It would appear from the last line in this article, "Together they have founded The Equality Trust, a charitable trust which seeks to explain the benefits of a more equal society.", that Mr. Wilkinson and Ms. Pickett have started with their conclusion, and then created a study to support it. This is incredibly bad science. In fact it is not really science, it is merely their ideology masquerading as science in an attempt to make it seen legitimate.

In fact, we wrote our book, and established The Equality Trust, after more than 40 years research between the two of us, studying the effects of inequality on health and other social problems. We at last feel sufficiently confident of the effects of inequality that we (and others) have identified to move from research to trying to increase public awareness of the findings.
However, on a methodological point, as Professor Sir Karl Popper pointed out many years ago, it is not the sources of scientific theories which have to be unbiased, but the methods of testing them.
We do hope you will enjoy the book. Kate Pickett & Richard Wilkinson.

In a civilized society like the US or Britain I could make the choices for someone so as to keep them out of poverty and thus narrow some of this inequity. I of course have a problem with using inequity as it implies unfairness, favoritism or bias. And of course I can't make choices for someone else, only they can do that. The rich are rich because they keep doing the things which made them rich, ditto for the poor.

To Pickett and Wilkinson: Since both of you essentially never left college, your worldview peers through the bars of the communist structure of academia. There is no meritocracy. No accountability. You are all the same, as you would have our world become.
You have never seen the benefits of the free market because you choose not to participate in it and distinguish yourself there. As a result your only work product is a written critique of those outside your world; a world you never had the guts to join and benefit from. Only in academia does this qualify as valuable work. Nobody has any use for it anywhere else.
Your paycheck - such as it is - comes from the taxes of we who work in the private sector to support you, where the number of academic degrees mean far less than creativity, motivation and vision.
You can lash out at the outside world all you like, but those of us who made the transition there haven't seen a good reason to go back to college.

@wchunko: At the basis of all science is hypothesis and experiment. You start by a hypothesis and verify your assumptions though an experiment. It is inconclusive at best to say "they have started with their conclusion", you might say they have made an assumption and followed with a study to show it, which is science, or perhaps they have made a study and then concluded...,which is still science. In either case it is highly recommended to read the study before concluding something about it.

@stimulus_package: Actually, that's not correct. You start with your hypothesis and test it. If the data contradicts your hypothesis then you are compelled to modify (or change) the hypothesis.

Ms Pickett,
Thank you for your response. When it comes to reading the results of someones study, I think you'll agree that one really must consider the source and just what their interest is in them. The classic example would be all those studies funded by the tobacco companies that claimed smoking was harmless and nonaddictive. A healthy sense of skepticism is warranted. However, since I've opened this can of worms, I guess I'll have to read the book.
Sincerely,
William J Chunko

wchunko your first post was spot on. But you have not opened a can of worms; you ask tough questions. Your example with tobacco company 'research' being scandalously financially conflicted is pertinent today also in global warming ...er... climate change.
The same conflict occurs when Marxists from academia must slum with the bourgeois and author a product that they must sell on the market for ...gulp... money. But the day they sell a million copies, the next title will be "Equities and Exchange Traded Funds".

Have not seen the book yet. Wondering though whether country comparisons make any sense, without controlling for ethnic composition and immigration policies. Those Nordics are all tiny homogenous nations, with the societal structure having little to do with Britain or the US. Same problem applies to calculation of all kinds of development indexes (mortality rate etc.) If those "externalities" are not controlled for, it is just an exercise in a politically correct posturing. Would the authors care to comment?

Well look at that... a whole bunch of indignant conservative Americans indignantly, conservatively commenting...
... although none of them have actually read the book, or seen the research, and in all likelihood none ever will.
And meantime, after what is it? 8? Years of (trumpeted) conservative rule, the country is in ruins. The military has no credibility, the economy is so bad signs are you'll lose the dollar, America's international standing is in ruins... 1/31 Americans are in the penal system, working/middle class income hasn't increased in real terms since the 80s and you've just given trillions of dollars - your children and grandchildren's taxes to the small percentage of the population are responsible for so much of this disaster... so they can keep their bonuses... and you get nothing.
... and you still think you're right. You still employ the same wonderful twists of logic that got you into this mess.
Take a look at the world. Who is getting the best results? What are they doing?
How on earth did you get to the point where you actually believe that doing the opposite is going to get better results? After you actually tried the opposite, and it's failed?
Incredible.