In the Ted talk “Battling bad science”, Ben Goldacre talks about the significance of the science behind most of the trials scientists make. As we all know, when doing an experiment there’s a control group and an experimental group. For the experimental group let’s say the group takes a drug. That drug has to have an effect on them. Now for the control group, they’re getting the same drug but what they don’t know is that the drug is a placebo, meaning it’s just a drug filled with nothing. Now the scientists are running tests to make a conclusion about their experiment. 

Ben Goldacre talks about how as a doctor, he does not want to go against the statistics of the placebo but wants to know if a new form of drug can be better than the already existing drug. In all honesty, I never thought of it that way. I always thought about the control and experimental group. In reality we should start looking at a new experimental vs experimental group so we can see how the new drug is more beneficial than the last one. Everyday, there will be a notion that something better will appear but how do we know it will do more harm than good? I believe that’s why the title is called “Battling Bad Science” since one is going to battle the lack of evidence to support the all vs nothing (placebo vs drug) experiment. To end my conclusion, I can agree with Mr. Goldacre about battling the bad science and tackling a new way of thinking and carrying out an experiment. 

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.