GIGO

Science and Junk Science

For every PhD there's an equal and opposite PhD. That bon mot is gaining legitimacy, with increasing attempts to use science to support almost any contention desired. In the US, such "junk science" provides a good income for lawsuit "experts" and is proving a headache for the scientific community.

I thought of this recently when receiving the results of a study we initially reported on in June 1991. The soils of biodynamic farms were being compared to those of conventional farms, and the researcher confidently announced back then that he expected to find better soil quality in the former; he has been proved right.

As we remarked at the time, there's no surprise in that, given the common organic practices that biodynamic farms undertake. There was no control to show whether the soil improvements came from the use of organic manures, crop rotation and the like or from the biodynamic "etheralised Cosmic-Astral influences". It's an important point, and one which tends to invalidate any conclusions those reading the study may reach concerning the efficacy of biodynamics per se as a means of improving soil structure. I was impressed to see that this caveat was included in the press release. It's not often that the limitations of a particular methodology are mentioned in such material.

I was also impressed by a recent National Radio discussion on the problems associated with research into the effects of nicotinamide on juvenile diabetes. The researcher's request to dose children nationally was turned down because the methodology was suspect. The initial pilot study has provided some grounds for optimism, but the ethics committees and reviewers were concerned about the design of the national study.

The researcher could find no parent prepared to take part in a double-blind, placebo-inclusive trial -- if there were any benefits, all were determined to gain from them. (Apparently altruism no longer has any motivational value.) In addition, he was convinced that his treatment was working and was not prepared to do such a study anyway.

It may be hard to distinguish between good science and junk science, but the distinction is an important one if we are to critically evaluate what our experts say.

Vicki Hyde is the editor of New Zealand Science Monthly.