wa123

Thanks to Sandra for sending us the following article...Myrl When Science is 'Pathological' Chemistry Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir related in a landmark 1953 speech his visit to the laboratory of J.B. Rhine at Duke University where Rhine was claiming results of ESP experiments that could not be predicted by chance, and which he ascribed to psychic phenomena. Langmuir discovered that Rhine was only selectively counting the data in his experiments, omitting the results from those he believed were guessing in order to humiliate him. The evidence? Rhine felt that some of the scores were too low to have occurred by chance, and that it would, therefore, actually be misleading to include them. Langmuir dubbed this deviation from the principles of the scientific method pathological science, the science of things that aren't so. This sort of chicanery is increasingly common among certain self-_style_d public interest groups, who are less devoted to fudging data to get the right answer than to grossly misrepresenting the results in order to achieve some hidden agenda. Most often, that agenda is not protection of public health or the environment, but intractable opposition to, and obstruction of, whatever research, product or technology the activists happen to dislike. Often, the targets of activists'opprobrium are socially beneficial and highly cost-effective products or processes. Activists often try to stigmatize whatever they dislike via guilt by association with greedy or irresponsible corporate interests. But for several reasons, including the importance of corporate branding, avoidance of liability and a desire to succeed in the marketplace, industrial research most often adheres to high professional and legal standards, including peer-review. When it doesn't, the scientific method and market forces collaborate to ensure that, ultimately, chicanery and dishonesty are exposed and punished. By contrast, activist-funded research is commonly held to a far lower standard. Its claims are invariably promoted by alarmist press releases and reported by the media, but seldom are they independently peer-reviewed or published in scientific journals. Sadly, policy makers, the media and the public come to accept this pathological science as credible, especially after it is repeated again and again. Examples have become more frequent as special interests promote health scares as a way to support litigation. The distortion of science has given rise to flawed policies and regulations, interference with research that offers potential benefits to society, increased public health risks, unwarranted scares, frivolous lawsuits, and higher costs of R&D. Some examples: · In 1998, British researchers published a study that suggested an association