Junk science

Junk science is spurious or fraudulent 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 environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. Author Dan Agin in his book Junk Science harshly criticized those who deny the basic premise of global warming,^[1]

In some contexts, junk science is counterposed to the "sound science" or "solid science" that favors one's own point of view.^[2] Junk science has been criticized for undermining public trust in real science.^[3]^{: 110–111} Junk science is not the same as pseudoscience.^[4]^[5]

^ Cite error: The named reference Union-Tribune 2006-10-22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Neff RA, Goldman LR (2005). "Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards". Am J Public Health. 95 (Suppl 1): S81–91. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. hdl:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. PMID 16030344. S2CID 10175577.
^ Dariusz Jemielniak; Aleksandra Przegalinska (2020). Collaborative Society. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262356459.
^ Kaufman, Allison B.; Kaufman, James C. (2019-03-12). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-262-53704-9. Pseudoscience is different from junk science...
^ Fang, Ferric C.; Casadevall, Arturo (2023-10-31). Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better. John Wiley & Sons. p. 172. ISBN 978-1-68367-434-4.

[Union-Tribune_2006-10-22-1] Cite error: The named reference Union-Tribune 2006-10-22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Neff2005-2] Neff RA, Goldman LR (2005). "Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards". Am J Public Health. 95 (Suppl 1): S81–91. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. hdl:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. PMID 16030344. S2CID 10175577.

[JemielniakPrzegalinska20202-3] Dariusz Jemielniak; Aleksandra Przegalinska (2020). Collaborative Society. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262356459.

[4] Kaufman, Allison B.; Kaufman, James C. (2019-03-12). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-262-53704-9. Pseudoscience is different from junk science...

[:4-5] Fang, Ferric C.; Casadevall, Arturo (2023-10-31). Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better. John Wiley & Sons. p. 172. ISBN 978-1-68367-434-4.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]