From:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/10...051-450&CID=10
51-070203E

Junking Junk Science
By Iain Murray 07/02/2003

The label "junk science" has been one of the most powerful tools in ensuring
that political and legal decisions are taken based on only the soundest of
footings. Alarmism, hype and scaremongering have all been avoided by
scrutinizing scientific data and evidence to check that it conforms to good
scientific practice. If it doesn't, it is junk science. Over the past
decade, we have seen more and more safeguards put in place to stop junk
science influencing political or judicial decisions. Now, however, the very
concept is under attack. And the tactic the interest groups are using in
their onslaught is to cry "censorship."

The tactic is quite recent. It began a month or so ago when questions were
raised in certain publications such as Harper's and In These Times over the
effects of the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA). Enacted in December 2000, it
requires that data used to support laws and regulations should conform to
strict scientific standards. One of the first targets under this piece of
legislation was the thoroughly discredited U.S. National Assessment on
Climate Change, which relied for much of its alarmism on two climate models
which were proven to have no more predictive power than tables of random
numbers. As Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia put it, the
assessment "breaks the cardinal rule of science: If a hypothesis doesn't
work, throw it out. The Assessment can't pass the simplest of scientific
tests."

Yet for reasons that are hard to fathom, the administration continues to
disseminate the discredited document. The questions in the publications
alluded to above focused on continued attempts to get the executive branch
to conform to the FDQA. Both Harper's and In These Times suggested that the
attempt to expunge junk science from the record was aimed at censoring
science.

This is essentially arguing that black is white. If science does not conform
to basic scientific standards, it isn't science. Censorship just isn't the
issue. What is at issue is the assurance to taxpayers that policies they pay
for are based on the soundest scientific basis.

Yet the argument is not only used in relation to the FDQA. We saw it again
on June 20, when the New York Times ran an editorial about the controversy
over the White House's changes to the recent EPA report on the State of the
Environment. Once again, the National Assessment was at issue. The White
House, perfectly reasonably, asked for references to this junk science to be
removed. The entire basis of the EPA's case on climate change therefore
collapsing, the agency removed all reference to climate change, leading the
Times to deploy once again the accusation of censorship, arguing that the
administration "wants to bury any research findings that global warming may
be a threat to human health or the environment."

Editorials all over the country took up the cry. The Hartford Courant said
"government policy on this issue ought to be based on the best scientific
evidence, not politics." The Atlanta Journal Constitution charged "the White
House slaps down science in favor of its corporate oil friends." The Idaho
Statesman, home paper of Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, the favorite to succeed
Christie Todd Whitman as the head of EPA, said, this "is an administration
that seems determined to shape science around policy, not the other way
around."

Now even the judicial safeguards against junk science are under attack for
the same reasons. Ten years ago, on June 28 1993, the Supreme Court handed
down its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that
ruling it established that expert scientific testimony should be subject to
a set of rules for admissibility. The testimony should be based on a
testable theory or method that had passed peer review; it should possess a
known error rate and/or standards; and it should reflect "generally
acceptable" science. The new standards stopped large numbers of charlatans
and crackpots who had previously posed as experts from testifying in court,
where they might have been able to convince a jury that they knew what they
were talking about. Instead, it was judges who now had the responsibility of
deciding whether scientists possessed enough credentials to lay their
evidence before a jury.

Yet now the junk scientists are fighting back. After years of seeing their
claims of environmental health risks being ruled inadmissible owing to lack
of statistical significance or other sound reasoning, they have taken to
calling the Daubert ruling scientific censorship, with the added twist that
they claim it aids "polluters." The Wall Street Journal's Science Journal
column took their claims at face value on June 27, under the headline,
"'Junk Science' Ban Also Keeps Jurors from Sound Evidence."

The allegations against Daubert are summarized in a report available at the
ironically titled Defendingscience.org. The scientists concerned make three
basic charges against Daubert. First, that exclusions of "expert" testimony
from the courtroom rose significantly after Daubert. This is, of course,
exactly what Daubert was designed to do. Secondly, that defending against
challenges to scientific reliability is "chilling" and puts scientists off
testifying. But if their science meets basic standards, they will meet the
required tests. Thirdly, there appears to be a disparity in Daubert's
application between civil and criminal cases (in criminal cases, neither
side can afford to challenge admissibility). This may be true, but it is a
red herring, failing to establish any reason why Daubert itself is a bad
thing.

The charges of 'scientific censorship' are disingenuous. What they are
really aimed at is abolishing the concept of junk science. Without rules
protecting us from junk science, the scaremongers, alarmists and trial
lawyers will have a field day. Junk science rules, far from censoring
science, champion it.

"Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in
news:Z71Oa.399862$Vi5.10314374@news1.calgary.shaw. ca:

> From:
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/10...PID=1051-450&C
> ID=10 51-070203E
>
> Junking Junk Science
> By Iain Murray 07/02/2003
>
> The label "junk science" has been one of the most powerful tools in
> ensuring that political and legal decisions are taken based on only
> the soundest of footings. Alarmism, hype and scaremongering have all
> been avoided by scrutinizing scientific data and evidence to check
> that it conforms to good scientific practice. If it doesn't, it is
> junk science. Over the past decade, we have seen more and more
> safeguards put in place to stop junk science influencing political or
> judicial decisions. Now, however, the very concept is under attack.
> And the tactic the interest groups are using in their onslaught is to
> cry "censorship."
>
> The tactic is quite recent. It began a month or so ago when questions
> were raised in certain publications such as Harper's and In These
> Times over the effects of the Federal Data Quality Act (FDQA). Enacted
> in December 2000, it requires that data used to support laws and
> regulations should conform to strict scientific standards. One of the
> first targets under this piece of legislation was the thoroughly
> discredited U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change, which relied
> for much of its alarmism on two climate models which were proven to
> have no more predictive power than tables of random numbers. As Pat
> Michaels of the University of Virginia put it, the assessment "breaks
> the cardinal rule of science: If a hypothesis doesn't work, throw it
> out. The Assessment can't pass the simplest of scientific tests."
>
> Yet for reasons that are hard to fathom, the administration continues
> to disseminate the discredited document. The questions in the
> publications alluded to above focused on continued attempts to get the
> executive branch to conform to the FDQA. Both Harper's and In These
> Times suggested that the attempt to expunge junk science from the
> record was aimed at censoring science.
>
> This is essentially arguing that black is white. If science does not
> conform to basic scientific standards, it isn't science. Censorship
> just isn't the issue. What is at issue is the assurance to taxpayers
> that policies they pay for are based on the soundest scientific basis.
>
> Yet the argument is not only used in relation to the FDQA. We saw it
> again on June 20, when the New York Times ran an editorial about the
> controversy over the White House's changes to the recent EPA report on
> the State of the Environment. Once again, the National Assessment was
> at issue. The White House, perfectly reasonably, asked for references
> to this junk science to be removed. The entire basis of the EPA's case
> on climate change therefore collapsing, the agency removed all
> reference to climate change, leading the Times to deploy once again
> the accusation of censorship, arguing that the administration "wants
> to bury any research findings that global warming may be a threat to
> human health or the environment."
>
> Editorials all over the country took up the cry. The Hartford Courant
> said "government policy on this issue ought to be based on the best
> scientific evidence, not politics." The Atlanta Journal Constitution
> charged "the White House slaps down science in favor of its corporate
> oil friends." The Idaho Statesman, home paper of Gov. Dirk Kempthorne,
> the favorite to succeed Christie Todd Whitman as the head of EPA,
> said, this "is an administration that seems determined to shape
> science around policy, not the other way around."
>
> Now even the judicial safeguards against junk science are under attack
> for the same reasons. Ten years ago, on June 28 1993, the Supreme
> Court handed down its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow
> Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that ruling it established that expert
> scientific testimony should be subject to a set of rules for
> admissibility. The testimony should be based on a testable theory or
> method that had passed peer review; it should possess a known error
> rate and/or standards; and it should reflect "generally acceptable"
> science. The new standards stopped large numbers of charlatans and
> crackpots who had previously posed as experts from testifying in
> court, where they might have been able to convince a jury that they
> knew what they were talking about. Instead, it was judges who now had
> the responsibility of deciding whether scientists possessed enough
> credentials to lay their evidence before a jury.
>
> Yet now the junk scientists are fighting back. After years of seeing
> their claims of environmental health risks being ruled inadmissible
> owing to lack of statistical significance or other sound reasoning,
> they have taken to calling the Daubert ruling scientific censorship,
> with the added twist that they claim it aids "polluters." The Wall
> Street Journal's Science Journal column took their claims at face
> value on June 27, under the headline, "'Junk Science' Ban Also Keeps
> Jurors from Sound Evidence."
>
> The allegations against Daubert are summarized in a report available
> at the ironically titled Defendingscience.org. The scientists
> concerned make three basic charges against Daubert. First, that
> exclusions of "expert" testimony from the courtroom rose significantly
> after Daubert. This is, of course, exactly what Daubert was designed
> to do. Secondly, that defending against challenges to scientific
> reliability is "chilling" and puts scientists off testifying. But if
> their science meets basic standards, they will meet the required
> tests. Thirdly, there appears to be a disparity in Daubert's
> application between civil and criminal cases (in criminal cases,
> neither side can afford to challenge admissibility). This may be true,
> but it is a red herring, failing to establish any reason why Daubert
> itself is a bad thing.
>
> The charges of 'scientific censorship' are disingenuous. What they are
> really aimed at is abolishing the concept of junk science. Without
> rules protecting us from junk science, the scaremongers, alarmists and
> trial lawyers will have a field day. Junk science rules, far from
> censoring science, champion it.
>
>
>
>

Apparently you didn't see the Swiss met. agency's assessment.