Category Archives: Science: So What?

Science: So What? Bad nutrition on garlic and cancer

We blogged last week about bad nutrition from Science: So What? So Everything – a science communication initiative ran by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I was disappointed to find more on their website: this time, a poor discussion of the evidence re garlic and cancer. Science: So What state that

recent studies have shown that our love of garlic may also be good for our health.

A study published in the medical journal Carcinogenesis in 2008 showed that garlic-derived substances had an effect on colon cancer cells. Continue reading


1 Comment

Filed under Science: So What?

Bad nutrition from Science: So What?

I was disappointed to some new, rather bad nutrition content on the UK Government’s Science: So What? So Everything website: there is some unfortunate discussion of turmeric, ginger and cancer. Continue reading


Filed under curcumin, Science: So What?, turmeric

BIS and Science: So What’s definition of “rigorous and credible” research

I had high hopes for the government’s Science: So What? So Everything campaign – a good science communication initiative would be very welcome. However, its recent Shape of Jobs to Come PR splash has heavily promoted strikingly poor research – even quoting Gordon Brown and Lord Drayson in support of this research! Most worryingly, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – who run Science: So What? – continue to insist that this research is ‘rigorous and credible’, even after major flaws in the research have been made clear to them. This raises serious questions about whether BIS understand what constitutes good research and/or whether they care about this. Promoting bad research in the name of science communication is likely to be counterproductive. Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Science: So What?

Science So What? So disappointing

We have previously blogged about some of the problems with the government’s Science So What? So Everything campaign, and were pleased to see plans to revise the campaign in response to some of the criticisms. The site has now relaunched and – while it looks rather slicker and functions better in many ways – a number of aspects of the site remain disappointing. Lord Drayson has asked for feedback on the site, and 2020 Science have raised some interesting questions. This therefore seems a good time to look at the new site.

I have a number of concerns about the site: including accessibility, some poor quality content, and poor use of social media.  I will discuss some specific issues here, to illustrate some of the broader problems with the site Continue reading


Filed under science degrees, Science: So What?