Junk Science and Environmental Policy: Obscuring Public Debate with Misleading Discourse

The term "junk science" has become a fixture of popu lar and journalistic parlance, with media accounts leaving the impression that junk science is pervasive and far-reaching. News stories and OpEds suggest that junk science is especially troublesome in the arena of environmental policy. We are told that an "epidemic of junk science is afflicting the courts," that "scientific fraud is endemic," that "federal agencies [are] running amok with junk science," and that "the core of real science [has been] overwhelmed by a flurry of junk science." One newspaper editorial asserted that " [t]here is a battle taking place in America today between real science and junk science .... " Many in the environmental science and policy communities might dismiss such claims as journalistic exuberance. While it is well known that the quality of environmental research in the U.S. varies, with plenty of room for improvement, there is li ttle reason to accept the existence of any sort of crisis. The National Science Board's Task Force on the Environment recently completed an exhaustive review of the state of environmental science in the United States. The Task Force conducted hearings and town meetings, solicited commentary from scientists, government agencies, and the private sector, and reviewed hundreds of reports and documents relating to environmental research and assessments. While this effort resulted in numerous suggestions and recommendations, nothing in the report suggests an epidemic of junk science. Recent reviews of the Environmental Protection Agency support the same conclusion, as do current annual reports and leadership messages from the National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Cow1cil for Science and the Environment. However, w idespread media claims about the preva lence of junk science should be taken seriously. For most people, the news media are the most in1portant sources of information about environmental issues. Studies show that public attitudes about the environment tend to mirror the content and emphasis of media stories . While one can find debates over the merit and desirability of environmental and public health policies in such venues as the courts, legislative proceedings, public meetings, hearings, protests and other events, the media playa central role in these debates by providing forums for public discourse through OpEd pieces, letters to the ed itor, and so on; and by reporting on debates occurring in other forums. Even more importantly, examination of media accounts of junk science helps reveal how the public is asked to view environmental science. According to syndicated columnist, Ellen Goodman, " [We] need