I Hate Bad Science

Read this article, then come back here for a good old rant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8307024.stm

Have you read it? Right, here's what I hate about it: It's total bollocks.

"Scientists" have hit upon a statistic that there's less illness in greener areas. Naturally, being bad scientists, they reverse cause and effect, and conclude that the trees are beneficial to general health. Hey presto, we have a dangerously wrong conclusion which, when endorsed by the good old BBC, will have all the ill people (and their carers) moving to the nearest rural area. This will, of course, dilute the statistic and make the scientists think again, but by then it'll be too late and there will be lots of people wondering why they feel no better than before.

Here's an alternative theory: people with habits (or occupations) that cause illness tend to live in urban areas.

This could be by choice:

-They have access to whatever drugs made them ill.
-Health care is better in urban areas - hospitals, social workers.

Or by circumstance:

-Thier parents (often abusive) live there.
-They work there.

The above article is chock-full of stats, all very impressive, and all open to misinterpretation if you do as these people do and use the numbers to prove an existing theory. I ask you, how desperate would you have to be to put this sort of spin on your results?

Here's an example:

The researchers also showed that this relation was strongest for children younger than 12.


They were 21% less likely to suffer from depression in the greener areas.

How about this: their parents, a much more likely cause of their depression, prefer urban life, because that's where they were brought up themselves. Nothing to do with the damned trees, Mr PhD.

I'm off.