Article View: sci.research
Article #895Re: 'Junk Science' Threatens Scientific Integrity
From: Brian Baker
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00
58 lines
3438 bytes
3438 bytes
On Fri, 07 Aug 1998 17:53:53 GMT, address.below.or@web.site (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote: > >critics say the episode involving alar and the e-p-a is an >example of the scientific method being exploited for political >ends. the e-p-a, they say, wanted to ban alar in any event and >merely concocted a study which would support their policy goal. >this, say those critics, is an example of "junk science". > One could just as easily say that the failure by EPA to recognize the clear results of earlier studies was junk science, and that the agency arrived at the logical and scientfically correct conclusion that it should have in the first place. >steven j. milloy, a public health expert, is one of a vocal band >of critics attacking what they believe is junk science. > >milloy: > junk science is flawed analysis, data, information of a > scientific nature that is used to promote private or > personal, or hidden agendas. > "My science is 'good science,' your science is 'junk science.'" Such name-calling does nothing to promote understanding or improve the quality of research. One recent example of 'junk science' was recently perpetrated by Dennis Avery who made up numbers on E. coli cases related to organic food in a widely published newspaper article. He gave no source, and nobody I've talked to know any reliable agency or researcher who is collecting and analyzing such data. That is far worse than the Alar case nearly ten years ago, where the results were replicated. Whether or not one agrees with the methodology, at least the data were not fabricated. >most scientific research strictly adheres to proven and accepted >standards of methodology. but steve milloy believes a steadily >increasing number of studies fail to maintain or even try to >circumvent these standards in the name of achieving fame or a >policy goal. > Again, this begs the question and adds nothing to the debate. Then the ultimate irony: >Jai Maharaj >Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer >Billionaire financier J. P. Morgan used >a scientific astrologer and so can you! >Latest local and world news available at >http://www.flex.com/~jai/topnews.html >Om Shanti Brian Baker, Ph.D., Technical Director Organic Materials Review Institute P.O. Box 12256 Eugene, OR 97440-4456 phone: 541-343-7600 fax: 541-343-8971 omri@efn.org
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<35d34596.1301422@news.efn.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<science-1750.980807@news.mantra.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fbe8c,7515300eb0b94184 X-Google-Attributes: gidfbe8c,public X-Google-Thread: fd828,7515300eb0b94184 X-Google-Attributes: gidfd828,public X-Google-Thread: f4acb,7515300eb0b94184 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4acb,public X-Google-Thread: 1068d7,7515300eb0b94184 X-Google-Attributes: gid1068d7,public X-Google-Thread: 1042ac,7515300eb0b94184 X-Google-Attributes: gid1042ac,public X-Google-Thread: 10607c,7515300eb0b94184 X-Google-Attributes: gid10607c,public From: omri@efn.org (Brian Baker) Subject: Re: 'Junk Science' Threatens Scientific Integrity Date: 1998/08/13 Message-ID: <35d34596.1301422@news.efn.org> X-Deja-AN: 380607425 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <science-1750.980807@news.mantra.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Organic Materials Review Institute Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: omri@efn.org Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.environment,sci.agriculture,soc.culture.usa,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,hawaii.nortle