Editing Junk science (section)

==History==
The phrase ''junk science'' appears to have been in use prior to 1985. A 1985 [[United States Department of Justice]] report by the Tort Policy Working Group noted:<ref>[http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED274437 "Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231109182912/https://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED274437 |date=2023-11-09 }} (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437) p. 39: <blockquote>Another way in which causation often is undermined—also an increasingly serious problem in toxic tort cases—is the reliance by judges and juries on non-credible scientific or medical testimony, studies or opinions. It has become all too common for 'experts' or 'studies' on the fringes of or even well beyond the outer parameters of mainstream scientific or medical views to be presented to juries as valid evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific and medical knowledge. Most importantly, this development has led to a deep and growing cynicism about the ability of tort law to deal with difficult scientific and medical concepts in a principled and rational way.</blockquote></ref>
<blockquote>The use of such invalid [[scientific evidence]] (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.</blockquote>

In 1989, the climate scientist [[Jerry Mahlman]] (Director of the [[Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory]]) characterized the theory that [[global warming]] was due to [[solar variation]] (presented in ''Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem'' by [[Frederick Seitz]] et al.) as "noisy junk science."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Roberts | first1 = L. | year = 1989 | title = Global warming: Blaming the sun | journal = Science | volume = 246 | issue = 4933| pages = 992–993 | doi=10.1126/science.246.4933.992 | pmid=17806372| bibcode = 1989Sci...246..992R }}</ref>

[[Peter W. Huber]] popularized the term with respect to litigation in his 1991 book ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom.'' The book has been cited in over 100 legal textbooks and references; as a consequence, some sources cite Huber as the first to coin the term. By 1997, the term had entered the legal lexicon as seen in an opinion by [[Supreme Court of the United States]] Justice [[John Paul Stevens]]:<ref>''[[General Electric Company]] v. Robert K. Joiner'', No. 96–188, slip op. at 4 (U.S. December 15, 1997).</ref>
<blockquote>An example of 'junk science' that should be excluded under the [[Daubert standard]] as too unreliable would be the testimony of a [[phrenologist]] who would purport to prove a defendant's future dangerousness based on the contours of the defendant's skull.</blockquote> Lower courts have subsequently set guidelines for identifying junk science, such as the 2005 opinion of [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] Judge [[Frank H. Easterbrook]]:<ref>{{cite book| last= Huber| first= P. W. | year= 1991| edition= 2001| title= Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom| url= https://archive.org/details/galileosrevenge00pete| url-access= registration| place= New York| publisher= Basic Books| page= [https://archive.org/details/galileosrevenge00pete/page/191 191]}}</ref>
<blockquote>Positive reports about magnetic water treatment are not replicable; this plus the lack of a physical explanation for any effects are hallmarks of junk science.</blockquote>

As the subtitle of Huber's book, ''Junk Science in the Courtroom'', suggests, his emphasis was on the use or misuse of expert testimony in civil litigation. One prominent example cited in the book was litigation over casual contact in the spread of [[AIDS]]. A California school district sought to prevent a young boy with AIDS, Ryan Thomas, from attending [[kindergarten]]. The school district produced an expert witness, Steven Armentrout, who testified that a possibility existed that AIDS could be transmitted to schoolmates through yet undiscovered "vectors". However, five experts testified on behalf of Thomas that AIDS is not transmitted through casual contact, and the court affirmed the "solid science" (as Huber called it) and rejected Armentrout's argument.<ref>''Charles H. Sanderson v. [[Culligan International Company]]'', No. 04-3253, slip op. at 3 (7th Cir. July 11, 2005).</ref>

In 1999, [[Paul R. Ehrlich|Paul Ehrlich]] and others advocated public policies to improve the dissemination of valid environmental scientific knowledge and discourage junk science:<ref>{{cite journal| last1= Ehrlich| first1= P. R.| last2= Wolff| first2= G.| last3= Daily| first3= G. C.| last4= Hughes| first4= J. B.| last5= Daily| first5= S.| last6= Dalton| first6= M.|display-authors=etal |year= 1999| title= Knowledge and the environment| journal= Ecological Economics| volume= 30| issue= 2| pages= 267–284| doi=10.1016/s0921-8009(98)00130-x| doi-access= free}}</ref>
<blockquote>The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] reports offer an antidote to junk science by articulating the current consensus on the prospects for climate change, by outlining the extent of the uncertainties, and by describing the potential benefits and costs of policies to [[climate change mitigation|address climate change]].</blockquote>

In a 2003 study about changes in environmental activism regarding the [[Glacier National Park (U.S.)|Crown of the Continent Ecosystem]], Pedynowski noted that junk science can undermine the credibility of science over a much broader scale because misrepresentation by special interests casts doubt on more defensible claims and undermines the credibility of all research.<ref>{{cite journal| last= Pedynowski| first= D| year= 2003| title= Toward a more 'Reflexive Environmentalism': Ecological knowledge and advocacy in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem| journal= Society and Natural Resources| volume= 16| issue= 9| pages= 807–825| doi=10.1080/08941920309168| s2cid= 144702458}}</ref>

In his 2006 book ''Junk Science'',{{sfn|Agin|2006}}{{page needed|date=July 2018}} Dan Agin emphasized two main causes of junk science: fraud, and [[ignorance]]. In the first case, Agin discussed falsified results in the development of [[Organic field-effect transistor|organic transistor]]s:{{sfn|Agin|2006|p=39}}
<blockquote>As far as understanding junk science is concerned, the important aspect is that both Bell Laboratories and the international physics community were fooled until someone noticed that noise records published by [[Jan Hendrik Schön]] in several papers were identical—which means physically impossible.</blockquote>

In the second case, he cites an example that demonstrates ignorance of statistical principles in the lay press:{{sfn|Agin|2006|p=63}}
<blockquote>Since no such proof is possible [that [[genetically modified food]] is harmless], the article in ''The New York Times'' was what is called a "bad rap" against the U.S. Department of Agriculture—a bad rap based on a junk-science belief that it's possible to prove a [[null hypothesis]].</blockquote>

Agin asks the reader to step back from the rhetoric, as "how things are labeled does not make a science junk science."{{sfn|Agin|2006|p=249}} In its place, he offers that junk science is ultimately motivated by the desire to hide undesirable truths from the public.

The rise of [[open source]] (free to read) journals has resulted in economic pressure on academic publishers to publish junk science.<ref name=":1">{{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=292 |language=en}}</ref> Even when the journal is peer-reviewed, the authors, rather than the readers, become the customer and the source of funding for the journal, so the publisher is incentivized to publish as many papers as possible, including those that are methodologically unsound.<ref name=":1" />