about everything of his I've ever read.
I'm just saying that it's disappointing that he appears to be a complete (insert description of choice).
Libellous?
Depends if it's true, or could be considered as fair comment...the words are certainly capable of being construed as defamatory. Get yer McNae's Essential Law out.....
Unfollowed on Twitter
Funny to read this thread right now.
I finally unfollowed BG on Twitter this week. Again, I love his columns and his ideology, but his tweets paint him as quite aggressive and a bit of a diva.
I opted out after reading the saga about his threatening to pull out of a free talk in Kent because the organisers insisted he fill out a form - a form! - for his expenses. His argument was that he was flat out and didn't have time for such things (yet obviously had plenty of time to moan about it on Twitter.)
If he did the talk, I do hope they removed the blue M&Ms...
To be fair...
He's always been pretty explicit about this kind of thing on his website:
Which, despite the Mr Angry
Which, despite the Mr Angry tone, would all be fair enough.
However, he mentions reciprocity. Isn't he also raising his profile and reaching potential customers for his books at these talks?
For sure
I think in the end it probably comes down to simply not being good at admin. In that sense, I can sympathise.
Sympathy
I've not done my March expenses yet. They are in a pile of tickets and stuff in front of my monitor. I know I should...
Which is kind of fine but
assumes that the person on the other side can grab hold of a bit of money from petty cash that will cover his expenses which is often really difficult for organisations to do. And it assumes that the person organising has more time to give up than Dr G which may not be true. Why doesn't he just charge a flat £100 and let that include his expenses? Then he's cool, the organisation hosting can sort the money out before he gets there, he can sign a reciept and the world is a better place? He would, of course then need to declare it to the tax man and provide receipts but we should ignore that complexity......
Richard Feynmann
(Nobel Lauriate in Physics, genius and drummer) once agreed to give a free talk in Brazil on the condition that he didn't have to sign his name more than 12 times in order to do it. They failed.
Never met Ben G (missed his talk at Lattitude) but are we talking here about style vs substance? Quite a lot of people can be prats but do good work.
Sounds like he does declare things to the taxman or he would not have been going through his receipts. But if he charges even a nominal fee he will be accused of cashing in, and even worse the people he is criticising will say he is only doing it for the money.
I agree it should have been "Bad Medicine" not Bad Science, but until that book really comes along it will do.
And don't forget they asked him to talk to them - not the other way round. So the duty of care is on the organisers not the presenter. I've arranged to pay people in cash for events (but asked them to sign a receipt I had printed so there was a record).
One of my chums
was at Uni with him and hadn't realised who he was until he appeared on the telly. "Oh!" she said "It's little stoner Ben!".
Bad Science
That book should be called Bad Medicine since it focuses mainly in that area. The main issue I have with that book is the way it is targeted, at well-meaning liberals who already know most of that stuff and agree with it. It's a bit like going to a Steve Earle gig since he 'went protest'.
Yes and no
Those 'well meaning liberals' have tended to be schooled in the humanities, so actually the basic lessons his book provides in scientific and statistical method are pretty invaluable. Some of the most intelligent people I know have been suckered by medical scare stories before, and the fact that he provides the tools to unpick some of the monstrously bad data we are fed is a very, very important thing.
I'd go so far as to say it's possibly one of the most important things that anyone could be doing in any sphere, in fact: science is only going to get more important as we are forced to deal with the inevitabilities of fuel and food shortages as the world population continues to skyrocket, and as more issues of governments refusing to acknowledge genuine evidence (see the sacking of Prof Nutt by the Home Office) emerge, and unless we have at least a rudimentary collective understanding of the science behind these issues we are a trifle buggered. 150 years ago we were PROUD of our scientific and technological heroes and I rather hope we can be again.
I'm a bit partial here, I come from a scientific/medical family, my mum is a medical economist/statistician and sits on the board of NICE, so I have been brought up all too aware of how statistics get twisted in reporting. My brother, a geneticist, has just set up a scheme to get units on basic scientific method included in journalism courses and I think this is a very good thing too.
Ultimately, if Goldacre IS a bit of an arse, that's ok really. Some great people are, and as long as he continues doing what he's doing, then I think he's pretty great.
Good points
I am from a scientific background so that obviously colours my judgement. I often expect people to know what I know, and you're right to call it out.
Agreed
It would just be nice NOT to be disappointed by one of your heroes occasionally.
In addition to which
I find that I share common ground with him on the subject of 'nerdy girls in woollen tights'.
Totally agree Joe
I just recently finished reading the "Bad Science" book and hadn't really come across Ben Goldacre before.
I regard myself as reasonably bright, well I am a Word subscriber after all, and have in the past been more than a little sceptical about medical scare stories in the press. The points he has to make about this and the shortcomings of homeopathy made the book well worth the price of admission even if it was just confirming my predjudices.
agreed
but that is the way with a lot of these things. I am sure Billy Bragg is up for a debate, but you don't tend to get dissenting views at his gigs.
Substition
A great word from Terry Pratchett, meaning the things that actually work that nobody thinks do, as opposed to superstition - which is a lot of things that don't work but people thing do.
BG
Having just read the BG piece in iWord, I'll concur that he seems arsey but he is doing some good work. You do meet people like him occasionally: opinionated, convinced of their convictions, hightened sense of power and self-belief secondary to these convictions. But they're interesting. And at least they have an opinion. I wouldn't like to take a sun holiday with someone like Ben G, but I'll listen and make a decision on what they say.
I emailed him through his website during the summer to see would he give a talk on Evidence Based Medicine to some doctors, I offered to give him tube fare in cash from my pocket. He emailed me back within 10 minutes saying he couldn't do it. Fair enough. The email looked like it had been typed by a one-armed man using a BlackBerry on the back of a bucking bronco, but he responded.
I ended up giving the lecture myself and the importance of being able to decypher scientific information from research, assimilate it and apply it is huge. And I know from teaching, that it is a skill that many doctors DON'T have.
I also agree with his complaint that there's no middle ground for the general public for science on tv or in the papers. I credit Tomorrow's World for being partially responsible for the path I'm on now, there's nothing similar on now.
Shouting out to Mark Gould - hello! Glad you liked the piece.
And no, I didn't slap him. I favour withering restraint over simply calling a person an arse when I write, generally. Also, I wanted Dr G, who does very good work, to just *mum voice* think about his behaviour a bit. Given the man that he is, and the rigour that he holds so dear, I also thought a subtle piece rather than a character assassination would put me further into the white, and make it more difficult for him to question my intentions.
Trying not to be a brown-nose
I think you nailed it Jude! I shall look forward to more of your withering restraint in the future.
Given that he admits to not reading our favourite glossy mag
do you think he's actually read the article?
Truly our idols have feet of clay
Which is no bad thing, I guess.
Actually, I find I can cope with Ben Goldacre being a bit of an arse, so long as he continues to do what he does. My perception of his personality was never part of my admiration for his work.
However, if Jude Rogers ever turns out to be a bit of an arse, then I am going to be very disillusioned indeed.
Don't worry Embraman
I'm bloody lovely.
"I'm Bloody Lovely"
are we back in the 'suggest an AC/DC song title, win a book' thread?
Wouldn't the AC/DC title be...
I'm Lovely Bloody?
Knew it!
.