What is junk science?
To paraphrase what Supreme Court Potter Stewart said about obscenity in Jacobellis v. State of Ohio in 1964, "I can't define junk science, but I know it when I see it." But to put it in a sentence:
"Junk science" is bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the "food police," environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune.
Here's junk science in a picture:
What are some characteristics of junk science?
Here are some tips to help you spot junk science. Each one should raise a red flag.
- One-study wonders. "Study shows laxatives cause cancer." "Selenium prevents cancer new study says." Can these headlines be right? Unlikely. No one study proves anything. Science is not a quick-and-dirty one-study endeavor. Scientific knowledge is gained slowly and incrementally over time.
- Science by press conference. Science occurs in labs, not press conferences or newsrooms. Simply put, headlines ain't science. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw read script off teleprompters; they aren't Nobel laureates. The Washington Post and New York Times are newspapers, not peer-reviewed science journals. 60 Minutes is television entertainment, not a science-on-video series.
- Causation. Junk scientists love to say that one thing "causes" another. But causation is usually more complex than a junk scientists would have you believe. Click here for the chapter in Science Without Sense that discusses causation.
- Body counts. Smoking kills 400,000 people every year. Obesity kills 300,000. Air pollution kills 60,000. "Body counts" and other population risk numbers scream out "I AM JUNK SCIENCE!" Click here for the chapter in Science Without Sense that discusses the body count concept.
- Weak association epidemiology. Studies reporting relative risks on the order of 3.0 and less are generally not reliable. Epidemiology is most useful in identifying LARGE risks of RARE diseases — e.g., studies of heavy smoking and lung cancer report a relative risk of about 20; those of aspirin and Reye's syndrome in children report a relative risk of 35. Click here for the chapter in Science Without Sense that addresses weak association epidemiology.
- Modeling. Many try to use computer-based mathematical modeling to predict how systems will react under various conditions. Depending on the complexity of the system, modeling may work to some degree. The problem, however, is that some modelers think they can model anything, regardless of complexity. The best ongoing example of modeling gone awry is global climate change. Systems like global climate, ecosystems and higher-order living organisms (like humans) are probably too complex to be represented by mathematical equations.
Click here for Steve's stump speech on junk science.
Is all science "junk science"?
No... not by a longshot. The vast majority of scientists are talented, hardworking, underpaid and honest individuals. The work they do is solid, but unheralded. In contrast, there is a very vocal minority of "junk scientists" who are somewhat lacking in the honesty department. These are the "one-study wonders" who practice "science by press conference." They add little to scientific knowledge. Aside from providing headlines, their major contribution is to divert funding and attention from deserving scientists.
What is the purpose of the Junk Science Home Page?
The purpose of the Junk Science Home Page is to help distinguish good science from bad. Everyday we're bombarded by headlines proclaiming this or that is bad (or even good) for us. What's the truth? And do you need to be a scientist to figure it out? Find out for yourself by visiting regularly!
Who is Steve Milloy?
Click here to find out about the "Junkman."
Why is Steve Milloy so outspoken about junk science?
Who pays for the Junk Science Home Page?
Steve Milloy. But who pays isn't important; the substance is. Steve figures he has the junk science debate won when an opponent raises a collateral issue like funding.