Scientific Colonization

What would you say to people from the developing world who use science to make decisions... but don’t necessarily always have a lot of time, or know a lot about it?

A question posed by Ben Goldacre, a prominent 'defender of science against quackery', author of Bad Science¹ and of the Bad Science blog

Ben is one of a group of new British intellectual reactionaries, or British Science Fascists, centred around London, where they, through their media links, they have exerted a disproportionate influence on the public perception of science.

Introduction. Please describe the general context of
this investigation here or on the discussion page

Stick with me. Science is fun when you’re making people look stupid
Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, November 10, 2007

Ben Goldacre, in his own words, is an "award winning writer, broadcaster, and medical doctor who has written the weekly Bad Science column in the Guardian since 2003". He doesn't "present (him)self as a “leading expert”, and (...) rarely even mention(s) being a doctor, on the grounds that “arguing from authority” is one of the biggest problems in the way that science is misrepresented by the media." So let's keep in mind that Goldacre should answer to this question without the argument from authority... and otherwise, we'll help him rid of these fallacies — since help is what he's asking for.

This question comes in the aftermath of a spectacular clash that occurred between Matthias Rath, a 'controversial doctor', and his foundation, on one side, and Ben Goldacre and The Guardian, on the other: a 1 million pound legal battle over the declarations of Goldacre concerning Rath in the London newspaper. Now that Rath has dropped the charges, Goldacre can speak freely again:

(Rath) bought full page adverts denouncing Aids drugs while promoting his vitamin pills in South Africa, a country where hundreds of thousands die every year from Aids under an HIV denialist president and the population is ripe for miracle cures. I said his actions were highly worrying, in no uncertain terms. I believe I was right to do so. (...) I genuinely believe that the madness of the South African government’s approach to Aids is one of the most important stories of our time.

Hence this interest of science advisors from post-colonial ("developing") countries for Goldacre.

I’ve been asked to facilitate a couple of sessions with some civil servant types from various countries in the developing world who advise their governments on science, and particularly on the science informing policy and purchasing decisions. The idea is to focus on how people might try and mislead you with science, and the range of scientific background and understanding in this group will be pretty wide, as it always is with civil servants. (...)


I’ve been told that there are lots of people who go out to Africa, for example, with glossy brochures, claims of scientific evidence, and one bloke with a dodgy PhD who endorses the product, and then try to hustle and sell their systems and wares which are either ineffective, or at stupidly inflated prices. Most of these scammers fail, but it would be nice to increase the fail rate.

In this context, it is not surprising that amongst the subject areas that immediately spring to Goldacre's mind, in his blog is HIV and AIDS denialism (1st) and "dodgy miracle cures, pharma and quack" (3rd)
²

A picture is worth a thousand words, or less words but shouted very loudly:
i.e. Goldacre is hunting mad scientists
...and nutritionists in particular (?) because they're quacks.