Let's start with the positives. I thought this subject was, at the start, quite interesting. The badness or shortcomings of science is not something you ever really learn about in science, so it was interesting to see how science could be misused. The tutorials were discussions in small groups which were engaging, although not critical to understand the material. Holly and Cordelia were good lecturers, and it was clear they put a bit of effort into the slides. The assessment is just two 1600 word essays which both had a lot of prompts to choose which is always nice. The two presentations or audio recordings were likewise straightforward. A small plus is that the subject ran only for three weeks instead of dragging it out to four like other winter subjects. This is fortunate, and it takes me to the negatives. There's one main one, and a minor one. In my opinion, the content for this subject does get a little bit repetitive probably by halfway through the second week. The material almost entirely focuses on medical or pharmaceutical 'bad' science, which interesting, but after awhile it just seemed to be more of the same idea, and it did get a bit boring by the end of the subject. I feel it could have benefited from looking at other areas of bad science, such as in physics or geology or chemistry, or whatever, not just medical/pharmaceutical science over and over again. I feel the subject could have benefited from a bit of a stronger theoretical framework. The case studies are interesting, but it seems to boil down to "bad science occurs for financial gain" - mostly. Now this is the first time this subject has ever been run, so I will be generous and give it four stars. Without the bonus, I'd give it 3.5. I can't select winter term so Semester 1 will have to do.

Anonymous, Semester 1, 2025