E-Mail 'Passion and chocolate in the national health service' To A Friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

This post was published on 02/06/08 in Science.

Send this post to a friend Send this post to a friend

4 comments

You can follow the comments on this post via this RSS feed.

Tags: , , .

  1. Comment by Tim Worstall, 02/06/08, 02:03:

    “The site could become a study of its own: which of Britain’s major news sources are most likely to turn bad science into great headlines?”

    Ooooh, that’s a tricky one. It wouldn’t be the Daily Mail would it? Mel, MMR, Autism, Wakefield?

  2. Pingback by Organic Milk is Healthier?, 02/06/08, 02:13:

    […] just stumbled across (via) what looks like an excellent resource. OK, it’s funded by the NHS but it is indeed a public […]

  3. Comment by Nick, 03/06/08, 09:53:

    The Guardian’s Bad Science column ( http://www.badscience.net/ ) has been doing this for years – but good science is always welcome.

  4. Comment by Iain, 04/06/08, 10:05:

    Thanks for providing a link to this site, Elizabeth. It’s not quite the same as “Bad Science” in that Bad Science seems to focus on instances of outstanding bad reporting whereas the NHS site is more systematic and looks like it’s attempting to report, in non-technical language, what the scientific studies that led to the headlines actually found.

    I’m not certain that it’s a matter of “turning bad science into great headlines”. It’s more a matter of reporting science, whether good, bad, or indifferent, in ways that grab attention – though whether this more often involves reporting or misreporting is arguable.

Comments are closed at this time.