Junk science

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Junk Science (from English junk for "junk", "garbage" and science for "science") is a political catchphrase that was invented by industry lobbyists in order to discredit research results they do not like as bad science . This applies in particular to research work in health , environmental and climate research that could potentially restrict economic activity. In contrast to junk science, they established the term " sound science " or solid science, which in turn should upgrade industry-friendly work to serious, scientific work.

In fact, that was artificially creating doubts on scientific findings of environmental research , which were branded as "junk science" conservative the preferred strategy of political forces and industrial companies to anti-environmental policies promote. This is especially true from the early 1990s, when these actors turned their main focus on denying human-made global warming .

The term “junk science” is now used more generally to refer to bad science. Peter Huber, who is considered the inventor of the term, defines it e.g. B. as a “mirror image of real science, largely with the same form, but without any substance” and as a “collection of every conceivable type of error”. In addition, pseudoscientific theories such as intelligent design are now referred to as 'junk science' in the scientific community .

history

The term was first applied to the tobacco industry . In 1992 the tobacco company Philip Morris hired the PR company APCO to develop a strategy for how to respond to a report published by the US Environmental Protection Agency that outlined the health dangers of second-hand smoke . APCO warned the tobacco company not to take action itself, as it would not be viewed by the public as a credible institution for the evaluation of tobacco products, and recommended that Astroturfing campaigns be used instead. Instead of Philip Morris, organizations should speak out in favor of tobacco that acted like groups from society.

APCO proposed forming a group to "educate the media, officials and the public about the dangers of junk science." It should also address the credibility of scientific studies by the public sector, risk assessment techniques and the misuse of taxpayers' money (for such purposes). Until the founding of this organization, leading figures in the fight against the regulation of tobacco consumption should create mood in the media, publish opinion articles and instruct politicians in selected states in a targeted manner.

In 1993 this astroturfing group was finally founded under the name The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). A year later, APCO pointed out to Philip Morris that it was important for TASCC to become active not only on tobacco, but also in other areas where there was government research and regulation, such as global warming , radioactive waste disposal and the biotechnology . At the same time, APCO stated that they would conduct an intensive search of key representatives from business and industry, science, civil servants, etc. to find people who would be interested in promoting “solid science” to the public. APCO thus invented the term junk science specifically for the discrediting of peer-reviewed scientific work that represented the state of research , i.e. scientific work that their customer Philip Morris, later also the oil company Exxon , did not like. As a counterpart to junk science, the term “sound science” was introduced, which in this case stood for studies that were funded by the tobacco industry. This term is used today, among other things, by professionally organized climate change deniers.

Overall, the American tobacco industry has for years discredited the scientific evidence of the health risks posed by passive smoking as junk science.

literature

  • Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap, Mark Freeman: The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism . In: Environmental Politics . tape 17 , no. 3 , June 2008, ISSN  0964-4016 , p. 349-385 , doi : 10.1080 / 09644010802055576 (English).
  • Chris Mooney: The Republican War on Science. Basic Books, New York 2005, ISBN 0-465-04675-4 .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement . In: Riley E. Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300–332, here: 306 f.
  2. ↑ Quoted from: David Michaels , Celeste Monforton: Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment . In: American Journal of Public Health . tape 95 , Supplement 1, 2005, pp. S39-S48 , doi : 10.2105 / AJPH.2004.043059 (English).
  3. ^ H. Allen Orr: Devolution — Why intelligent design isn't . In: Annals of Science . May 2005. Retrieved January 4, 2011: “Biologists are alarmed by the arrival of Intelligent Design in Dover and elsewhere not because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they are alarmed because intelligent design is junk science. "
  4. ↑ Dan Agin: Junk Science . Macmillan, 2006, pp. 210 ff.
  5. ^ Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 76 f.
  6. ↑ a b See Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 77.
  7. ↑ Climate Change Deniers: Unequivocal Doubts . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung , November 24, 2019. Accessed December 23, 2019.
  8. ↑ Jonathan M. Samet, Thomas A. Burke: Turning Science Into Junk: The Tobacco Industry and Passive Smoking . In: American Journal of Public Health . tape 91 , no. 11 , November 2001, p. 1742–1744 , doi : 10.2105 / AJPH.91.11.1742 (English).
  9. ↑ Derek Yach, Stella Aguinaga Bialous: Junking Science to Promote Tobacco . In: American Journal of Public Health . tape 91 , no. 11 , November 2001, p. 1745–1748 , doi : 10.2105 / AJPH.91.11.1745 (English).