🚀 go-pugleaf

junk science

background report
by neal lavon
washington, dc, usa

August 7, 1998

introduction 

lawmakers often base regulations and policy on research conducted 
by the scientific community. but increasingly, some scientific 
studies used by lawmakers have proved to be faulty, or even 
biased toward producing a desired result.  this so-called "junk 
science" is threatening the integrity of science and the 
regulations on which they are based. neal lavon has further 
details.

text 

in the 1980s, the u-s environmental protection agency ruled that 
alar, a chemical used by producers to prevent apples from rotting 
before harvest, was a cancer-causing agent and should be 
eliminated.

the decision was based on e-p-a research which indicated a 
byproduct of alar, known as u-m-d-h, caused tumors in mice. but 
subsequent investigation into the testing showed that the mice 
were given doses of u-m-d-h up to 266-thousand times the highest 
estimated daily intake of the chemical by preschool chidlren.  
the e-p-a acknowledged the high doses given in the experiment but
stuck to its conclusion that alar posed a cancer risk.  
eventually, alar was withdrawn from the marketplace.

subsequent inquiries into alar by a united nations panel of 
scientists concluded alar was not a cancer-causing agent in mice.
after much criticism of their  report, the e-p-a, in 1991, 
released a study saying alar was only half as potent as it had 
originally suggested.

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".

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.

mr. milloy says scientists seeking fame and increased funding are
the most likely to engage in junk science, but there are others.

milloy: 

         it could be trial lawyers suing deep-pocket (wealthy) 
         corporations, we could be talking about overzealous 
         government regulators who seek to expand their budgets 
         or regulatory authority or even to protect their 
         regulatory turf.

besides steven milloy, science journalist michael fumento has 
taken on those whom he believes engage in junk science. his 
latest investigation is aimed at the illnesses u-s military 
veterans say they suffer as a result of their service in the 1991
gulf war.

these illnesses, according to veteran's groups, include cancers, 
birth defects and miscarriages. they are lumped under the name of
gulf war syndrome and are blamed on exposure to harmful chemicals
unleashed during the conflict. while no major scientific panel or
journal has ever confirmed their claims, veterans organizations, 
family members, advocates and news reporters insist that 
scientific evidence proves gulf war syndrome exists.

but mr. fumento disputes their evidence as anecdotal and 
unscientific.  he adds that, medically, no basis has ever been 
found for gulf war syndrome.

fumento: 
         the question is, are these vets, and their wives, and 
         their offspring, when it comes to things like 
         miscarriages and birth defects, are they suffering at a 
         higher rate than we would expect? and the answer is no. 
         studies printed in prestigious peer-reviewed journals 
         like the new england journal of medicine, have found 
         time and again, that for cancers, their rate is what you
         would expect when compared to vets who did not deploy. 
         their rate of birth defects and miscarriages is exactly 
         the same as those among the children of vets who did not
         deploy to the gulf.

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. 

milloy: 
         anytime an organization is giving a grant to someone to 
         do science, you've got to look at the motivation behind 
         the organization whether it's government or private 
         industry.  usually, if you read about it in the 
         newspaper, and it's a headline, odds are it's someone 
         trying to take advantage of somebody with junk science.

public health expert and junk science critic, steven j. milloy. 
(signed) neb/nl/kl

7-August-1998 12:42 p.m. EDT (1642 UTC) Report 5-41104
Source - Voice of America

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