Bad science loves bad journalism

So, who are the ones to be blamed on this endless scientific speculation? Are the scientists who publish incomplete/irrelevant results? Or are the avid-for-news journalists who forget to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Ben Goldacre, who writes for The Guardian since 2003, has announced:

"If you're a journalist that misrepresents science for the sake of a headline, a politician more interested in spin than evidence, or an advertiser that loves pictures of molecules in little white coats, then beware: your days are numbered.”

I agree with Ben, and his blog Bad Science is quite interesting as well, apart from some generalisations on homeopathy. The scientific community is sometimes arrogant on alternative and holistic therapies, although the various successful cases based on these treatments. Talking about homeopathy, I abandoned my skepticism towards it, when I become one of these cases myself.

Well, you can read more about bad science here, but for now, let's leave science to the scientists. Journalists are better off writing things that really deserve to be written - and read.

Photo: scienceblogs.com