We know more about the early visual cortex than about any other brain area. This is because neurons in the early visual cortex are delightfully predictable. For example, a neuron may respond optimally to a bar of light of a particular width and orientation: If an observer sees such a bar of light, the neuron will start to fire. In order to fully characterize this neuron, all you need to do is systematically try out a lot of different widths and orientations and see which combination works best. This may be a lot of work and requires a highly invasive procedure (i.e., opening up the observer's skull and sticking electrodes into the brain), but it's definitely within the realm of possibility. (If you're interested, you may enjoy the paper by Wurtz (2009), in which he describes the seminal contribution of Hubel and Wiesel to the understanding of the early visual cortex.)

But, of course, researchers want to go beyond the early visual cortex. After all, neurons that “like” titled bars of light don't tell us much about what we really want to know, such as how we are able to recognize things. Unfortunately, it has proven very difficult to characterize more complex neurons. This does not mean that it's difficult to elicit a response from these neurons, not at all. But it's difficult to figure out exactly what it is about a certain stimulus that makes a neuron respond. For example, in a famous study, Quiroga and colleagues (2005 …

Last week I wrote a glowing review of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science". The book is full of amusing anecdotes and trivia, such as the section on the well known publication bias: Studies finding positive results are more likely to be published than studies finding no results. For example, a study showing that a particular treatment for (say) depression is effective may be published, whereas ten studies that fail to show an effect are not published (or published in low-impact journals), because they are considered uninteresting. This would falsely give the impression that the treatment is effective, even to those who go through the trouble of doing a literature search, whereas the evidence clearly suggests otherwise.

The amusing part is that, according to Goldacre, "a paper even found evidence of publication bias in studies of publication bias"! In other words, review papers that fail to show a publication bias are not published; The publication bias bites itself in the tail. You gotta love it, right? But when I looked up the study to which Goldacre refers, the authors actually conclude that they "found no evidence of publication bias in reports on publication bias"!

So the first time I look up a reference from Bad Science, I find a blatant misinterpretation. In all fairness, the authors did find a hint of a publication bias in studies of publication bias (and the statistical power was low, etc.), but it does seem that Goldacre was a little sloppy here... Normally I wouldn't pick on …

4^th estate, 2008

Conclusion Ben Goldacre is on a mission to teach us about how scientific evidence is systematically ignored, manipulated, misinterpreted, fabricated, and otherwise molested. “Bad Science” is both funny and alarming. It's a recommended read for … anybody, really.

Ben Goldacre is a man on a mission. He wants to teach the general public about science. About what it is: Careful interpretation of results from properly conducted experiments. But most of all, Goldacre wants to teach us what science is not about: Unquestioningly accepting unsubstantiated claims from authoritative figures.

The book starts out lightly, describing fairly innocuous cases of bad science. For example, Aqua Detox is a treatment for getting rid of all the toxins that accumulate in your body throughout your life (or something along those lines). Essentially, the treatment consists of putting your feet into a bath of salt water, through which a small electrical current flows. The effectiveness of the treatment is obvious: The water turns brown and a foul smell is released—clear evidence of toxins leaving your body, right? In actuality, the brown color is due to rusting electrodes and the smell is the result of chlorine being released from the water. Both are the result of electrolysis and occur regardless of whether you have put your feet in the bath or not (if you are interested you can work out the details for yourself with a little high-school level chemistry). I think this is pretty funny, because a) you're an ass …

This is an extract from Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, published by Harper Perennial 2009. You are free to copy it, paste it, bake it, reprint it, read it aloud, as long as you don’t change it – including this bit – so that people know that they can find more ideas for free at www.badscience.net

The Doctor Will Sue You Now

This chapter did not appear in the original edition of this book, because for fifteen months leading up to September 2008 the vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath was suing me personally, and the Guardian, for libel. This strategy brought only mixed success. For all that nutritionists may fantasise in public that any critic is somehow a pawn of big pharma, in private they would do well to remember that, like many my age who work in the public sector, I don’t own a flat. The Guardian generously paid for the lawyers, and in September 2008 Rath dropped his case, which had cost in excess of £500,000 to defend. Rath has paid £220,000 already, and the rest will hopefully follow.  Nobody will ever repay me for the endless meetings, the time off work, or the days spent poring over tables filled with endlessly cross-referenced court documents.

On this last point there is, however, one small consolation, and I will spell it out as a cautionary tale: I now know more about Matthias Rath than almost any other person alive. My notes, references and witness statements, boxed …

A while back I came across the Debian Neuroscience Repository (NeuroDebian). The aim of this project is to provide a comprehensive repository of open-source neuroscientific software. Kind of like an app store for neuroscientists. The list of software includes everything from visualization of EEG data to speech analysis and synthesis. And I'm proud to say that OpenSesame is listed as well.

As the name suggests, the repository is exclusively for the Debian family of Linux systems, which includes the well known Ubuntu Linux. But fortunately they also provide a Virtual Machine. This means that Windows and Mac users can try NeuroDebian without having to go through the trouble of installing an unfamiliar operating system.

Just take a look at their list of software. Chances are that you will find something interesting!

P.S. As a totally random aside, while typing this post I noticed that the Firefox spell checker suggests that I change "neuroscience" to "pseudoscience" and "neuroscientific" to "nonscientific"!