Must Be Frustrating Being a Scientist...
...said Mr Brooker.
"Science is like a good friend: sometimes it tells you things you don't want to hear. It tells you the truth. And we all know how much that can hurt, don't we fatso?"
Y'know, he's not wrong. Sometimes it is frustrating. Today, the senior drugs advisor to the government has been sacked for saying that LSD and ecstacy are less dangerous than alcohol.
"Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. Tobacco is ranked ninth, cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively"
I haven't read the paper in which he states this and I don't proclaim to be an expert on the effects of drugs. But he IS an expert on the effects of drugs. He knows his shit. The government were suitably impressed with his work when they gave him the job. And he is was doing his job. But the result of his efforts? "We don't like what you say so we're going to sack you and stick our fingers in our ears and sing LA LA LA until you go away".
Take the media explosion when that poor girl died a few hours after having the HPV vaccine. For days after, we were bombarded with front page headlines about "Schoolgirl dies after cancer jab" etc. etc. When, a couple of days later, it was found that she died from a previously undiagnosed tumour in her chest, this news was reported, albeit about 10 or so pages into the paper, in a small side column with none of the fanfare of the original "OMG WE'RE INJECTING OUR DAUGHTERS WITH DEATH" doomsayers. There is a beautiful visual representation of the actual instances of side effects/deaths and comparative risks here at Information is Beautiful.
This misrepresentation of science really bugs me. I can't articulate it very well (if I could it would be a little more expressive than "really bugs me"), and unfortunately, until people stop taking everything they read in the paper at face value and realise that headlines like "Jab As Deadly As Cancer" - an actual headline from the Sunday Express - are designed to sell papers, there will always be this chasm between the scientific community and the general public. Interestingly, the Professor interviewed by the Sunday Express for the article has since complained to the PCC for misrepresentation and misquoting her, and the article has been pulled from their website. Ben Goldacre did a rather good article here at Badscience.net, publishing Professor Harper's actual expert opinion on the HPV vaccine. No scientist is saying it is without risks, nothing in this world is. All us scientists are asking is for unbiased reporting in the media, and the people who ask us for our opinions to acutally listen when we give them, even if they're not what they wanted to hear.
I know that's a slight departure from my SQUEE filled spaff posts and dreary posts about what I did on the weekend, but I often read or see something that gets me thinking and I always think, "ooh I'll post about that", and then something comes along and I don't. This time nothing came along.
"Science is like a good friend: sometimes it tells you things you don't want to hear. It tells you the truth. And we all know how much that can hurt, don't we fatso?"
Y'know, he's not wrong. Sometimes it is frustrating. Today, the senior drugs advisor to the government has been sacked for saying that LSD and ecstacy are less dangerous than alcohol.
"Alcohol ranks as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone. Tobacco is ranked ninth, cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively"
I haven't read the paper in which he states this and I don't proclaim to be an expert on the effects of drugs. But he IS an expert on the effects of drugs. He knows his shit. The government were suitably impressed with his work when they gave him the job. And he is was doing his job. But the result of his efforts? "We don't like what you say so we're going to sack you and stick our fingers in our ears and sing LA LA LA until you go away".
Take the media explosion when that poor girl died a few hours after having the HPV vaccine. For days after, we were bombarded with front page headlines about "Schoolgirl dies after cancer jab" etc. etc. When, a couple of days later, it was found that she died from a previously undiagnosed tumour in her chest, this news was reported, albeit about 10 or so pages into the paper, in a small side column with none of the fanfare of the original "OMG WE'RE INJECTING OUR DAUGHTERS WITH DEATH" doomsayers. There is a beautiful visual representation of the actual instances of side effects/deaths and comparative risks here at Information is Beautiful.
This misrepresentation of science really bugs me. I can't articulate it very well (if I could it would be a little more expressive than "really bugs me"), and unfortunately, until people stop taking everything they read in the paper at face value and realise that headlines like "Jab As Deadly As Cancer" - an actual headline from the Sunday Express - are designed to sell papers, there will always be this chasm between the scientific community and the general public. Interestingly, the Professor interviewed by the Sunday Express for the article has since complained to the PCC for misrepresentation and misquoting her, and the article has been pulled from their website. Ben Goldacre did a rather good article here at Badscience.net, publishing Professor Harper's actual expert opinion on the HPV vaccine. No scientist is saying it is without risks, nothing in this world is. All us scientists are asking is for unbiased reporting in the media, and the people who ask us for our opinions to acutally listen when we give them, even if they're not what they wanted to hear.
I know that's a slight departure from my SQUEE filled spaff posts and dreary posts about what I did on the weekend, but I often read or see something that gets me thinking and I always think, "ooh I'll post about that", and then something comes along and I don't. This time nothing came along.