I'm just about to start
Cosmos by Carl Sagan :) If the book is as good as the
DVD, I will enjoy it immensely. Mrs Jogga bought me the DVD as a gift and I've watched it no less than three times in the six months or so that I've had it.
As for Ben Goldacre's book,
bad science (yes, the title is in lower case!), I confess myself disappointed. This book comes highly recommended by pundits (for instance,
PZ Myers) and pulic review alike and there is little doubt that Goldacre's main themes are broadly correct. However, even as a popular science offering, I find Goldacre's style a little
sloppy! For example, throughout the book, Goldacre makes the (valid) point that the pseudo-science charlatans and
snake-oil salesmen of various hues make unsubstantiated and untested claims that are designed to intentionally mislead the public and cheat them from their hard earned cash. Goldacre dislikes large pharmaceutical companies almost as much, claiming:
"[A]s I mentioned in passing, drug companies explain that they cannot give AIDS drugs off licence to developing-world countries, because they need the money from sales for research and development. And yet, of the biggest US companies' $200 billion sales, they spend only 14 per cent on R&D, compared to 31 per cent on marketing and administration." p.184
Now forgive me, but I don't really know a great deal about American pharmaceutical companies and I suspect (but couldn't prove) that they, like other large corporations, indulge in
sharp business practice from time-to-time: however, Goldacre's comments seem to suggest that large pharmaceutical companies
should give away their products because their claims of needing income to support innovation is somehow untenable. However, Goldacre's comments do not seem to bear much scrutiny if one stops and thinks critically for a moment:
- $200 billion is around 69% of the US market and 31% of the world market (source: Wikipedia). If one extrapolates the R&D estimates to the world market, the pharmaceutical industry invests a staggering $90.7 billion/year in innovation.
- What is marketing? If marketing includes patient and doctor surveys to identify the drugs and treatments necessary in the future, should the figure be reduced? Marketing can mean different things to different people and rarely (if ever) means simple advertising. It is impossible for a casual reader to determine whether the marketing spend is unnecessarily high and Goldacre makes no attempt to elucidate.
- Similarly, what is included in the administration figures? Experience suggests that employment costs will be the single largest controllable cost and one suspects that these companies will employ the brightest and best in their fields. If administration costs means running costs (and that's not at all clear from Goldacre's comments), then one must look more favourably on the ratio of cost/investment. Moreover, lumping administration and marketing into a single proportion of turnover is unhelpful to say the least.
I am no apologist for the pharmaceutical industry, indeed I share many of Goldacre's concerns. However, it is unhelpful to make vacuous assertions about an industry when one is accusing others of doing the same. There are a couple of similar examples of nebulous thinking in the book and, despite protestation to the contrary, Goldacre seems to think that we should just accept what he writes as authority. That said, the basic premise of this book is sound and the style accessible and he makes a valiant attempt to support his scientific opinions by linking to the relevant papers.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
I'm a big fan of Cornwell, her style makes for a page turner but requires little in the way of intellectual commitment and her Scarpetta characters have developed nicely over the years. I've also got her latest novel, Scarpetta waiting to be consumed.
