Editing Junk science (section)

{{Short description|Scientific data considered to be spurious or fraudulent}}
{{redirect|Sound science|the branch of physics|Acoustics}}

'''Junk science''' is [[wikt:spurious|spurious]] or [[fraud]]ulent [[scientific]] [[data]], [[research]], or analysis. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. It usually conveys a [[pejorative]] connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives.

The concept was popularized in the 1990s in relation to [[expert testimony]] in [[civil litigation]]. More recently, invoking the concept has been a tactic to criticize research on the harmful [[Environmentalism|environmental]] or [[public health]] effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism.

In some contexts, junk science is counterposed to the "sound science" or "solid science" that favors one's own point of view.<ref name=Neff2005>{{cite journal |vauthors=Neff RA, Goldman LR |title=Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards |journal=Am J Public Health |volume=95 |pages=S81–91 |year=2005 |issue=Suppl 1 |pmid=16030344 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818 |url=http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/S1/S81 |hdl=10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818 |s2cid=10175577 |hdl-access=free |access-date=2023-12-24 |archive-date=2009-05-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090517031947/http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/S1/S81 |url-status=live }}</ref> Junk science has been criticized for undermining public trust in real science.<ref name="JemielniakPrzegalinska20202">{{cite book|author1=Dariusz Jemielniak|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yLDMDwAAQBAJ|title=Collaborative Society|author2=Aleksandra Przegalinska|year=2020|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262356459|access-date=2023-12-24|archive-date=2023-01-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117053851/https://books.google.com/books?id=yLDMDwAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Rp|110–111}} Junk science is not the same as [[pseudoscience]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Kaufman |first1=Allison B. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLT4DwAAQBAJ |title=Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science |last2=Kaufman |first2=James C. |date=2019-03-12 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-53704-9 |pages=471 |language=en |quote=Pseudoscience is different from junk science... |access-date=2023-11-09 |archive-date=2024-02-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240207162722/https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLT4DwAAQBAJ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last1=Fang |first1=Ferric C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c_XYEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA172 |title=Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better |last2=Casadevall |first2=Arturo |date=2023-10-31 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-1-68367-434-4 |pages=172 |language=en}}</ref>