Last week there was a ridiculous story in the media about a paper by a Dr Aric Sigman claiming that using Facebook and other social media can lead to all sorts of bad results, including cancer.
Sigman’s argument was:
- Loneliness has a negative impact on people’s health, a claim with is not particularly outrageous.
- The use of social media leads to less face-to-face contact and therefore more loneliness.
- Therefore, the use of Facebook and similar result in long terms health problems.
The big and obvious problem with Sigman’s analysis is that there is not sufficient evidence that using social media reduces conventional social contact.
I wanted to blog about it but last week, but I was really busy, so I did not have a chance to surf for the references.
Luckily, Ben Goldacre has made a much better job of it than I would and has had a swipe at Professor Susan Greenfield at the same time. Goldacre has done the hard yards and shown that Sigman’s analysis is highly selective (cherry picking is the comment Goldacre).
Is the problem that dodgy academics publish rubbish, pseudoscience claims, or that the media are so willing to pick them up?
As a by-product of the story I have realised how many people are questioning the motives and behaviour of Professor Susan Greenfield. When she spoke about neuromarketing I was worried about the science, but assumed that she was in a better position than me to take a view on the likely consequences.
However, it is Goldacre’s claim that Greenfield has form in the area of making sensationalised claims that are not adequately backed up by the science, which is poor form for the head of the Royal Institution (whose website describes themselves as “The Royal Institution is an independent charity dedicated to connecting people with the world of science.”).
Comments