Ben Goldacre: Pulling bad science apart is the best teaching gimmick I know for explaining how good science works

Ben Goldacre: Lots of stuff other than content can influence why scientific papers are cited by academics

Ben Goldacre: Much everyday government data is locked down hard, but the benefits of sharing it are potentially huge

Ben Goldacre: It's one thing to produce a bias-free experiment – but the second, crucial stage is to synthesise the evidence fairly

Ben Goldacre: The same statistical errors – namely, ignoring the "difference in differences" – are appearing throughout the most prestigious journals in neuroscience

Ben Goldacre: The business model for scholarly papers forms a barrier to the public, but can such walls remain standing?

Ben Goldacre: Trials show that people who think they've done something healthy, even if they haven't, smoke more and believe they are invulnerable to diseases

Ben Goldacre: Small variations in figures get politicians and commentators excited, but we may be wrong to read patterns into them

Ben Goldacre: Bad science: It's possible people are not bothering to report a negative result alongside positive ones they found

Ben Goldacre: Tricky concept ahoy – so cue some nerdy tables

Ben Goldacre: Bad science: Channel 4 reported that a study in the Lancet showed a new drug had reduced the symptoms of Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. Unfortunately, the study shows no such thing

Ben Goldacre: We need a badger cull trial held in the real world ... to give us answers that matter, on results we care about, with the intervention we're actually using

Ben Goldacre: Medical trials are not always conducted to test the drug – sometimes it's to seed the market

Ben Goldacre: If health-risk information in newspapers is routinely misleading, there are real-world consequences