Making Important Decisons Based on "Sound" Science

Written by Jack Hassard

On September 21, 2008

Sound: a: free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension <sound reasoning> b: exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience <sound scholarship> c: legally valid <a sound title> d: logically valid and having true premises e: agreeing with accepted views

Science: a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

This week the first Presidential debate will take place, and although the topic will be foreign policy, the science and technology decisions that the U.S. government makes have global consequences. It is important as teachers to help students understand how science information is and should be used in making important decisions.  Isn’t this a simple matter?  Use the results of science to formulate the decisions that need to be made. Just use “sound” science.

Maybe not.  The term “sound science” was first used by the tobacco industry to try and discredit research that had shown that secondhand smoke endangered nonsmokers.  They did this by using public relations to claim that the research upon which the claim was made (secondhand smoke endangers nonsmokers) was “junk science,” and that any decisions that health officials should make should be based on “sound science.”

Elisa Ong, MD, and Stanton Glantz, PhD, reported this in their article Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms in the American Journal of Public Health:

The tobacco industry has attacked “junk science” to discredit the evidence that secondhand smoke—among other environmental toxins—causes disease. Philip Morris used public relations firms and lawyers to develop a “sound science” program in the United States and Europe that involved recruiting other industries and issues to obscure the tobacco industry’s role. The European “sound science” plans included a version of “good epidemiological practices” that would make it impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke—and thus other environmental toxins—caused diseases.

In yesterday’s post, I explored what the candidates said about the role of science education in our society.  Today I want to explore another question which asked the candidates to reflect on recent criticism leveled at the Bush administration for using political interference to alter scientific reports, and indeed to use language that casts doubt on scientific research.  It is in this context, that you will see the terms “junk science” and “sound science” used, especially by politicians.  The champion for using the term “sound science” is Senator James Inhole, who has claimed that human-caused climate change (global warming) research is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on Americans.

Here is the question presidential candidates Obama and McCain were asked.

Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job.  Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

Of course the short answer to this is NO.  If you asked your students to discuss this question, what would be some of their comments?  Would they be surprised that scientific results have been altered, or that political views can be used to filter the way scientific evidence is used?  What do they think Obama would say in response to this question?  What do think McCain would say?

Ok.  Now, here are two excerpts taken directly from the the candidates’ responses to the question on scientific integrity. Can you match the the statements with the candidates?

Candidate 1: I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting-edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America’s citizens. Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views. I have already established an impressive team of science advisors, including several Nobel Laureates, who are helping me to shape a robust science agenda for my administration.

Candidate 2: We have invested huge amounts of public funds in scientific research.  The public deserves to have the results of that research.  Our job as elected officials is to develop the policies in response to those research results.  Many times our research results have identified critical problems for our country.  Denial of the facts will not solve any of these problems.  Solutions can only come about as a result of a complete understanding of the problem.  I believe policy should be based upon sound science.  Good policy development will make for good politics.

Note that one of the candidates used the term “sound science.”  What does this say about the future of science and science education if this candidate is elected?  And to find out which candidate said, please follow this link, and then scroll down to question #12.

You May Also Like…

The Leader of The New Democrats

The Leader of The New Democrats

In this post, I summarize the powerful messages and commitments from Kamala Harris’s speech at the Democratic National Convention. I also emphasize that she is one of the leaders of The New Democrats who promise unity, justice for all, an opportunity economy, reproductive freedom, border security with a path to citizenship, and collaborative international relations.

Project 2025

Project 2025

Discover the alarming initiatives proposed by Project 2025 that threaten our fundamental rights and public services. It includes a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping ultraconservative overhaul of the executive branch. Trump denies knowing the plan, but it was written for him—a rapist, fraudster, traitor, felon, racist, bigot, & misogynist. 

President Biden and His Predecessor in Georgia

President Biden and His Predecessor in Georgia

On Saturday, March 9th, Joe Biden and his predecessor visited Georgia a few days before the March 12 primary. In Georgia, the media appears to treat President Biden and his predecessor as equals in the 2024 presidential race. But they are not—not by a long shot. The media is replicating how they covered the 2020 presidential race. This is a failure of the free press to discern the real difference between the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate, who happens to be President of the United States. The Republican candidate sought to stay in office in 2020 by staging a coup on January 6th, 2021. He lost the election by 7 million votes and still to this day, claims the Big Lie that the other side stole the election from him. Millions of Americans believe this, also. This is the underlying context that the press forgets to mention. The predecessor spent for years while sitting in the White House chipping away at the guard rails of democracy. Thankfully he was an under achieving autocrat.

0 Comments

We would enjoy reading your comments

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Citizen Jack

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading