oe

I've been discussing the reliability of science with some folks on a board outside II. The verdict there seems unfavourable. One plausible reason kept emerging--the infiltration of various undesirable non-science agents, especially corporations, into the funding process.

What kind of evidence can anyone provide, yea or nay, regarding the appropriation of science for the disreputable among corporate ends?

Sean

Marduk

well, you could start with the tobacco industry, smoking? cause cancer? No way!
you can then move on to the 'industry' of trial 'experts' highly paid individuals who will, from a 'scientific' point of view explain to the jury why the lawyer who signs his check is absolutely correct.
Then move on to testing firms (not all mind you) who will 'test' the 'reliability' of your product; wow! this is a great product! (unless you plug it in, small print section)
Then we have our 'think tank' scientists who's studies just happen to support the ideology of the tank.
Others whose funding also depends on their conclusions etc.
It seems like pure research is disappearing, when I worked at Bell Labs, years ago, it was alive and well, until they dismantled AT&T, now it's too expensive. I guess it still exists at some Universities.

oe

I see I need to refine the question.

Do you have evidence of the *prevalence* of disreputable science?

Sean

Toto

Do a search on "Junk Science." That's where one group of scientists accuse another group of bad science for corporate or private profit, or for ideological purposes.

E.g. <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/improp/junkscience.html" target="_blank">http://www.prwatch.org/improp/junkscience.html</a>

<a href="http://www.healthyskepticism.org/" target="_blank">http://www.healthyskepticism.org/</a>

Also, the Republican Congress elected in 1994 deregulated the pharmaceutical industry, and a lot of medical research is now done with an eye to future profits. There have been charges that this distorts research, and that studies done by drug companies are more likely to show a drug is effective than studies done by those without a stake in the drug.

Steven S

Be carefull which sites you look at.
I did a search on this and came across this site:
<a href="http://www.junkscience.com" target="_blank">www.junkscience.com</a>
After reading a few articles it became apparent that there existed an anti-enviorement, pro-corporate bias to the site. But then if you look at the author you find he is affiliated with the corporate funded, liberterian Cato Institute.

Boshko

Ah, let me guess you've run into some post-modernist/structuralists? The common mistake that these sorts make is pointing out ways that the scientific method etc. has been perverted by money/social constructs/whatever and then jump from these quite uncontroversial statements to ones that say that the scientific method is basically an illusion and the output of the scientific establishment can be best understood as a reflection of the interests/culture of said establishment. Sure you'll find lots of bought and paid for scientists who're perfectly willing to say (and usually believe, what with cognitive dissonance and all) that global warming isn't happening or what have you, but the bulk of scientists are working in the right direction. And even the money-grubers will get pulled in the right direction eventually because having science that is true and that works will eventually produce a lot better drugs/whatever than the alternative.

oe

One of them was spouting a lot of structuralist rhetoric, but I doused his sputtering flame with ease. The remainder of the people said roughly what you say here:


Before this was proposed to me, I hadn't pondered the problem of potential funding bias. A few questions emerged from my deliberations as a result.

How do we know how far to trust the broadscale findings of science to date? What if some important fields of research are being ignored because of lack of funding? Has anyone tried to determine the prevalence of research bias resulting from conflict of interest in funding? Who does this meta-research? We need an empirical science of science, so what is it called?Anthropology of science? Sociology of science?

Bill

The proper subject is called, appropriately, History and Philosophy of Science. The <a href="http://www.aaas.org/" target="_blank">American Acadamy for the Advancement of Science</a> lists that discipline as one of 25 categories (one of which is called "No Section" for the uncategorized) of AAAS "Fellows" who have been honored for their "efforts on behalf of the advancement of science or its applications [that] are scientifically or socially distinguished." (See <a href="http://www.aaas.org/about/aaas_fellows/AAAS_Intro.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> for more on this.) There are also science ethics specialists within that overall discipline. Finally, there is another one of the 25 categories called "Societal Impacts of Science and Engineering" which also looks at the sorts of issues you raise.

The bottom line here is that there are those within the scientific community who are "disinterested outside observers" who can and do evaluate the exact sorts of issues that you raise. It would be false to state that "research funding bias" does not exist: of course it does! But it would also be false to state that there are no good sources of unbiased (or contra-biased) funding for worthy research programs. There are plenty of consumer advocate groups who will fund pro-consumer research. There are plenty of environmental activist groups who will fund pro-environment research.

The bottom line here is this: if there isn't anybody willing to fund some given piece of research, then either the research is not perceived by any possible funding source as having a good cost/benefit ratio or else it is perceived as just plain wasteful.

Finally, Congress indirectly funds a great deal of so-called "primary research" (research which is not designed to lead to any direct benefit, but is instead designed to uncover new knowledge solely for the sake of the value that new knowledge adds to our civilization) through numerous funding mechanisms, including grants made through the National Acadamy of Science, the Dept. of Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA), which incidently invented the Internet out of just such a research program, and the Department of Energy, which funds most of the basic research into quantum mechanics and string theory out of a desire to better understand just how nuclear weapons work.

Frankly, it is really hard for me to conceive of a worthwhile research program that literally nobody would have any interest in funding.

== Bill

Triple Six

A big problem is that nobody quite knows what science or a scientist is. In Joe Public's view a "scientist" can be anything from a spotty 16 year old lab technician in a white coat to an eccentric old man in an ill fitting suit, providing the story surrounding the person fits their preconceptions.

With this loose definition just about any bullshit artist can pass themselves off as a "scientist" and start pursuing their own political or economic agenda and the press, being generally ignorant of science and too lazy to check or understand credentials, lets them get away with it. In other words a lot of what is called unreliable science isn't science at all but the backlash hits the good with the bad.

jayh

The overall basis would be looking for sufficient independent confirmation. This would help deal not only with corporate biased science (and a lot of good science is done in business) but also mistakes, misinterpretations and personal biases. Funding is only ONE area for distortions to occur.

That's really where science shines, seeing what is standing when the dust settles.

As far as what has not yet been investigated... we have no way to know what we're missing, but certainly we are missing more than we are finding. That's the nature of knowledge.
j