垃圾科学

垃圾科学（英语：Junk Science）是虚假或欺诈性的科学数据、研究或分析。这个概念经常在政治和法律背景下被引用，在这些背景下，事实和科学结果在做出决定时具有很大的影响力。该词带有贬义色彩，即该研究是由政治、意识形态、金融或其他不科学的动机不良所驱动的。

这一概念因民事法律纠纷中的专家证言（英语：expert testimony）环节而在1990年代流行起来。最近，这一词汇也用来批评某些公司出于自身目的而研究的环保、公共卫生相关危害（有时也用来反击这些批评）。

在某些语境，“垃圾科学”也指的是任何与讲话者本人所认定的“真科学”（sound science）相左的科学研究。^[1]

历史

“垃圾科学”一词在1985年之前就已经有人在用——美国司法部1985年一份报告称：

不正当科学证据（一般称“垃圾科学”）已经导致一部分科学研究无法获当今科学、医药界共识所认可。^{[原文 1]}^[2]

1989年，气候学家杰瑞·马尔曼（英语：Jerry Mahlman）将“全球变暖是由于太阳周期活动造成”的观点批判为“喧嚣的垃圾科学”（noisy junk science）。^[3]

注解

^ 原文：The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

参考资料

^ Neff RA, Goldman LR. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. Am J Public Health. 2005,. 95 Suppl 1: S81–91 [2017-08-17]. PMID 16030344. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. （原始内容存档于2009-05-17）.
^ "Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability" （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437) p.39:
Another way in which causation often is undermined — also an increasingly serious problem in toxic tort cases — is the reliance by judges and juries on non-credible scientific or medical testimony, studies or opinions. It has become all too common for 'experts' or 'studies' on the fringes of or even well beyond the outer parameters of mainstream scientific or medical views to be presented to juries as valid evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific and medical knowledge. Most importantly, this development has led to a deep and growing cynicism about the ability of tort law to deal with difficult scientific and medical concepts in a principled and rational way.
^ Roberts, L. Global warming: Blaming the sun. Science. 1989, 246 (4933): 992–993. PMID 17806372. doi:10.1126/science.246.4933.992.

[2] 原文：The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

[Neff2005-1] Neff RA, Goldman LR. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. Am J Public Health. 2005,. 95 Suppl 1: S81–91 [2017-08-17]. PMID 16030344. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. （原始内容存档于2009-05-17）.

[3] "Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability" （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437) p.39:
Another way in which causation often is undermined — also an increasingly serious problem in toxic tort cases — is the reliance by judges and juries on non-credible scientific or medical testimony, studies or opinions. It has become all too common for 'experts' or 'studies' on the fringes of or even well beyond the outer parameters of mainstream scientific or medical views to be presented to juries as valid evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific and medical knowledge. Most importantly, this development has led to a deep and growing cynicism about the ability of tort law to deal with difficult scientific and medical concepts in a principled and rational way.

[4] Roberts, L. Global warming: Blaming the sun. Science. 1989, 246 (4933): 992–993. PMID 17806372. doi:10.1126/science.246.4933.992.

[1]

[原文 1]

[2]

[3]