Like many other ideological? terms, there is often no general agreement as to which side of a debate constitutes "junk", and which "real" science. Debates on environmental and health issues seem particularly prone to this problem. Junk science is largely a result of the lack of factual verification by the modern media? and by the consuming public. Publicity is easier to get if you publish outrageous claims.
Critics such as John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch point out that the term "junk science" is often used to deride scientific findings which contradict the corporate goal of profit maximization. In their book Trust Us, We're Experts (2001, New York), they cite detailed examples of how industry has launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science", often failing to employ the scientific method themselves. For example, the tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research showing negative effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, through veiled industry-funded PR organizations such as the "Tobacco Institute Research Council" (p. 230). Another example for discrediting disliked scientific findings is a large industry campaign to "reposition global warming as theory, not fact" described in detail by Stauber and Rampton.
External Links:
[JunkScience.com], run by self-proclaimed "junkman" Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a columnist for FoxNews?.com.
[Junk Science and the Art of Spin Doctoring], an analysis by Stewart Fist
[PR Watch], an organization that provides regular information about the PR industry and its activities
[How Big Tobacco Helped Create "the Junkman"], analysis by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
[The PR Plot to Overheat the Earth], article by Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton detailing industry's disinformation campaign about global warming
[Correcting Myths from Steven Milloy], links and analysis of claims by Milloy et al.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)