In the United States, junk science is any scientific data, research, or analysis considered to be spurious or fraudulent. 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 first invoked 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. In these contexts, junk science is counterposed to the "sound science" or "solid science" that favors one's own point of view. This dichotomy has been particularly promoted by Steven Milloy and the Advancement of Sound Science Center. This is somewhat different from issues around pseudoscience and controversial science.
Read more about Junk Science: History, Use As Corporate PR, Use By Scientists
Famous quotes containing the words junk and/or science:
“Clearly, some time ago makers and consumers of American junk food passed jointly through some kind of sensibility barrier in the endless quest for new taste sensations. Now they are a little like those desperate junkies who have tried every known drug and are finally reduced to mainlining toilet bowl cleanser in an effort to get still higher.”
—Bill Bryson (b. 1951)
“The well-educated young woman of 1950 will blend art and sciences in a way we do not dream of; the science will steady the art and the art will give charm to the science. This young woman will marry—yes, indeed, but she will take her pick of men, who will by that time have begun to realize what sort of men it behooves them to be.”
—Ellen Henrietta Swallow Richards (1842–1911)