Jump to content

Junk science: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Use by scientists: Out it goes...
Line 15: Line 15:
==Controversy surrounding use of the phrase "junk science"==
==Controversy surrounding use of the phrase "junk science"==


In 1999, Paul Ehrlich and others advocated public policies to improve the dissemination of valid environmental scientific knowledge and discourage junk science: 'The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] reports offer an antidote to junk science by articulating the current consensus on the prospects for climate change, by outlining the extent of the uncertainties, and by describing the potential benefits and costs of policies to address climate change.'<ref>Ehrlich, P. R., Wolff, G., Daily, G. C., Hughes, J. B., Daily, S., Dalton, M., et al. (1999). Knowledge and the environment. Ecological economics, 30, 267-284.</ref> In a 2003 study about changes in environmental activism in the Crown of the Continent (Flathead) Ecosystem, Pedynowski noted that junk science can undermine the credibility of science over a much broader scale because misrepresentation by special interests casts doubt on more defensible claims and undermines the credibility of all research.<ref>Pedynowski, D. (2003). Toward a more 'Reflexive Environmentalism': Ecological knowledge and advocacy in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 807–825.</ref>
Following up on skepticism from the Statistical Assessment Service over the 'MIT Study on the Status of Women Faculty,' noted gender equity advocate Judith Kleinfeld concluded in her 1999 monograph to the Independent Womens Forum that the MIT study was junk science because of its misuse of statistics.<ref>Kleinfeld, J. S. (1999, December). MIT tarnishes its reputation with gender junk science. Arlington, VA: Independent Womens Forum.</ref> Also in 1999, Paul Ehrlich and others advocated public policies to improve the dissemination of valid environmental scientific knowledge and discourage junk science: 'The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] reports offer an antidote to junk science by articulating the current consensus on the prospects for climate change, by outlining the extent of the uncertainties, and by describing the potential benefits and costs of policies to address climate change.'<ref>Ehrlich, P. R., Wolff, G., Daily, G. C., Hughes, J. B., Daily, S., Dalton, M., et al. (1999). Knowledge and the environment. Ecological economics, 30, 267-284.</ref> In a 2003 study about changes in environmental activism in the Crown of the Continent (Flathead) Ecosystem, Pedynowski noted that junk science can undermine the credibility of science over a much broader scale because misrepresentation by special interests casts doubt on more defensible claims and undermines the credibility of all research.<ref>Pedynowski, D. (2003). Toward a more 'Reflexive Environmentalism': Ecological knowledge and advocacy in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 807–825.</ref>


[[John Stauber]] and [[Sheldon Rampton]] of ''[[PR Watch]]'' argue that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate [[profit]]s. In their book ''[[Trust Us, We're Experts]]'' ([[2001]]), they write that industries have launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science" in the popular mind, often failing to employ the [[scientific method]] themselves. For example, the [[tobacco industry]] has used the term "junk science" to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and [[Tobacco smoking#Passive smoking|second-hand smoke]], through the vehicle of various [[astroturfing|"astroturf groups"]]. Theories more favorable to corporate activities may be praised using the term "sound science".
[[John Stauber]] and [[Sheldon Rampton]] of ''[[PR Watch]]'' argue that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate [[profit]]s. In their book ''[[Trust Us, We're Experts]]'' ([[2001]]), they write that industries have launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science" in the popular mind, often failing to employ the [[scientific method]] themselves. For example, the [[tobacco industry]] has used the term "junk science" to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and [[Tobacco smoking#Passive smoking|second-hand smoke]], through the vehicle of various [[astroturfing|"astroturf groups"]]. Theories more favorable to corporate activities may be praised using the term "sound science".

Revision as of 06:52, 22 January 2007

Junk science is a pejorative term used in political and legal disputes in the United States to describe scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are alleged to be driven by political, religious, financial or other questionable motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticise research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science. The terms 'junk science' and 'sound science' do not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; they are primarily terms of political debate.

History

The phrase "junk science" appears to have been in use prior to 1985. A 1985 United States Department of Justice report by the Tort Policy Working Group noted: 'The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as "junk science") has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.'[1] In 1989, Jerry Mahlman (a proponent of anthropogenic global warming theory) used the phrase 'noisy junk science' in reference to the alternative theory of global warming due to solar variation presented in Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem by Frederick Seitz et al.[2]

Peter W. Huber presented an exposition of the phrase with respect to litigation in his 1991 book Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. The book has been cited in >100 legal textbooks and references; as a consequence some sources cite Huber as the first to coin the phrase. By 1997, the phrase had entered the legal lexicon as seen in an opinion by Supreme Court of the United States Justice John Paul Stevens, 'An example of "junk science" that should be excluded under Daubert as too unreliable would be the testimony of a phrenologist who would purport to prove a defendant’s future dangerousness based on the contours of the defendant’s skull.' [3] Lower courts then set guidelines for identifying 'junk science,' such as the 2005 opinion of United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judge Easterbrook, 'Positive reports about magnetic water treatment are not replicable; this plus the lack of a physical explanation for any effects are hallmarks of junk science.' [4]

As the subtitle of Huber's book, "Junk Science in the Courtroom," suggests, his emphasis was on the use or misuse of expert testimony in civil litigation. One prominent example cited in the book was litigation over casual contact in the spread of AIDS. A California school district sought to prevent a young boy with AIDS, Ryan Thomas, from attending kindergarten. The school district produced an expert witness, Dr. Steven Armentrout, who testified that a possibility existed that AIDS could be transmitted to schoolmates through yet undiscovered "vectors." However, five experts testified on behalf of Thomas that AIDS is not transmitted through casual contact, and the court affirmed the "solid science" (as Mr. Huber called it) and rejected Dr. Armentrout's argument.

The term was further popularised by Fox News columnist Steven Milloy, who used it to attack the results of scientific research on global warming, ozone depletion, passive smoking and many other topics. The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was questioned by Paul Thacker, a writer for The New Republic in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil. [5][6][7] Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars.

Controversy surrounding use of the phrase "junk science"

Following up on skepticism from the Statistical Assessment Service over the 'MIT Study on the Status of Women Faculty,' noted gender equity advocate Judith Kleinfeld concluded in her 1999 monograph to the Independent Womens Forum that the MIT study was junk science because of its misuse of statistics.[8] Also in 1999, Paul Ehrlich and others advocated public policies to improve the dissemination of valid environmental scientific knowledge and discourage junk science: 'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports offer an antidote to junk science by articulating the current consensus on the prospects for climate change, by outlining the extent of the uncertainties, and by describing the potential benefits and costs of policies to address climate change.'[9] In a 2003 study about changes in environmental activism in the Crown of the Continent (Flathead) Ecosystem, Pedynowski noted that junk science can undermine the credibility of science over a much broader scale because misrepresentation by special interests casts doubt on more defensible claims and undermines the credibility of all research.[10]

John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch argue that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate profits. In their book Trust Us, We're Experts (2001), they write that industries have launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science" in the popular mind, often failing to employ the scientific method themselves. For example, the tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, through the vehicle of various "astroturf groups". Theories more favorable to corporate activities may be praised using the term "sound science".

In a February 6, 2006 article entitled "Smoked Out: Pundit for Hire", Paul D. Thacker of The New Republic reported that Fox News "Junk Science" commentator Steven Milloy was receiving money from ExxonMobil while attacking research on global warming as a supposedly independent journalist.[5] Thacker also noted that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year from Philip Morris while he ridiculed the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science".

While Fox News has yet to address its role in the issue of industry-paid journalists,[5] tobacco industry documents reveal that Phillip Morris executives conceived of the "Whitecoat Project" in the 1980s as a response to emerging scientific data on the harmfulness of second-hand smoke.[11] The goal of the Whitecoat Project, as conceived by Philip Morris and other tobacco companies, was to use ostensibly independent "scientific consultants" to spread doubt in the public mind about scientific data through the use of terms such as "junk science".[11]

Use by scientists

In 1995, the Union of Concerned Scientists launched the Sound Science Initiative, a national network of scientists committed to debunking junk science through media outreach, lobbying, and developing joint strategies to participate in town meetings or public hearings.[12] The American Association for the Advancement of Science also recognized the need increased understanding between scientists and lawmakers in its newsletter on Science and Technology in Congress, "Although most individuals would agree that sound science is preferable to junk science, fewer recognize what makes a scientific study 'good' or 'bad'."[13] Some rudimentary scientific literacy is required says Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, "Our populations have never been more ignorant of science,....There's so much fake science, junk science, out there, and people have to be able to recognize it." [14] The decision cost of 'junk science' affects society, note that, Dr. Baron, Chemistry Professor and Department Chair wrote, 'So-called "junk science" bypasses this system of peer review....Presented directly to the public by people variously described as "experts" or "activists," often with little or no supporting evidence, this "junk science" undermines the ability of elected representatives, jurists, and others — including everyday consumers — to make rational decisions.'[15]

Consider some of the guidelines for evaluating 'junk science' from general to specific. Dr. David L. Goodstein, Ph.D., Vice Provost and Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech stated,'…you could tell the difference between junk science and real science, you could simply say someone didn't follow the [scientific] method.'[16] Exposure to the wider scientific community provides a vetting mechanism to filter out junk science: 'This [integrity of the corpus of scientific and technical knowledge] includes specific issues like the adequacy and functioning of the peer-review system; managing fraud in science; and dealing with pseudo-science, junk science, and, most important, self-delusion in science.'[17] Proper scientific theories models must somehow be tied to the physical universe so that they can be empirically verified, consider the challenge, 'If ADHD was meant as a way merely to identify a set of behaviors with no inference of it being a neurological abnormality, that would be one thing...but the insistence that it exists in the same physical and provable realm as a real disease is a perversion of science, without even enough credibility to rise to the level of pseudoscience or junk science.'[18]

The American Dietetic Association, criticizing marketing claims made for food products, lists 'Ten Red Flags of Junk Science:

  1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
  2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen.
  3. Claims that sound too good to be true.
  4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study.
  5. Recommendations based on a single study.
  6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations.
  7. Lists of "good" and "bad" foods.
  8. Recommendations made to help sell a product.
  9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer review.
  10. Recommendations from studies that ignore individual or group differences.'[19]

Non-reproducibility signals 'junk science' based on a weak statistical model: 'If you were misled by any of these studies [on criminal deterrence], you may have fallen for a pernicious form of junk science: the use of mathematical models with no demonstrated predictive capability to draw policy conclusions....Regression models that have not been demonstrated to work with fresh data, other than the data used to create them, are junk science.'[20] Lack of due diligence may result in a researcher’s work being labeled ‘junk science’ upon peer-review: 'The experimental dose chosen for this study was 10 mg/kg/day, and was justified by the authors as being a dose safe for 97.5% of humans. TDIs [tolerable daily intake] are typically derived from industry junk science (unpublishable in independent journals) and contain massive data gaps.' [21]

Scientists participate in the self-correcting aspects of the scientific method (exploration of confounding factors, sources of bias, replicability of results) and routinely challenge the data and conclusions of their peers in spoken and written discourse sometimes using the phrase 'junk science.'

Notes

  1. ^ Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437)
  2. ^ Roberts, L. (1989, November). Global warming: Blaming the sun. Science, 246(4933), 992-993.
  3. ^ General Electric Company v. Robert K. Joiner, No. 96–188, slip op. at 4 (U.S. Dec. 15, 1997).
  4. ^ Charles H. Sanderson v. Culligan International Company, No. 04-3253, slip op. at 3 (7th Cir. July 11, 2005).
  5. ^ a b c "Smoked Out: Pundit For Hire", published in The New Republic, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
  6. ^ PRWatch.com article describing the financial links between Milloy and the tobacco industry, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
  7. ^ Activity Report, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., December 1996, describing R.J.R. Tobacco's direct input into Milloy's junkscience website. From the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco. Accessed 5 Oct 2006.
  8. ^ Kleinfeld, J. S. (1999, December). MIT tarnishes its reputation with gender junk science. Arlington, VA: Independent Womens Forum.
  9. ^ Ehrlich, P. R., Wolff, G., Daily, G. C., Hughes, J. B., Daily, S., Dalton, M., et al. (1999). Knowledge and the environment. Ecological economics, 30, 267-284.
  10. ^ Pedynowski, D. (2003). Toward a more 'Reflexive Environmentalism': Ecological knowledge and advocacy in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 807–825.
  11. ^ a b Minutes of a meeting in which Philip Morris Tobacco discusses the inception of the "Whitecoat Project". Accessed 5 Oct 2006.
  12. ^ Union of Concerned Scientists. (1998, Winter). Sound science initiative. ASLO bulletin, 7(1), 13.
  13. ^ Sound Science for Endangered Species. (2002, September). In Science and Technology in Congress. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/stc/stc02-09.pdf.
  14. ^ Merrow, J. (2005, February 23). Unlearning Bad Science. Education Week. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from Public Broadcasting Service Web site: http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/edweek4.html.
  15. ^ Baron, L. A. F. (2001, February). The Influence of "Junk Science" and the Role of Science Education. Imprimis, 30(2). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Hillsdale College Web site: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2001/february/default.htm.
  16. ^ Murray, B. (2006, November 12). The Methods of Science and Journalism. FACSNET, science and technology. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Foundation for American Communications Web site: http://www.facsnet.org/tools/sci_tech/methods.php3.
  17. ^ Hill, C. T. (2001). Fifty Years of Science and Technology Policy in Ten Minutes. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, 107. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from American Association for the Advancement of Science Web site: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ch7.pdf.
  18. ^ Baughman, F. A., Jr. MD. (2006). The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children. Trafford Publishing.(p. 9)
  19. ^ Volume 106, Issue 4, Pages 601-607. (2006, April). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Misinformation (Journal of the American Dietetic Association). Retrieved October 25, 2006, from http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_adar0202_ENU_HTML.htm (p. 605)
  20. ^ Goertzel, T. (2002, January/February). Econometric Modeling as Junk Science. The Skeptical Inquirer, 26(1), 19-23. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Rutgers University Web site: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm.
  21. ^ Tweedale, T. (2005, April). Sex and Ceruloplasmin Modulate the Response to Copper... Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(4), A226. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1278512.

See also

Further reading

  • Dan Agin, Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us, 2006. ISBN 0-312-35241-7.
  • Peter W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.
  • Lora Mary Levett, Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science, 2006. ISBN 0-542-33274-4.
  • Steven J. Milloy, Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense against Health Scares and Scams, 2001. ISBN 1-930-86512-0.
  • Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, 2005. ISBN 0-465-04675-4.
  • Susan Kiss Sarnoff, Sanctified Snake Oil: The Effect of Junk Science on Public Policy, 2001. ISBN 0-275-96845-6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Junk_science&oldid=102386099"