Search results

Here is an insider's look on how to know when data should be taken seriously and when they should be ignored. (Hint ... it's all about where you find it.)

What do consumers think about organic or genetically modified foods? Demographics don't seem to make a difference, but according to a recent survey "food ideology" does.

Pope Francis can claim many firsts; he is the first non-European Pope since 741 AD, the first from the Americas and the first from the Southern Hemisphere. Given his nuanced positions on science issues like climate change and agriculture, some might also consider him the first scientific Pope. That isn't correct, but he may be the most scientific in history.
Francis is not scientific due to credentialism, he does not have any advanced degree in chemistry. Instead, he is scientific by behavior.

Scientific journals discriminate against industry scientists, unless, that is, they happen to work for the environmental or organic industries. Those scientists don't have to follow the same rules governing the disclosure of conflicts of interest that everybody else does.

In 2010, the profit for Elsevier, one of the world' leading publishers of technical, medical and scientific information, was 36 percent of its revenue – which exceeded Google's, Apple's and Amazon's. How did Elsevier do it? The company made use of a simple business model developed by Robert Maxwell.  
 
 
 
 

In a lawsuit CSPI, in its fifth decade as America's premier sue-and-settle faux consumer advocacy group, claims the marketing for PepsiCo's Naked Juice is "misleading" because it can have more sugar than some of Pepsi's cola drinks. We have zero interest in defending Pepsi, but it didn't create that sugar, nature did.

Lawyers are routinely required to solve problems that they themselves created. If something like this were to occur in any other area of life, it would be called racketeering. So beware, science: a lawsuit-happy nation turns its eyes to you.

Social media platforms, fringe websites and activist groups are well-known sources of unscientific nonsense. Less discussed is the fact that ideological activism masquerading as research often finds a home in prestigious academic journals. One journal in particular has a long history of publishing such dubious content—The Lancet.

Is bias a problem in science and science reporting? Well, sure. The desire to vindicate one's presuppositions plagues all areas of human knowledge. What makes science special, though, is the lengths to which its practitioners go to avoid letting bias affect their results and the willingness of its practitioners to subject their claims to merciless and thorough critical analysis by others.

This piece appeared on NationalPost.com.

The American Council on Science and Health turns 25 this year and its reputation for being one of the most controversial nonprofit groups around is still intact.
It is self-described as a consumer education organization "dedicated to providing the public with mainstream scientific information on issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health."

Anyone remotely familiar with the scientific method understands that just like a ruler or a telescope, statistics is a tool. Scientists use the tool primarily for one purpose: To answer the question, "Is my data meaningful?" Properly used, statistics is one of science's most powerful tools. But used improperly, statistics can be highly misleading.

As courts bash sound science and generate questionable decisions, an old cry for constituting “science courts” has been revived. Ethical dilemmas created by scientific advances also cry for resolution. Some believe that special tribunals dedicated to scientific questions might be a panacea. I advise against this facile solution.

An informative Washington Examiner article by T. Becket Adams hits the nail on the head in explaining the major problem plaguing science that ACSH has worked to combat: junk studies, and the sloppy media coverage that ensues. The piece also includes quotes from many experts associated with ACSH.

The scientific publishing industry is thoroughly dishonest and corrupt, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the journal Science are now also a part of the problem. Here's a disturbing case in point.

1. Dr. Julianna LeMieux and I were at the Cato Institute for the Dr. Ed Calabrese talk on the linear no-threshold model (LNT) used to set regulatory limits.
Members of our Board of Scientific Advisors, like Dr. Jerry Cutler and others, have long-considered LNT to be the Patient Zero of junk science used to create regulations. It basically says that particle 1 is as harmful as particle 1,000,000. Also mixed in the discussion is hormesis, a u-shaped curve in dose-response, which can also be controversial when misused by activists.

This article originally appeared on http://www.Spiked-Online.com.
The new US protocol that says scientists with corporate connections are unfit to judge drug safety smacks of modern-day McCarthyism.

To err is human, but unfortunately, so is coping with mistakes and errors. A controversial paper on vaping, which has been retracted, demonstrates the more subjective, human side of science.

"Science" took a walk on the wild side in a recent New York Times piece. It tried to tell us that the tiny amount of a class of chemicals found in macaroni and cheese (and everywhere else on Earth) is going to wreak havoc with our sex hormones. It's so bad, it's almost funny.

Pesticides can be very dangerous; they're also vital tools farmers use to produce our food. Here's a guide to help you navigate the media maze of sloppy reporting on pesticide safety.

Jeff Stier's New York Post piece "9/11 Junk Science" inspired negative letters and a critical response from U.S.

This piece first appeared on TheDailyCaller.com.
Studies published in peer-reviewed journals become the basis for everything from the advice your doctor gives you to the very laws that govern us. A journal s ability to tell good science from bad is critical. But some journals have used poor judgment, and even replaced judgment with a bias of their own.

Today we give a mega-shoutout to Alex Berezow over at RealClearScience for his brilliant letter to Dr.Oz.

Washington Post published a bizarre, long conspiracy op-ed about what scientists know - and the sources were a statistician, an environmental lawyer and a sociologist. Our other media coverage last week was more sane.

"Peer review" of scientific articles before publication is often considered the "gold standard" of reliability, but its luster has become tarnished by greed – the desire of the research community to tap into research funds, the pressure on scientists to publish or perish, and publishers of scientific journals seeking to maximize profits.