"Sound Science" and "Junk Science"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Friday, March 30 [2001], President George W. Bush announced his decision to withdraw the Environmental Protection Agency regulations, proposed by President Clinton, to lower the allowed levels of arsenic in drinking water. "We pulled back his decision so that we can make a decision based on sound science," Bush said. (My emphasis — D.K.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rather than well-conducted scientific research, though, the new study appears to be merely a junk science-fueled attack by government nannies on politically incorrect low-carbohydrate regimens like the Atkins Diet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The terms "Sound science" and "Junk science" have been bandied about for some time; as Dante Chinni points out Preident Clinton used the term long before Bush did. But they have recieved increased attention latelt, including a congressional hearing on "sound science", the Data Quality Act, and proposed changes to peer review.
More on the "sound science" front:
Beware 'Sound Science.' It's Doublespeak for Trouble by Chris Mooney in the Washington Post
Bush Ejects Two From Bioethics Council: Changes Renew Criticism That the President Puts Politics Ahead of Science by Rick Weiss notes that the presedent continues to stack advisory panels
Chris Mooney has more about these stories on his blog
Meanwhile Steven Milloy has claime that the Union of Concerned Scientists statment is an just an election year attack, and that "If the 12 Nobel laureate signatories truly want to fight the politicization of science, they might start by withdrawing their signatures from the UCS report." Actually it was 20 Nobel laureates, which should give you some idea of the quality of Milloy's work.
"Sound Science" and its Antonym from Chris Mooney, includes a link to this great article (PDF, starts on page 11) that notes that most of the time"junk science" is actually a code word for disliked policies..
In Conservative Lysenkoism Redux Chris Mooney looks at the The House Committee on Resources' "sound science" hearing.
In How industry hijacked 'sound science' Oliver Houck notes that 'sound science' really means an unobtainable level of certainty, and that the term is used to derail environmental and health regulations
More comments on "sound science" from American Footprint and The Corpus Callosum
My page of links on Steven Milloy, self apointed "junkman"
Junk Science: Judo Chopped? looks at the article that the qote at the top of this page comes from
The Skeptic dictionary's page on Milloy
JUNK SCHOLARSHIP IN SEARCH OF JUNK SCIENCE by: William F. Gallagher
Corporate Junk Science In The Media By Edward S. Herman
Junk Science and the Law by John E. Dodes shows that not all claims of "junk science" are bogus.
The proposed changes in peer review are recieving a lot of attention:
Bob Park mentioned it in his What's New column:
White House seeks control on health, safety by Andrew Schneider
Peer Review Plan Draws Criticism: Under Bush Proposal, OMB Would Evaluate Science Before New Rules Take Effect by Rick Weiss
The Politics of Peer Review by Chris Mooney: "Expert review of scientific information is usually a good thing. But as a recent White House proposal to expand peer review of government regulatory science shows, there are big exceptions."
Stacking the Deck Against Science By Kristen Philipkoski
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Written by Jim Norton
Visit my anti-environmental myths home page.
Visit my practical skepticism page
The text on these pages may be freely copied, distributed and posted as long as my name, this statement and the URL are included.