I did a quick Twitter/Google study on the term 'junk science' this evening and can only conclude that, it depends on who you ask.
If you are a supporter of the man-made Global Warming theory, junk science is anything that clouds the issue or creates confusion in your perfectly formed theory. Conversely, if you are a skeptic of the AGW theory, you will disregard all scientific study that comes from a doubted source (i.e. IPCC) no matter how good the science is. If you believe that DDT is bad – then any science that shows a connection between DDT, mosquitoes and malaria is labeled and disregarded as 'junk science.' If you believe that DDT is good, then you will disregard any science that clouds the issue such as the studies that seem to show that mosquitoes have built up a resistance to DDT making the chemical less effective in vector control.
Junk science is a label that both sides of a position seem to throw around at will. So just what is Junk Science?
According to Wikipedia, "Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. The term may convey a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives."
The problem with this definition, is that nobody can be free of the label. Any research commissioned by big oil, tobacco and drug companies are virtually always defined as junk science. No matter what their findings are – they can be relegated to the junk pile without any contrary scientific findings at all. However, when an environmental lobby group, such as Green Peace publishes its 'findings' this is very rarely called junk science. Yet they are very politically motivated. They are money hungry and indeed, need to be self-supporting just to keep themselves fed and clothed. Even ecologists must keep the dire warnings coming or else they face the withdraw of public funds which they so heavily rely on. Without impending doom, what would we need ecologists for? Who is free from political, ideological or financial motives today?
Once we begin to term scientific study as simply 'junk science' especially without showing proof that counteracts the findings we disagree with, we are no longer acting as scientists – we are politicians.
My conclusion: Leave the politics to the politicians and lets get back to science. If an opponent of yours produces something that you believe to be flawed or incorrect, prove him wrong. Show us where and why he is wrong. Show me the science … not the money (thanks Jerry Maguire.) Simply painting him and his findings with a label does nothing to advance our knowledge of science and the world around us.
Ed Darrell wrote,
"Junk science" originally referred to those "experts" who could hornswoggle an attorney, and occasionally a judge, to listen to them about the harms of electromagnetic fields, or about the cancer dangers from watching television, or about how vaccines don't work, or any of a number of other crank science claims that don't work out when tested on the lab bench in the real world.
It's been twisted by professional purveyors of junk science, people like Stephen Milloy, who make their money claiming that the thousands of studies that link cigarette smoking to lung cancer are questionable, because one of the studies used tobacco that may have been contaminated by DDT pesticides, or some such.
Junk science isn't science. That's the easiest way to distinguish it. Is there a large body of studies published in peer-reviewed journals supporting the claim? Then it's not "junk." It's golden.
You err — anything mentioned by Greenpeace is quickly labeled "junk science" by corporate-financed groups. But just try to pin that label on the claims that DDT isn't poisonous (understanding that, if DDT isn't poisonous, it's completely worthless).
You're right. The answer is to insist on studies that disprove a claim.
Link | November 24th, 2010 at 11:20 am
strathy wrote,
Thanks Ed. I just found it interesting that both sides of an argument could claim the other point of view was junk science. I find so much 'science' today is soooo political.
Another example is the recent discussion we had at TILS about the disappearance of the Miami Blue from Bahia Honda Key. The Fall 2010 issue of American Butterflies published an article called "Who killed all the Miami Blues?" Note: not 'What', but 'Who'. And further, "all the Miami Blues?" Really? They are all gone or just expatriated from Honda Key?This is considered 'science' today – yet is clearly very political and ideological.
Thanks again for your comments.
Link | November 24th, 2010 at 11:32 am