"Asbestos" has been linked with the perjorative term "junk science" in different ways on the internet. This web site describes four distinct areas where the term has been used to describe an asbestos issue.

What is Junk Science?
"Junk science" applies to seemingly objective, scientific statements that are really heavily biased and pseudo-scientific. Junk science has 3 characteristics.

1)   Perpetrator has credentials that qualify them as "expert", usually M.D. or Ph.D. The "science" may be offered in a publication, sworn testimony, or in comments for the press.

2)   Perpetrator has evident bias. Usually they are simply being paid by some attorney, company or agency that is favored by their findings. If not directly paid, they have an identifiable agenda, usually political or economic.

3)   The issue is scientifically testable. The junk scientist may have studies, but tbey are "junk" -- pseudoscientific or lacking in proper controls. If properly controlled or contradicting studies aleady exist, the junk scientist ignores or disregards them.

Once junk science is recognized, the following typically occurs:

• Challenger offers clear refutation, usually by pointing out the bias, quoting relevant studies, or demonstrating the absence of evidence.
• Junk scientist doesn't respond with rational argument or any meaningful evidence. If they do respond, their attitude is usually "It is because I say it is." The junk scientist does not enter into any rational, scientific argument, because they have none.

It is important to distinguish "junk science" from statements that aren't science at all, i.e., they are not offered by people with credentials, or who claim to be experts in the field. Also, a lot of what is called "junk science" is just obviously flawed logic. This distinction is made clear in Internet Bunk: The Junk Science Page.

Probably the most notorious example of junk science in the previous century was tobacco company "research" that purported to show cigarettes are safe. No properly designed study could come to this conclusion, but tobacco companies sponsored "science" to this purpose. Pure junk. More recently their junk science research is extending into the effects of second hand smoke.

Another example is provided in a brief review of junk science in the 1990s, the ban on silicone breast implants.

Below are four different categories, culled from internet web sites, where "junk science" has been applied to asbestos. At the bottom of the page you will find books on junk science linked to Amazon.com.

DISCLAIMER: Except for the two sites I created critiquing specific medical publications (last category), I do not endorse any of these sites. They are presented as examples of how the term "junk science" has been applied in regards to asbestos issues. If I missed any important web sites, or these links no longer work, please let me know.

"Junk science" applied to irrational concern over asbestos

World Trade Center Syndrome

Cost of asbestos junk science continues to mount

Did Asbestos Ban Cost Lives?

The Great Asbestos Heist: Did Litigation and Junk Medical Science Helped [sic] Bring Down the World Trade Center?

"Junk science" applied to statements that minimize asbestos risks

Letter to the editor of science for publication.

Corporate Junk Science: Corporate Influence at International Science Organizations

"Junk science" applied to reports & testimony in asbestos screenings

Most often commented on is testimony by plaintiff experts, but defense experts are not immune from also presenting junk science arguments.

A Rare Chance to Control Junk Science

The Furor over Junk Science: The Perspective of a Plaintiff's Attorney

Asbestosis testing scandal

Keeping Junk Science Out of the Asbestos Litigation
This web site is an abstract of "Keeping Junk Science Out of the Asbestos Litigation," by David E. Bernstein, George Mason University School of Law (Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 11, 2003). From this web site the article can be downloaded in adobe format. You can also click here to read the full article.

"Junk science" applied to medical articles on asbestos

Medical Journal Publishes 'Junk Science' Asbestos Article

American Thoracic Society Publishes Biased, Flawed Review of Non-Malignant Asbestos Disease

Books on junk science from Amazon.com

Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, by Peter W. Huber
Although published in the early 1990s, its premise is quite current: the unwarranted authority of "junk science" in legal proceedings.

Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts, by Kenneth R. Foster
Discusses landmark 1993 Supreme Court handed ruling on the use of scientific evidence in federal courts, and its consequences.

Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case, by Marcia Angell
Angell, a past executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, argues there was no medical consensus to support the premise for the ban.

Legal Alchemy : The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law, by David L. Faigman
How our legal system uses scientific knowledge in reaching decisions; includes disussion of specific cases (e.g., Dow Corning silicone breast implant lawsuit).

Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law, by Kenneth R. Foster
Editors include Foster and Huber ("Judging Science" and "Galileo's Revenge", respectively, listed above), and David Bernstein, author of the Pepperdine Law Review article quoted in 3rd asbestos category.

Posted December 6, 2004
Return to Dr. Martin's asbestos index
Return to Dr. Martin's global index