Is ‘junk science’ a bigger issue today than in the past, and are Americans getting the level of science education they need?
In her July editorial, Dr. Marjorie K. Jeffcoat, editor of The Journal of the American Dental Association, took a look at what "junk science" is, where it comes from and how it affects public policy and public perceptions of scientific matters.
"My definition of junk science is a publication that has the tone and trappings of science, but is so fundamentally and demonstrably flawed as to lack any serious claim to credibility," said Dr. Jeffcoat.
In an article in Jan. 31 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert L. Park, Ph.D., listed seven warning signs that a scientific claim may lie outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse: the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media; the discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work; the scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection; evidence for a discovery is anecdotal; the discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries; the discoverer has worked in isolation; and the discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.1
The July JADA Question of the Month about junk science was in two parts.
In response to the first question, 84 percent of respondents said that in their view, junk science is a bigger issue today than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Several readers said that the Internet and the media were to blame. "The Internet has made dissemination of information so easy anyone can post anything, true or false," said one. "And too many people latch on to Internet information even without supporting evidence."
"General science news seems to be reduced to alarmist sound bytes and corporate press releases," said another.
Eight percent of respondents to the first question said they did not know if junk science is a bigger issue than in the past, and eight percent said it is not. "The general public’s ability to evaluate scientific literature has always been a problem," said one of the latter respondents.
"The biggest problem with junk science is that it appeals to the emotions and the sensibilities without having data to back it up," said Dr. Daniel M. Meyer, associate executive director, ADA Division of Science. "On the surface it seems to be correct, and it is not until you look at it more closely using scientific methodology that it comes up short."
In answer to the second question, 84 percent of respondents said that, in general, Americans are not getting the level of science education they need. "Our education system seems to have shifted back to the basics with no time for science," said one reader.
"As a nation, we are not prepared to make judgments based on scientific knowledge or understanding," said another.
Eight percent of the second question’s respondents said they think Americans are receiving an adequate education in science. And eight percent said they did not know. "It depends on the level of scientific education that they are able to easily understand and to integrate into their lives," said one.
