article

"Bad Science" redirects here. For information on the newspaper colunm and website of the same name see Ben Goldacre
Junk or bunk science is a term used to describe purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are perceived to be driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. It is these motives that distinguish junk science from pseudoscience and controversial science. Oftentimes, the term "junk science" is used by opponents of certain advocacy groups who believe that a said group's scientific research is biased, unscientific, and with a special agenda to prove, rather than unbiased, true scientific inquiry.

As with many other ideological terms, there is often no political agreement as to which side of a debate constitutes "junk," and which "real" science, though the scientific community typically has an overwhelming majority opinion. Public debates on environmental and public health issues seem particularly prone to this problem. These debates are further complicated when scientists use mass media to publicize their research.

Early example

Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet agronomist who promoted vernalization, an ineffective process that involved moistening and chilling of seeds or seedlings during the winter. Lysenko controlled peer review to such a degree that his junk science was implemented on a large scale.

Examples in the 1990s

The term was popularized by Peter W. Huber, a columnist for Forbes magazine, in his book Galileo's Revenge, published in 1991. The book was a surprising success, and a paperback version appeared in 1993.

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 example prominent in the book was litigation over alleged casual causes of the spread of AIDS. A California school district sought to prevent a young boy with this condition, Ryan Thomas, from attending kindergarten. The school district produced an expert witness, Dr. Steven Armentrout, who testified that there is a possibility that AIDS could be transferred to schoolmates through yet undiscovered "vectors." But five experts testified on behalf of Thomas that AIDS isn't tranferred casually, and the court affirmed the "solid science" (as Mr. Huber called it) against Armentrout's sort.

Huber believed this was one instance of a broader pattern. The classic "junk science" argument, in his conception of it, was "science can't prove that X never causes Y. So we must assume that X does cause Y and err on the side of caution -- treating those who do X as liable for Y." It wasn't always schoolboys who were the victims. Yet, in his view, the science was and is just as junky when large corporations are the doers of X.

21st century use and abuse

John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch believe that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate profit maximization. In their book Trust Us, We're Experts (2001), they write that industry has launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science," often failing to employ the scientific method themselves. For example, the tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research showing negative effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, through various astroturf groups. More consonant theories may be praised using the term "sound science". Another instance in which "junk-science" is commonly perceived is the campaign to position global warming as theory, not fact as described in detail by Stauber and Rampton. Anti-global warming environmental scientists and spokespersons for corporations and government bureaucracies counter by saying that the scientific evidence used by their critics actually constitutes junk science and should not be used as a basis for policy.

In a February 6, 2006 article, "Smoked Out: Pundit for Hire", Paul D. Thacker of The New Republic said that Fox News' "Junk Science" commentator, Steven Milloy, was receiving money from ExxonMobil while attacking research on global warming. Thacker also revealed secret tobacco industry documents indicating that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year from Philip Morris, while he ridiculed the science proving the hazards of second-hand smoke. While Fox News has yet to address the issue of industry-paid journalists, this and other efforts have been explained by Phillip Morris executives in the 1988 "Whitecoat Project" as keeping alive the controversy of environmental tobacco smoke. Surgeon General issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The report also stated that secondhand smoke exposure is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children.[http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html" target="_blank" >*

See also

Further reading

  • Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, (2005) ISBN 0465046754
  • Peter W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (1991) ISBN 0465026249
  • Alexander Kohn, 1986, False Prophets, Basil Blackwell, New York
  • Robert Bell, 1992, Impure Science, John Wiley & Sons, New York

External links

Science | Pejoratives | Pseudoscience

Junk science | Verdiløs forskning

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Junk science".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world