Today the Big Daddy of bad science journalism, Ben Goldacre, received the advance new-look copies of his fantastically brilliant book, Bad Science. He didn't take well to having his picture in it, either because he is so modest he gets flustered by these things, or because he is in reality several different people engaged in an elaborate ruse the meaning of which we cannot fathom.
Anyway, all his harping inspired me demonstrate just how bad the Bad Science cover redesign could have been. His publishers may, for example, have tried to boost female readership by breaking into the misery-lit market:
But then, how good could it have gone? I mean, what if Ben's book had come out in the 1960s?
What do you think? Could you design a better / worse cover? Special points for using Ben's face on the front or making him appear to be berserk with rage. Only real quotes from or about the book allowed. Winner gets a free copy of the Bad Science book. Email your efforts, no matter how crude, to email@example.com. Submissions below the fold...
Bad Science for kids by Bob Furness
Bad Science neon edition by Daniel Robertson
Bible-tastic Weighty Tome edition by Dan Johnson
My only regret is not making it even uglier :). Lets see some more submissions!
Not really sure where I was going with my one, the neon / Einstein / duck's legs / bubbles type thing... But I'm with you Bob, we need to see some more submissions!
How about "Bad Science" from the past?If this doesn't work, I'll simply e-mail it to you.