Junk science
The Consumers Union (US) wrote that "as far as we have been able to trace, the phrase "junk science" has been coined by those practicing public relations and lobbying activities on behalf of some companies in certain industries--particularly the plastics, chemical, biotechnology, and pesticide industries. While its coiners may have legitimate grounds for debate on some issues, the phrase has been used far too often to discredit honest public interest organizations and legitimate scientists who express concerns about consumer safety and environmental risks." [1]
While the phrase "junk science" is used by corporations, governments and front groups to discredit public interest and consumer activists, the phrase "sound science" is employed to describe the research said to back-up industry's own claims on safety and risk.
With scientific information playing a central role in public policy development, critics of the U.S. government have accused it of pursuing a strategy of suppressing science it disagrees with and ensuring reports that are more supportive of its policy goals. "Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring, and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote in The Nation.[2]
| SOUND SCIENCE - JUNK SCIENCE |
|---|
| sound science & junk science |
| False accusations of junk science |
| Steven J Milloy & TASSC |
| Peter Huber & Walter Olson |
| Manhattan Institute |
| Junk Science (Doc Index) |
| Fox News & K. Rupert Murdoch |
The controversy over science under the Bush Administration has also prompted:
- the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, to develop the Politics & Science website as an ongoing record of interference with science by the Bush Administration; and
- a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists "issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [3]
Book
- Dan Agin, Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us, Thomas Dunne Books, October 2006, 336 pp. ISBN 0312352417 (Hardcover).
SourceWatch Resources
External links
- Consumers Union, "Consumers Union Statement about Consumer Distorts", December 1999, accessed January 13, 2003.
- Wikipedia: "Junk science"
- J.R. Pegg, "Health Advocacy Group Warns of Conflicted Science", Environment News Service, July 14, 2003.
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., "The Junk Science of George W. Bush", The Nation, February 26, 2004.
- Statement of over 1600 scientists voicing growing concern over the Bush administration misuse of science in environmental policymaking (as of 4/22/2004).
- Greg Hanscom, "Sound Science Goes Sour: An HCN collection on the Bush Administration's use of science," High Country News, June 23, 2003.
- David Michaels and Celeste Monforton, "Scientific Evidence in the Regulatory System: Manufacturing Uncertainty and The Demise of The Formal Regulatory System", Journal of Law and Policy, Volume XII No 1, 2005.
- David Michaels,"Doubt Is Their Product: Industry groups are fighting government regulation by formenting scientific uncertainty", Scientific American, June 15, 2005. (Sub req'd for full article. Copies are reproduced here and here).
- David Michaels, "The Art of 'Manufacturing Uncertainty'", Commentary, Los Angeles Times, June 24, 2005.
- Ed Iverson, Op/ed: "The rotten fruit of junk science," Lahantan Valley News (Fallon, Nevada), April 18, 2007.
