How valid and resilient is the available information to make informed policy? How are conflicts of interest in policy decisions handled?
Like any business, think tanks and policy organizations utilize their names and mission statements to persuade the public of their credibility. It’s no wonder then that regardless of your politics, many organizations, on their face, appear to authoritatively advocate for disinterested and science-backed policies. However, not all think tanks operate with the same rigorous and peer-reviewed processes to validate their perspective. Studies of how think tanks are referenced in the media show that news agencies routinely exacerbate this confusion by suggesting false equivalences of findings by evidence-driven, peer-reviewed research think tanks and one-sided advocacy organizations (Haas, 2007).
In the process of making decisions, most policy makers would blush at the idea of presenting any policy without sound reasoning and evidence to support their proposal. Similarly, think tanks or individuals, which the government may defer to, are also rarely without some form of evidence to back up what they’re saying. However, just as a flashy advertising campaign can convince some that a product is more valuable than it’s actual worth, research can also be manipulated as ornamentation to spruce up what would otherwise be shoddy or convenient conclusions for their perpetuators. This is junk science.
In areas of science and regulation where particular conclusions can have long-term effects on the health of particular industries or special interests, the pool of evidence that pertinent regulatory bodies pull from can be fraught with fraudulent research and deception, that is junk science, aiming to undermine or reverse detrimental policies. Particularly in the case of a new policy or scientific findings that challenge an advantageous status-quo, debate may quickly leave the realm of science altogether to gossip or scandal as vested interests seek to compete on more feeble levels when the science is not in their favor.
Science Denial
Just as Junk Science can be used as a means of defending policies or beliefs that are advantageous for some, other tactics can be used to derail unappealing policies or deny inconvenient truths. For instance, in the book-cum-documentary “The Merchants of Doubt”, professor Naomi Oreskes documents the Denialists Playbook created by the tobacco industry and adopted by other interest groups to evade scrutiny and adverse policies of their interests’ detrimental practices. While the playbook has been interpreted differently to fit the needs of each application, as Oreskes has suggested in the Climate Change debate, the typical strategy used to support the denial of inconvenient findings includes denying and/or down playing the problem, digging up dirt on or slandering their critics, pointing fingers at other causes, funding counter-studies, insist that any findings on the matter are inconclusive, and finally, evoke deceptive, misleading appeals to values, like freedom, to distract the issues at hand.
In 2014, Tufts University published a list of helpful reminders from the school’s Nutrition Communication Program to help readers sort through spurious diet claims. While each field of science may have its own tell-tale signs of junk science, we’ve paraphrased their list here to apply in your own science policy analysis.
Junk Science and Policy for Emerging Science
An unfortunate consequence of scientific pursuit is that often research and development is being conducted in an absence of norms and policies that safeguard against dangerous, deceptive, or unethical practice. At other times, research, just like any other tool, can be repurposed or interpreted as a means to defend whatever end is desired.
When creating or assessing science policy, being aware of the tactics of junk science is a key means of sorting fiction from science-derived and science-first policy recommendations. That said, one should also be aware of how easily findings can be derided as Junk Science. In some cases, the very best tactics that naysayers have in their arsenal is deflecting any criticism right back on to the findings and policies of the scientists whose views they oppose. So, it’s important to analyze scientific findings and policies from a number of angles, which we have outlined below.
References and Further Reading
- Malkan, S. (2019). Public Interest Groups to USA Today: Ditch Corporate Front Group Science Columns. US Right to Know. Retrieved from https://usrtk.org/news-releases/public-interest-groups-to-usa-today-ditch-corporatefront-group-science-columns/
- Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195-228.
- Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society open science, 3(9), 160384.
- Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51-61.
- Haas, E. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 63-102.