2 More Criticisms of Content in Journal 'Science'

By Thom Golab — Feb 18, 2020
In criticizing the journal Science, when it rains it pours.
Image courtesy of truthseeker08 on Pixabay

A few days ago, Dr. Berezow wrote about how the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the journal Science increasingly put their thumbs on the scale when choosing what science to report and share.

Dr. James Enstrom, a member of our Board of Trustees and Board of Scientific Advisors, has also taken Science to task, specifically, over the EPA’s planned revision of the rules governing science transparency. You can find a more detailed explanation of the controversy here. Dr. Enstrom, along with another member of our Board of Scientific Advisors, Dr. Stan Young, argue that, “This rule is needed because certain EPA-related findings are etiologically implausible and the authors of these findings refuse to address criticism and/or to conduct requested reanalysis.” Their specific concerns, classic studies of air pollution that have been used by the EPA to set air pollution standards. You can find their entire arguments here.

Thom Golab

Thom Golab is the President of the American Council on Science and Health. Prior to becoming President in 2019, Mr. Golab joined ACSH as Vice President of Development in May 2017 and has served on the ACSH Board of Trustees since 2012.

Recent articles by this author:
ACSH relies on donors like you. If you enjoy our work, please contribute.

Make your tax-deductible gift today!

 

 

Popular articles