BAD SCIENCE? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW IT.

[Michael Gochfeld]

The statement has been made: 

"propagating bad science and false information to secure goals which are
ecologically high-minded and soundly altruistic" is a commonplace 
phenomenon in our American scientific culture?" 

 I wonder if it really is common? And I wonder if it's MORE COMMON than 
"propagating bad science and false information to secure goals which are 
opposite to high-minded and certainly not altruistic? 

It is a popular political ploy to refer to any scientific findings that 
undermine ones political interests, beliefs, or positions, as junk 
science. But junk science cuts both ways. 

It's particularly common, nowadays, for people with certain political 
persuasions to decry environmental protection by calling scientific 
findings that implicate chemical hazards or environmental damage as 
"junk science".   

The Asbestos industry is trying to re-open markets for chrysotile 
asbestos by claiming, incorrectly, that chrysotile (the Canadian 
asbestos) is "good asbestos" while amosite (the South African asbestos 
is "bad asbestos).  Don't believe it. The data have been cleverly 
corrupted. 

The tobacco industry claims that cigarettes don't really cause lung 
cancer, have to be considered junk science, even though scientists made 
such statements with a straight face. 

It's also important for us all to remember that science is always a work 
in progress.  Try figuring out what to eat based on today's scientific 
information. Eggs? butter? What about beta-carotene?

 Preliminary findings may or may not be borne out, but if not, they are 
not necessarily bad science.  To hold such beliefs would identify one 
squarely as "anti-science" and there is certainly a large undercurrent 
of anti-science in this country.  I think more problems in protecting 
(or not protecting) the environment arise from the failure to use 
science than from using bad science. 

Scientists indeed should be careful and honest in reflecting their 
understanding of nature given the current state of knowledge.  If it 
turns out to be wrong down-the-line, so be it.  Better imperfect science 
than no science, I conclude. 

Michael Gochfeld

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl