It takes at least 10 years and exhaustive research before drugs are allowed on the open market. After all of this the drugs will come out and become a great benefit to millions. Then comes "the study"; the lone study that makes a correlation between the drug and some kind of malady. The media immediately takes this lone study as gospel and wildly publicizes it. People who had once benefited from the drug now think that all of their health problems are because of this drug. People start coming out of the woodwork with sanctimonious faces telling everyone their sob stories about how they have been victimized. Then the lawyers get involved. They sue the stuffing out of the drug companies and ignorant but well meaning juries go along with it. Years later a new study comes out and disproves the first study but the damage is done. The list is long with products such as breast implants, Fen Phen, and others. We wonder why drugs are so expensive in the United States. It is a wonder that any drug company can ever stay in business. If things don't change there may very well not be any in the future. Yes we must be very vigilant in not allowing bad drugs on the market but it seems that junk science and mass hysteria are the rule of the day, and keeping so many promising drugs from ever coming to the market.

ohhhh dear Brutus...WHAt ARe yer like kid..
yes. the 'poor' pharmaceutical industry (can see the sun shining out of their fat arse as i ttype)....how innocent thy all are, and those nasty nasty people sueing them and stuff. tut tut. the outer darkeness for them i am sure.

what's your universe like btw?

ohhhh dear Brutus...WHAt ARe yer like kid..
yes. the 'poor' pharmaceutical industry (can see the sun shining out of their fat arse as i ttype)....how innocent thy all are, and those nasty nasty people sueing them and stuff. tut tut. the outer darkeness for them i am sure.

what's your universe like btw?

I had resolved not to respond anymore to Duendy's agenda rich stew of 'down with the patriarchy'; 'the medicos and the media are in league to lie about mental illness';'if you aren't with me you are against me';('I could write and spell properly if I wanted to, but I have a difficult system').
However, I have a personal interest in the drugs industry. For about $25 a month (UK NHS) the drugs I take keep me alive and passably healthy. For all the faults they may have (and there are many) Duendy's stereotypical rant against the drug companies does their beneficiaries no favours and makes Duendy look like a bitter, blinkered bigot.
(The alliteration was just for you Duendy, so you can take another hit at my language.)
Brutus, regretably you make a valid point.

He's on your side of the pond, I'll buy you a pint if you go over and smack him on the head, Ophi :)


But on Junk Science, I have to agree that it is problematic for society. I'm not convinced that the issue with the drug industry is a simple one, however, since there's definately a certain amount of culpability with the FDA. After all, the drug industry is comprised of private corporations and these are quite predictable in how they'll operate. By nature, they wan't to make money and will maintain the best profit margin they can, skirting whatever limitations they can (since these will, invariably, cut into their profits). In order to keep them under control, the FDA must operate with a heavier hand. If price controls, advertising controls, objective research controls, etc. are needed, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the drug companies to set these - it should be the government.

Still, there's a lot more "Junk Science" out there beyond the drug companies that should concern us, particularly with regard to the Bush Administration's influence on the scientific process. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wrote a piece in The Nation (Feb. 2004) in which he stated: "[T]he Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda."


Then there's the Junk-Junk Science! There's also a lot of criticism of various scientific thought that has merit and supporting research. An example that I noted recently was Fox News' so-called "junk science" response to the Harvard University study (Schulze, 2004) that noted a significant risk of Type II Diabetes among young and middle-aged women who consume soft drinks. At least I think this was the study Milloy was referring to. A

t any rate, it was picked up by many news outlets and is heralded as gospel on the junk-junk science site that calles itself Junk Science (http://www.junkscience.com/). They do have some interesting information and its good to see a balance to the environmental naysayers, but overall JunkScience.com is an obvious political arm of right-wing conservatism. Objective thought isn't their goal, furthering the cause of neo-conservatism is. That's one thing they have in common with Fux News.

References:

Kennedy, Robert F., Jr. (Feb. 2004). The Junk Science of George W. Bush.The Nation, found at: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=kennedy

Milloy, Steven (Jan. 27, 2005) Scientists Stonewall on Spurious Soda ScareFox News, found at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145644,00.html

Schulze, Matthias B., et al (2004). Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women JAMA 292:927-934.

But, as long as there are vast amounts of money to be made in drugs, the drug companies will sacrifice the common good for the sake of profit, like the tobacco industry has done, and the auto industry has done countless times. I would not trust the drug companies own research which could be biased. An independant study, like with Vioxx, can reveal dangers that the would otherwise be covered up.

Brutus, you should consider that you too are a victim of mass hysteria against lawyers.

There is no doubt that junk science is a waste of human resources and time, and its affects on the human population consuming these harmful drugs are awful, yet up till this post I have yet to hear a solution for this continuing problem, any ideas anyone??

In addition, regarding to the extremly high prices of drugs in the american market, I have to admit that I agree totally with the previous posts.
My grand parents take such like drugs and after hearing the price that they have to pay I was disgusted :mad: . It is quite ovious that the current drug companies give no regard to the medical requirements of the average population, take from the rich and disregard the poor.

We could start with appointing doctors, not representatives of the drug industry, to regulatory positions in the FDA.

We could allow the government to negotiate lower prices as a group with the drug industry.

We could have universal health care funded by taxes.

There is no doubt that junk science is a waste of human resources and time, and its affects on the human population consuming these harmful drugs are awful, yet up till this post I have yet to hear a solution for this continuing problem, any ideas anyone??
********

d) love and information. i am not an extremist. i can see that pharmaceuticals allopathic drugs can help in certain ways. But it is all symptom based. and this apporach refelcts the overall mechansitc philosophy.
so we have a situation where the rich can pick and choose and mix complimentary healing and orthodox, whilst the people with not much money CANT. and they are the ones living in the most polluted plkaces, eating the crap food cause its the cheapest, who dont get the right info from the culture about how to maintain health.
listen..Oph and Skin...you are NAIVE ..seriously though you think you aint. big phaRMA is a busyness? and you know the language of business dont you? expand right.....get it? they DEMAND illness for their profit. think on that too when you think about 'mental health' too!


In addition, regarding to the extremly high prices of drugs in the american market, I have to admit that I agree totally with the previous posts.
My grand parents take such like drugs and after hearing the price that they have to pay I was disgusted :mad: . It is quite ovious that the current drug companies give no regard to the medical requirements of the average population, take from the rich and disregard the poor.

EXACTLY! the poor always get it from the patriarchy. always have always will. TILL everyone that can speaks out against what is going on. which is what i intend to do every chance i get

like everything. religion, philosophy, this. ypu have to go explore the roots of it. how this alamagamation of medicines and pharma came about. How male controlled MEDICINE came about...once we start looking at that is a beginning

I've got your patriarchy hanging. :cool:


Sorry.. that was uncalled for, but I've been wanting to say it forever.

I've got your patriarchy hanging. :cool:


Sorry.. that was uncalled for, but I've been wanting to say it forever.

d__emmm sorry, i fial to see an insult. whats it mean?
also. stop focussin on the WORD 'patriarchy' and do a bit of exploring about its history. that way you wont keep on being silly

We're focusing on the word patriarchy?!!?!!!!???!?

When the FDA approves a drug for distribution the pharmaceutical companies should not be subject to all liabilities. The Drug companies did everything possible to prove there product is safe and the US government gave their stamp of approval. Since the government is involved why should the drug companies carry all the liability for the drugs? The answer is they should not. If a drug does harm the companies should make that person whole again. They should be liable for medical costs, lost wages, and all damages to the person, but there should be no punitive damages at all. The drug companies already did what they were supposed to do by going through the approval process with the FDA. They should not be held completely responsible.

That would be going beyond a discussion about "junk science" and into one about legislation and tort.

We're focusing on the word patriarchy?!!?!!!!???!?

exactly!!!

instead of, as i SAY, RESEARCHIN bout it. making an effort

When the FDA approves a drug for distribution the pharmaceutical companies should not be subject to all liabilities. The Drug companies did everything possible to prove there product is safe and the US government gave their stamp of approval. Since the government is involved why should the drug companies carry all the liability for the drugs? The answer is they should not. If a drug does harm the companies should make that person whole again. They should be liable for medical costs, lost wages, and all damages to the person, but there should be no punitive damages at all. The drug companies already did what they were supposed to do by going through the approval process with the FDA. They should not be held completely responsible.
Big pharma pays a fortune to the Bush administration ...to keep them in power. In July -from pressure from them and lots of cash--Bush passed a Bill to test EVERY woman, child, and man for 'mental illness'..!
read all about it at www.mindfreedom.org

we are talking the oppressors, big pharma and State as an amalgamation of power, which includes, social control of course.

Duendy

All companies pay to lobby the government. It isn't right but don't blame the private sector for what the government itself demands from them. The government, whether in the hands of Democrats or Republicans demands tributes. Bureaucracies are full of career people who work regardless of what party is in power. They have set up kingdoms for themselves and work very diligently to maintain it.

Don't believe everything you read in leftist websites. The website you gave me www.mindfreedom.org is not a credible source. The claims it made was not backed up by a single credible source. Leftist Websites and pressure groups are the worst purveyors of junk science. They want science to match their own political and social beliefs. The left holds the purse strings to a lot of grants from private foundations and government agencies. Scientists know who they must please in order to get their funding.

The problem is not with the pharmaceutical companies. They should be lauded and honored for the good work they do. They save millions of lives and give so many people a greater quality of life. If there is any blame for pharmaceutical debacles it should go to the FDA. It is a giant government bureaucracy, and with all big government bureaus it too is subject to corruption. It needs to be overhauled and reformed. It is rife with conflicts of interests.

oh puleeeze Brutus. you--you who believe in what you do are trying to lecture me what are 'credible sources' of information?

you get funnier by the minute fellah. i honestly dont mean you harm. therer is something innocent and ever so naive about your manner and beliefs, but ...really man. i woudn't know were to begin with you. dont know if i have the effort In me to even try

and as for mindfreedom. It is incredibly credible. its users and support are for the VICTIMS of the corruption you seem to so deaely love Science and State. they had a hunger strike while back where 'psychiatric survivors' took on the might of the APA. it makes for extremely interesting reading what happened

my experience of you, and people like you Bru, is this: that fundamentalist nonesense goes hand in hand with 'born again' imperialist fascism

on second thoughts. 'innocent and naive"? no. although i dont mean harm on you. you are FARRR from innocent. you are a deliberately ignore-ant person whose callous indifference to whats going on actuall FUELS it. the fact you back it up, and add your ridiculous religious beliefs to it, also addes evil fuel to the fire

you and yours are enimies to all the victims (not just now but the generations of them) of the vile system you spend your sorry time supporting

Duendy, re your last post. (And you had the nerve to accuse me of being patronising on another thread. Wow!)
Could you try to restate your argument without resorting to stereotypical rants against Science and State, and accusations that anyone who even remotely disagrees with you is a 'born again' imperial fascist, whatever that is. Please supply some links or substantiating references of substance to justify a single one of the points you have raised, relevant to this thread.

Duendy

I don't think any group that conducts a hunger strike could be called credible in any way. Their actions impeach themselves.

ohhhhhhhh))))))))))givemestrength
When people are faced with a multibillion £$ mega power base in the face, that not only wont listen, but continues to oppress people in severe debilitatingly evil ways, and noone else is listening, ESPEscially your fave--(BushW ho is getting a huge WAd from em),,,,,,,,, OFTENtimes they can be driven to such extremes! ...i know it's hard Brutus, but try to grasp this ...huh?

good afternoooon

The worst example of Junk Science was the banning of DDT. Millions of lives have been lost needlessly do to malaria. The claims in the book Silent Spring have never been backed up by science. Now we have another case of mass hysteria that makes the deaths of malaria seem miniscule in comparison. It is the resistance to genetically modified food. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that links any health problems with GM foods. In fact the opposite is true. Foods have been made more nutritious by them. They are more environmentally friendly because they require fewer pesticides and they produce more yields with less land. Yet with all these benefits the purveyors of junk science have convinced many governments and peoples of the world that they are unsafe. Millions who are starving to death especially in Africa could be saved but for the ignorance of people who should know better. What is the agenda behind the Anti GM food movement? Could it be a back handed way of controlling certain populations? Even if that is not their spoken agenda it is the end result all the same.

The left wants to destroy private enterprise. They don't go for appropiate compensation for injury. They go for destruction.

The left and the right are viturally the same. There are about 4 issues they really disagree on, and that's it.

Brutus, I think its ironic that you created a thread to discuss "junk science," but are succumbing to the very fallacy that "junk" science is made of. That is to say, your opinions regarding the validity of the claims are heavily influenced by bias and not objective realism.

I agree with you about DDT not having been studied appropriately enough for Rachel Carson to conclude in the 1960s that it was a cancer-causing agent. But it has been clearly demonstrated to be a significant cause of liver cancer in animal test subjects and her contention that the chemical thinned the shells of bird eggs was, I believe, validated (though I'm going off of a memory of data rather than accessing the primary source at the moment).

So there were significant deleterious problems associated with the chemical to warrant restriction, particularly since it was apparent that the insect species that were targeted developed resistance to the chemical and more efficient pesticides were available. Moreover, DDT was only banned in developed nations of the world and even this ban had exceptions for public health and certain agricultural uses. Indeed, in the malaria afflicted nations of the world, DDT was not banned. So your rant about the injustices of banning DDT would appear unfounded and conservatively biased propaganda.

Indeed, this is a trend I've noticed with Steven Milloy's JunkScience.com (http://www.junkscience.com) website and one of the problems I've noted with it.

But perhaps it would be best to define Junk Science. By all accounts, it is a subset of pseudoscience, an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions; a "false" science.

Milloy (who is also a writer for Fox News), defines Junk science as: "bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the "food police," environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune."

I have to agree with his List of Characteristics (http://www.junkscience.com/faqs.html) for identifying junk science, but I disagree with his initial definition (listed on the same page I linked). Science strives to remain objective and the devices of ridicule and hyperbole he employs makes his bias very clear. That's why the JunkScience.com website is, ironically, a "junk science" site.

I agree that there is much to learn from his site and that he and Barry Hearn offer valid points and questions, but there is a distinct bias that speaks of avoiding objective reality, which science strives for. Not that science, as an entity, is perfect at achieving objective reality, but it makes the effort. Moreover, Milloy's affiliation with affiliation with the Cato Institute and FoxNews underscores JunkScience.com's bias.

In the end, I think its better to judge pseudoscience as pseudoscience and not attempt to apply labels such as "junk" science. The former is more accurate and inclusive and doesn't have the bias edge to it that JunkScience.com and Milloy create. Their anti-environmentalist theme is clearly biased and unobjective, but perhaps not surprisingly considering the corporate/governmental quid pro quo that goes on with the Cato Inst. and Rupert Murdoch. There is undoubtedly some level of "chicken-little" mentality going on with the environmental community, but there is far too much data that is suggestive to not be concerned about environmental issues enough to encourage as much investigation as possible.

But then perhaps I'm only influenced by the fact that it was above 80 today when last year this time I was in a winter freeze.

But to bring up another pseudoscience topic that the government is responsible for: the Bush administration, last year, pledged $15 billion to fight Aids in Africa (http://www.ppnyc.org/facts/facts/federal_policy.html), but it has insisted that a third of the money be used for sexual abstinence and monogamy programmes. Since the 1996 passage of the welfare reform act, the federal government has spent over $800 million on “abstinence-only” education, most of it under the Bush administration. According to a study ordered by Rep. Henry Waxman (http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf), eleven of the thirteen most widely used abstinence-only curricula funded by the federal abstinence initiative contain scientifically false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.

It's clear that abstinence-only programs have not been proven to reduce sexual activity, pregnancy, or STDs (whereas comprehensive programs have), nor have abstinence-only programs been reviewed for accuracy by the federal government.

Condom use, however, has been demonstrated by both the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/std) and the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/) to be effective in reducing HIV/AIDS, STDs, and unwanted pregnancy.

It's clear that abstinence-only programs have not been proven to reduce sexual activity, pregnancy, or STDs (whereas comprehensive programs have),.

Thus demonstrating that you can't overturn a billion years of successful bonking with a good PR program. On the other hand if you have told 'them' not to do, but 'they' still go ahead, when 'they' become ill you can safely say 'It is your own fault. We warned you. Now we wash our hands of you.'
Its not the Christianity that I grew up with. :(

The left wants to destroy private enterprise. They don't go for appropiate compensation for injury. They go for destruction.
I'm left wing. I also devote the greater part of my waking time to advancing the progress of a 1/2 billion dollar a year service company in the oil sector. Care to re-think your stereotypes?

Brutus...this world can be confusing...the media, the this that shouting at you 'take this' 'dont take thaT; 'if you do this you'll get that' 'if you dON't...this' i am sure you get the pic

but i have a solution that may help me

write a book. just write a book with everything you agree with. and then I will know what NOt agree with. a deal? it will make my life simpler

The worst example of Junk Science was the banning of DDT. Millions of lives have been lost needlessly do to malaria.
No, an utter lie. What you'll find is that by the time DDT was banned in many western countries, it was unnecessary because teh mosquitos had been eradicated. Or, in the case of Sri Lanka, where various hacks are saying that malaria has made a come back due to no DDT, its not used there because the mosquitoes had evolved to become immune to it. Now they use parathion. And in parts of Africa, DDT spraying is still carried out in houses, I think once a year, because it is so effective. What matters is that it is not indiscriminately sprayed everywhere, thus reducing birds populations and causing increased resistance amongst mosquitos.

http://www.info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm


As for GM foods they are too expensive for the average farmer in developing countries. They are great for large companys who can afford them and the inputs needed for them, but the ultimate example of GM propaganda stupidity was the claim aout Vitamin A enhanced rice.

Brutus said:
I don't think any group that conducts a hunger strike could be called credible in any way. Their actions impeach themselves.

Yeah, like that loser Ghandi. What did he ever accomplish?

This is interesting, I read an article in WebMD that flu shots may be pretty well worthless. The study states "There is no correlation between an increase in flu vaccine coverage over the past two decades and a decrease in influenza-related deaths". So in other words the entire flu shot scare last fall was just a lot of hype. A lot of elderly people were needlessly worried that they were at an increased risk if they did not get the shot. Also, those who did get the shot are now under a false sence of security. Another example how junk science can cause mass hysteria and not only leave people more vulnerable but lighter in the wallat as well.

WebMD link to study of flu vaccines.

http://www.webmdhealth.com/nl/nl.aspx?id=30027894&s=186&p=men022305

That is more than possible Brutus; since influenza does mutate, a vaccine that was made months ago for a specific series of strains in Asia will not necessarily do you any good at all. (Virologists cannot predict the future any better than anyone else...)

When it comes to the flu shot, the political angle may be more salient. It is not imperative for the government to do anything, but it is imperative that they be seen to be doing something. If hospitals will buy into reflexology because "it makes people happy", then a useless flu vaccine that everyone believes is effective is just perfect for them.

This is interesting, I read an article in WebMD that flu shots may be pretty well worthless. The study states "There is no correlation between an increase in flu vaccine coverage over the past two decades and a decrease in influenza-related deaths". So in other words the entire flu shot scare last fall was just a lot of hype.
http://www.webmdhealth.com/nl/nl.aspx?id=30027894&s=186&p=men022305

No! That's complete bunk! Recently there was a <I><B>single</B></I> paper published that claimed that flu vax is not effective. 99% of all the other published studies over the years on the efficacy of flu shots says they are effective. So, on the basis on this single study, anyone claiming that....

...in other words the entire flu shot scare last fall was just a lot of hype...

....is exhibiting (as the thread title says) the "dangers of junk science". :mad: <P>

Brutus, may we take the absence of a riposte to mean you accept Hercules's point?

I think we can take an absence of response to your question about absence of riposte to mean he realizes he got in over his head. Perhaps there are some who do best with topics in which empiricism isn't a factor.... i.e. religion.

If no one minds me interrupting the bickering, I'll go back the original post about the "one study" causing drugs to be pulled off the market based on "junk science". I don't understand what you mean by "junk science". For example, the studies linking Fen Phen to an increased risk of heart attack etc, were done by educated scientists, published in peer-reviewed journals, and verified by further clinical studies. In what way is this junk science? The same is true of the studies linking Vioxx to increased risk of coronary disease. Not only were these studies performed by respected scientists, their findings were essentially back-up by leaked internal information from Merck on their own drug! The findings are scientifically indisputable. Again, is this junk science? Although in the case of Fen Phen the risk of using a non-regulated, non-FDA approved "drug" did not outweight the benefits of weight-loss, this is not the case with VIOXX and the COX-2 inhibitors in general. Do people with chronic and often debilitating pain have the right to choose to take a drug with proven efficacy at the slight risk of dying earlier than they would? Now that the truth about the Vioxx has come to light, this is surely a risk they should be allowed to choose to take. After all, we allow people to choose to smoke, even though the risks of dying from smoking are probably a million times greater than from taking Vioxx.

It is important to consider what constitutes "junk science". For example, a single study finding no link between rises in flu vaccine and decreases in deaths from influenza is not junk science simply because it contradicts the prevailing scientific wisdom. Science, after all, is not a collection of knowledge and facts where the true facts are "good science" and the false facts are "junk science". Science is a method of collecting facts: the "junkness" of the facts stems from the manner in which they were collected. If the study on flu vaccines was done with all the rigor of the scientific method, then it is "good" science.

An series of essays on the topic of what constitutes junk science and the reason some junk ideas remain persistens has been appearing in Angewandte Chemie for anyone that access to that excellent journal. I think the 2nd part is in the newest issue.

The problem is not with the pharmaceutical companies. They should be lauded and honored for the good work they do. They save millions of lives and give so many people a greater quality of life.

im pretty sure the pharm companies, and companies in general, dont give one shit about anyhting besides profit. if corporations were more concerned about saving lives and improving the quality of life then making money there wouldn't be an fda.

Why I think science is useless when any potential for bias is involved:

Suppose you have a scientific study and the people running it want the results to come out a certain way. There are many ways they can manipulate the results, some of them more subtle and hard to detect. Then there is always the possibility that they can just outright lie about something in order to bias the experiment and still have it look scientific. Who's going to question it? It costs money to verify. Anyways without even outright lying they can do things like:

1) They find some factor, any factor other than the drug, which causes the same result that they want the drug to be shown to.

2) They find a way to get more of these people affected by this factor in the experiment, but not in the control group. They are supposed to appear to select the population randomly, however its easy to create this illusion while still purposely allowing the factor in question to alter the results. For instance, if there is a statistical correlation between people who drink starbucks and people who have the factor in question because it makes people like bitter tastes more or something they can put a guy outside starbucks to collect subjects for the experiment. Then the next day send a guy across the street instead to collect subjects for the experiment. Then stealthily keep track of which subjects came from which gathering and put the subjects collected the second day in the control group.
If someone was to look at results, at most all they could see was that some of the subjects were collected 5 feet away from the others.

That's why the power of peer-review is such a great force in keeping scientists honest. There is always a potential for bias, but a researcher will go into a project knowing that this bias exists and can be problematic and will look for it. In fact, most researchers will seek out unbiased opinions of their work prior to publication.

So your criticism of science is unfounded for two reasons: 1) bias is a problem for all scientific research, and to dismiss science as "useless" is irrational... particularly when we are conversing through a product of science. 2) the peer-review process is the best check and balance for bias.

The problem of "bad science" arises when pseudo-researchers intentionally skirt the peer-review process with an agenda in mind (this happens with corporate agenda as well as political/religious ones). It's also problematic for drug companies bent on maintianing secrecy regarding products, since the peer-review process gets butchered in the process... often they act as their own "peers," which I see as a clear conflict of interest. But the dillema is that if they conduct trials and publish publically in journals, then rival drug companies can get a handle on their research and begin developing their own, competing drugs. This could be good for consumers in the short term, providing ample, well-tested drugs for medical problems, but bad in the long term. This is because the competition could eliminate the smaller companies that couldn't keep up financially, creating a situation where the larger, fewer companies survived.

That's why the power of peer-review is such a great force in keeping scientists honest. There is always a potential for bias, but a researcher will go into a project knowing that this bias exists and can be problematic and will look for it. In fact, most researchers will seek out unbiased opinions of their work prior to publication.

Your view has merit but fails to recognize one fact. The peer review process is biased and has an agenda.

The bias is that the "peers" are inclined to rip to shit any research in their field that fails to meet the minimum standard of scientific discovery. Therefore, one is expected to thoroughly cover all their bases prior to publication.

What would the agenda be?

The bias is that the "peers" are inclined to rip to shit any research in their field that fails to meet the minimum standard of scientific discovery. Therefore, one is expected to thoroughly cover all their bases prior to publication.

What would the agenda be?

Do some googleing. See how many papers by qualified physicists which presents experiments which advocates cold fusion results or finds disagreement with relativity which are rejected without review because they are taken at face value as being invalid.

This is a dangerous and unscientific position and shows an agenda. Advance the status quo, don't make waves. Any paper should only be rejected for specific proveable cause or error and not because it slaps the face of modern science.

If the evidence presented by the data were sufficient, would not the work speak for itself? Cold fusion is an area that probably gets the bad rap it deserves due to the extremely bad science that Pons and Fleischmann conducted.

You say science is concerned with the "status quo" and dislikes "waves" and that papers are rejected on that basis alone. I'd like to see you demonstrate that this is the case beyond a few cases. All I see is your criticism of the peer review process without validating citation.

If the evidence presented by the data were sufficient, would not the work speak for itself? Cold fusion is an area that probably gets the bad rap it deserves due to the extremely bad science that Pons and Fleischmann conducted.

You say science is concerned with the "status quo" and dislikes "waves" and that papers are rejected on that basis alone. I'd like to see you demonstrate that this is the case beyond a few cases. All I see is your criticism of the peer review process without validating citation.

You are free to believe as you choose. The facts however are that there are many good experimentors with quality credentials and excellent histories, that are now called quacks, crackpots, etc, after having done an experiment and gotten results leading them to question relativity.

Ronald Hatch is an example. A developer of GPS has turned against SRT because of how GPS functions, and is now basically black balled and ridiculed. But his point is physically absolutely valid as evidenced by GPS.

That's why the power of peer-review is such a great force in keeping scientists honest. There is always a potential for bias, but a researcher will go into a project knowing that this bias exists and can be problematic and will look for it. In fact, most researchers will seek out unbiased opinions of their work prior to publication.

So your criticism of science is unfounded for two reasons: 1) bias is a problem for all scientific research, and to dismiss science as "useless" is irrational... particularly when we are conversing through a product of science. 2) the peer-review process is the best check and balance for bias.

The problem of "bad science" arises when pseudo-researchers intentionally skirt the peer-review process with an agenda in mind (this happens with corporate agenda as well as political/religious ones). It's also problematic for drug companies bent on maintianing secrecy regarding products, since the peer-review process gets butchered in the process... often they act as their own "peers," which I see as a clear conflict of interest. But the dillema is that if they conduct trials and publish publically in journals, then rival drug companies can get a handle on their research and begin developing their own, competing drugs. This could be good for consumers in the short term, providing ample, well-tested drugs for medical problems, but bad in the long term. This is because the competition could eliminate the smaller companies that couldn't keep up financially, creating a situation where the larger, fewer companies survived.

I think you missed the main point of my post. Studies can be biased without any indication of it if you know what you are doing. The only thing that can stop this is to have other people conduct their own experiments. However doing so costs money, and the people conducting such verification experiments stand to gain absolutely nothing from it. Add to this the fact that they won't want to do it to begin with if the initial experiment "looks" unbiased, AND the fact that new experiments will probably start with the assumption that the first experiment came to the correct conclusion (which means either you are likely to have to accept the results of the first experiment even if they are untrue due to not being able to obtain a certain confidence level that the experiment was bogus, or you are going to have to up the sample size to ensure this doesn't happen which means more money..) then you realize that more often than not no verification is going to be done.

The points you added about the scientists being able to have their buddies "review" their work when noone knows they are in cahoots, and other related tactics merely serve to emphasize my point. If people are motivated to circumvent the system they will be able to.

Calling technology a product of science is a bit of a stretch. Someone would have built computers and the notion would have become widespread without the institution of science. If you can make something cool and that people actually want, the object in question is proof of the validity of your claims and reasoning.

The advantage science is supposed to provide is to allow us to collect raw information and save it and build off of it. Its not irrational to call science useless in situations where large amounts of bias exist. Rather it is irrational to develop such an attachment to the concept in situations where it just flat out doesn't work.

The philosophy of science really isn't that great. It ignores the fact that we live life from a first person perspective, and that we don't have a mental link to some majestic scientific body of knowledge. Rather things that science has supposedly proven are just pieces of paper to us. I can write a piece of paper to look like a research report and give it to someone for crying out loud. Its just a matter of how far someone wants to go to decieve you.

I remember the most rediculous claim I ever heard was one made by Quine. He said that the pursuit of epistemology (theory of knowledge) should be given up in favor of taking on authority of psychology what reasoning processes were reliable. Nevermind the fact that epistemology is how people caim to the conclusion that the scientific method has value, or that its used by psychologists to determine what generalizations are ok to make from their experiments, or the fact that if we need more information than common experience contains then we can just have psychologists gather it and make use of it ourselves.

It seems the more people become infatuated with the idea of science, the more their reasoning ability goes downhill.

It seems the more people become infatuated with the idea of science, the more their reasoning ability goes downhill.

I don't for a minute suggest that science, scientists, or the scientific method are infallible. After all, we're talking about humans who are the main driving force and humans are fallible.

Nor do I suggest that science is by nature unbiased. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that bias is a large part of science, since it is the bias that a particular researcher has about a hypothesis that drives him to try and prove (or disprove) it.

But I would suggest that most of science is conducted with bias in mind and with an understanding that it can and often will influence the outcome of a research design if not accounted for.

I would also suggest that many research designs fall victim to biases that aren't immediately seen, even by a rigorous peer review. But later (months, years... even decades) review and research can improve upon earlier attempts and often these earlier attempts are very useful. In the past, archaeologists, for instance, used to concentrate their efforts on excavating monumental architecture and the most grandiose sites used by the elite of a given civilization and then they drew their conclusions about the civilization based on these excavations.

Modern archaeologists, however, focus more frequently on the periphery sites inhabited by the common people -the non-elite. This gives them a better understanding of the civilization since the elite minority aren't a representation of the majority non-elite.

Is science or the scientific method as it's currently employed (along with the peer review process) perfect? Not at all. But let me ask you this question: what is a better method of discovery? How can science be improved? Should it be abandoned because there's a risk of bias?

My main concern is that the average person develops a logical level of skepticism of scientific claims and does not take scientific claims on any type of false authority. Also that they do not fall prey to the naive ways of looking at reality that science education proposes- that a theory is only useful if it has been "prooven" and that proof is a simple concept.

Do I think science could be improved? Well yes and no. I suppose it can always be made harder for people to inflict their bias. You might come up with some system where scientists employed by your competitors get to be present at your experiments, and have a nuetral FDA member present as well. Yes if better standards are developed they could go back and decide that earlier experiments need to be redone to verify under the new standards. But in the end bias could overcome anything.. People can be bribed, or everyone involved might just agree on something that the general public would not agree with. So they just use any method possible to decieve them.

So what is an alternative? If philosophy could be sorted out, then many discoveries made by science could be communicated to people in terms of their own first person experience. In many cases this is the same as the scientific method. For instance you might have learned something in physics by inference from your everyday experience or by purposely conducting an expirement to directly test what you wanted to know. If you see it for yourself and realize that it goes with everything you have experienced up to date then thats as sure as you can probably ever get about something.

There is a case where contemporary science differs from this view: Psychology... Psychology wants to develop theories of consiousness and people's behavior in terms of 3rd person experimental data when 1st person "experimental data" is abundunt and free for everyone. Theres plenty of information already it just needs to be sorted out.

Then in cases where people are pursuing research of something that doesn't concern anyone but the people researching it, then those scientist's theories will be based on THEIR first person experience. If they produce some profound piece of technology people don't need to know how it works to determine its value.

In the few cases where people's common experience provides no insight into the topic in question (like quantum physics) but for some reason scientists still want people to understand the theories regarding it, then your right something close to the science we have is probably the best method possible. But there is still a few changes to be made. Namely scientific claims to the community at large should not just be an opinion with a phd attached and a claim that it is scientificly founded. It should be the experimental results, combined with a clearly communicated suggestion regarding how to interpret the results. People can then evaluate the data for themselves (using the suggested interpretation if they come to the same conclusion), and just hope that the results weren't fudged. If they can't understand the "suggested interpretation" then they should just throw it out because it was poorly communicated.

So to summarize
1) The more controls on experimental data the better
2) Arguments should be put int terms of someones own first person experience whenever possible
3) Scientific opions should be the data in question along with a clearly communicated suggested interpretation. Not an opinion with a phd and a claim of "scientific authenticity" attached.

According to USA Today, NASA is suspending all shuttle launches until the problem with the foam surrounding the main fuel tank can be corrected. This was the cause of the Space shuttle Columbia disaster, and has also endangered the current Discovery Mission. A peace of foam was photographed shearing off during the Discovery liftoff and astronauts are checking the shuttle for damage.

NASA has used foam to insulate the large rocket booster without incident since the beginning of the Shuttle program. Why has it become an issue only in the last few years? The answer lies in junk science and environmental hysteria.

According to Greg Katnick, a Mechanical Systems Engineer, at NASA Kennedy Space Center. “The reason for the change in the type of foam is due to the desire of NASA to use "environmentally friendly" materials in the space program. Freon was used in the production of the previous foam. This method was eliminated in favor of foam that did not require Freon for its production. MSFC is investigating the consideration that some characteristics of the new foam may not be known for the ascent environment.”

In other words, in an effort to be more politically correct, NASA reformulated the foam in a method more pleasing to environmentalists by discontinuing the use of Freon in the production of the foam. The result has been the production of a more brittle and less stable product.

This caused the catastrophic destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia and all astronauts aboard. It has now endangered the lives of the current Discovery Crew. NASA should go back to what it knows to work best and ignore the activists. It is ironic that an organization dedicated to science would fall for the propaganda and junk science that is so prevalent in our society.

URL References:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-07-27-shuttle-inspection_x.htm

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html

http://brutus1964.blogspot.com

So, reliance on fossil fuels has lead to the death of millions in car accidents, wars, and deaths from pollution related diseases.

The wish to avoid excessive damage to the natural environment did not cause the problem. NASA should have tested the new foam's properties compared to the old freon-based type. Even tree-huggers wouldn't have desired that NASA use any product that endangered the lives of the astronauts, who BTW, tend to be environmentalists, too.

The extreme environmentalists don't believe in the space program any way. They see as man's attempt to pollute space. Yes there are a lot of environmentalists at NASA. This probably the reason NASA felt pressured into dumping the superior Freon-based foam and went with the untested but environmentally friendly foam. It never should have been changed in the first place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Freon. The entire Freon ban is based on junk science. There has never been a proven link to Freon and any environmental damage. Just another case of mass hysteria, but unfortunately this time it cost people their lives. But, to some on the extremes of the environmental movement there are too many people on the Earth anyway.

You know, if we keep at it, we'll pollute space too badly to escape. There's already enough high velocity crud in orbit to be dangerous to satellites and the like. Getting through it will be pretty rough.

We may as well look into figuring out how to coat spacehips in armor, as, according to this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47567&page=1&pp=20), the junk in orbit is acting something how a space battle would take place (minus the nukes).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Freon. The entire Freon ban is based on junk science.

Typical pseudoscientific bias in favor of corporate profiteering.

The problem with chloroflourocarbons is simple chemistry that even I can grasp (Molina and Rowland, 1974). Perhaps you should actually obtain and education that includes it, Brutus. CFCs are and have been detected at stratospheric heights in the atmosphere.

The reaction is very basic: Cl + O₃ --> O₂ + ClO

One chlorine molecule is liberated from the energy of UV striking the the CFC. The single chlorine molecule then reacts with a single atom of oxygen thus: O + ClO --> Cl + O₂

The result is a cycle of depletion of ozone since the single atoms of oxygen created by the reaction of UV + O₂ --> O + O are used in making the chlorine molecule instead of the ozone molecules in the reaction 2O + 2O₂ --> 2O₃

A report (WMO, 2002) of 250 scientists finds that restraints on production of ozone-destroying chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons had the desired effect: the concentration of the prime offender, chlorine, reached a peak, ozone began to increase in the stratosphere, and the "hole" began to shrink.

The real "bad science" here is in the form of the pseudoscientific means that corporations like Dupont will use monetary influence to create doubt among those less inclined to understand real science and how it works. People like Brutus are duped into accepting their claims, which, amazingly enough, seem only to sprout up in non-peer reviewed literature.

The peer reviewed literature is clear. CFCs are deleterious to the environment, specifically the ozone concentrations in the stratosphere that are essential in filtering UV radiation.

For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere (WMO, 2002). Increases in UV-B of 6-14% have been measured at many mid and high-latitude sites over the past 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). At some sites about half of this increase can be attributed to ozone loss.

In addition, Brutus, you didn't validate your assertion that the new foam used by NASA was inferior to that produced using freon. You simply made the sloppy and haphazard comment that "This caused the catastrophic destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia." You were, however, masterful at presenting only one of the possibilities listed on the NASA Quest site by Greg Katnik in, what is undoubtedly your best attempt, in demonstrating what "good" science is about.

References:

McKenzie, R., B. Connor, G. Bodeker, "Increased Summertime UV Radiation in New Zealand in Response to Ozone Loss", Science, 285, 1709-1711, 1999.

Molina, M.J., and F.S. Rowland, "Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone (http://www.unep.org/ozone/pdf/stratopheric.pdf)", Nature 249, 810-812, 1974.

WMO/UNEP, "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002 Executive Summary", World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, available at www.unep.ch/ozone/pdf/execsumm-sap2002.pdf

Ah, America ... the wonderful land where people love to sue the stuffing out of each other.

There's just so much love, y'know?

Skinwalker

Thank you for your comments in my blog. I wasn't sure who sent it because it said anonymous. I will go ahead and give you credit for that.

I did go over the links you sent me. It still does not prove that use of Freon or any man made CFC's do any real damage to the ozone. Volcanos such as MT. Pinatubo, and others put out more Chlorine and other gasses than mankind could produce in a thousand years and the ozone layer seems to survive that. The Earth cleans itself up pretty well. If that was not the case life never would have gotten a footing on this planet.

They have been predicting the destruction of the ozone layer for 30 years and it's still here. Yes there might be a seasonal thinning of ozone around the poles but this is a natural occurrence. Every September or so the media comes out with a story about the "Ozone Hole" opening up, then closes by December. It is not to evil humans using CFC's. Sunlight is required for the production of ozone, so it is very natural for ozone to thin during the dark months at the polls.

URL references:


URL references:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2003-11-20-ozone-hole_x.htm

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002100/a002183/

What do you care about space exploration, Brutus? Jesus is gonna come and sweep us up for some pie in the sky and solid gold butt plugs for everyone. If God wanted us to go into space, we would be born with built in jet packs and spacesuits.

It takes at least 10 years and exhaustive research before drugs are allowed on the open market. After all of this the drugs will come out and become a great benefit to millions. Then comes "the study"; the lone study that makes a correlation between the drug and some kind of malady.
All drugs cause side effects. That's because drugs are usually designed to treat symptoms instead of the actual problem.

The media immediately takes this lone study as gospel and wildly publicizes it. People who had once benefited from the drug now think that all of their health problems are because of this drug.
If they benefited from them, why did they have health problems?

People start coming out of the woodwork with sanctimonious faces telling everyone their sob stories about how they have been victimized. Then the lawyers get involved. They sue the stuffing out of the drug companies and ignorant but well meaning juries go along with it.
Ahhh... maybe not.

Years later a new study comes out and disproves the first study but the damage is done.
How come the firsat study is wrong and the second is right despite the fact they are supposedly equally done?

The list is long with products such as breast implants, Fen Phen, and others. We wonder why drugs are so expensive in the United States.
What about ROYAlTIES?

It is a wonder that any drug company can ever stay in business. If things don't change there may very well not be any in the future.
Doubtful.

Yes we must be very vigilant in not allowing bad drugs on the market but it seems that junk science and mass hysteria are the rule of the day, and keeping so many promising drugs from ever coming to the market.
Promising? They just fix symptoms of our unhealthy life style. Wtf!?

Wanna list? Check this out:
- depression is the number 1 cause of sickness in the world (great part of it is due to long and stressful work hours)
- obesity and diabetes are widely common, specially in the US, due to unhealthy eating and fitness habits
- anorexia nervosa, bulimia and other eating disorders are caused by unrealistic social expectations
- heart diseases are caused by unhealthy eating and lack of fitness
- cancer is mostly caused by unhealthy eating and unhealthy exposure to the sun and to chemicals
- in poor countries, lack of hygine causes a wide series of sicknesses that are practically unexistant in rich countries
- our food (specially vegetables) is bathed in pesticides (which is basically poison)
- most fishes are full of mercury
- there's lead in the air of many cities
- we produce carbon monoxide which is lethal to us (thankfully we don't pruduce it in enough quantities)
- we cause global warming
- we produced 2.6 billion tons of CO2 in 2002 (National Geographic, August 2005) which causes global warming and lung problems all over the planet (mostly in industrial and big cities)
- our industries produce lethal stuff and just throw it in the air we breath
- psychological problems are not covered by the government (and they the number 1 cause of social problems)
- we don't know whether transgenic food is safe in the long term
- antidepressants CAUSE suicides

Plus:
Tobacco and alcohol are legal drugs and theya re worse than marijuana, which is illegal (that makes lots of sense, eh?). Countless of deaths and sicknesses are caused by those things.


Looks like we are trying to kill ourselves... :eek:
The issue is not that we don't produce enough drugs, the issue is that we poison ourselves way too much.

What do you care about space exploration, Brutus? Jesus is gonna come and sweep us up for some pie in the sky and solid gold butt plugs for everyone. If God wanted us to go into space, we would be born with built in jet packs and spacesuits.

Spidergoat.

Yes Jusus is coming, but until he gets here I think we should explore space, study science, and learn everything about what God created for us. ;)

Skinwalker

Thank you for your comments in my blog. I wasn't sure who sent it because it said anonymous. I will go ahead and give you credit for that.

You're most welcome.

I did go over the links you sent me. It still does not prove that use of Freon or any man made CFC's do any real damage to the ozone.

Then obviously you are either incapable of comprehending their implications or so willing to subscribe your own beliefs that you ignore their meaning. The data are clear. Ozone is damaged by CFCs. The chemistry is very basic.

Volcanos such as MT. Pinatubo, and others put out more Chlorine and other gasses than mankind could produce in a thousand years and the ozone layer seems to survive that.

That's actually more pseudoscientific rhetoric from the corporate/political sources that seek to profit from continued CFC manufacture and use. Direct measurements of the stratospheric chlorine produced by El Chichon, the most important eruption of the 1980's (Mankin and Coffey, 1983), and Pinatubo, the largest volcanic eruption since 1912 (Mankin et. al., 1991) found negligible amounts of chlorine injected into the stratosphere. Volcanos contribute at most just a few percent of the chlorine found in the stratosphere.

The Earth cleans itself up pretty well. If that was not the case life never would have gotten a footing on this planet.

But will it "clean itself up" well enough to allow continued biodiversity? There is only one true test of that hypothesis... we shall have to wait and see.

They have been predicting the destruction of the ozone layer for 30 years and it's still here.

More evidence that you didn't read completely or perhaps comprehend the citations I provided. Indeed, I pointed out that the restrictions on CFCs have had a notable effect on the ozone levels above Antarctica in one of the citations of my previous post. The desired effect is occuring: ozone concentrations are improving. The period of CFC manufacture and use is directly correlated to the greatly diminished ozone concentrations over Antarctica.

Yes there might be a seasonal thinning of ozone around the poles but this is a natural occurrence.

Of course it is, yet the data suggests that this seasonal occurrence is exacerbated by the reaction of CFCs in the stratosphere. Learn the science and stop reciting the corporate rhetoric. It makes you sound foolish.

References:

Mankin, W., and M. Coffey, "Increased stratospheric hydrogen chloride in the El Chichon cloud", Science, 226:170, 1983.

Mankin, W., M. Coffey, and A. Goldman, "Airborne observations of SO2, HCl, and O3 in the stratospheric plume of the Pinatubo volcano in July 1991", Geophysical Research Letters, 19:179, 1992.

Curiously, Brutus doesn't reply.

He does delete the link to his blog, however. Wouldn't want any truth or facts to contaminate your own thing there, eh?

Do you have his website? May I take a look?

It's obvious that the pharmaceutical industry only profits from people's problems. Brutus seem to have completely forgotten about royalties...

One thing I'm curious about...
I thought CFCs were too heavy to reach the ozone layer. Or at least that is what some people have argued. How true is that, I wonder?

Skinwaker

Here is the response you have been anxiously waiting for. You talk about corporate profits, but at least with Freon it was corporate greed that got it banned in the first place. Freon got to be very cheap and DuPont was no longer making money from it. They came up with a substitute for Freon but it was much more expensive so no one would buy it. So what is a company to do? They wanted to dump Freon because there was no longer any money in it, but how can you make people willing to pay for a more expensive inferior product? You guest it! Float phony studies out to the press that Freon damages the Ozone Layer. The press will eat it up and not ask any questions. Environmentalists will make it the next cause celeb, and presto the UN steps in and does your dirty work via the Montreal protocols. Now DuPont and others are raking in millions pushing an inferior product for a lot more money when there was nothing wrong with Freon in the first place.

By the way. There are more comments in my blog. It seems you started quite the debate in there. http://brutus1964.blogspot.com

So you're saying that the chemical reactions I posted above are wrong? That the peer-reviewed studies that I cited are incorrect (without pointing out their errors)?

Dupont warned of collapse of "entire industries" and the CEO of Pennwalt warned of "economic collapse" (Glas, 1989; Cogan, 1988). None of that doom and gloom came true. The truth of the matter is that the CFC phase out has a net economic advantage, primarily because of the reduction of UV and the avoidance of problems associated with it (i.e. cancer) (Environment Canada, 1997).

The corporations manufacturing CFCs most definately did not want to "dump" CFCs. Which studies specifically are phoney? Molina and Rowland received the Nobel Prize for their work in chemistry that demonstrated the damage that CFCs do to ozone. Their work is publically available and reviewed thouroughly by their peers. It has not been refuted. Are you refuting it? If so, feel free to show your work.

But if you are referring to the "phoney studies" floated by the CFC industry, then you may be right. There are several industry "studies" and reports that are completely fictitious and spurious, and have been published primarily in the popular press - not in scientific literature.

If you continue to suggest that Molina and Rowland are wrong, you'll either have to put your money where your mouth is and show your work... or retract your statements. I predict you'll do neither.

References:

Cogan, D.G., "Stones in a Glass House", Investor Responsibility Research Center, Washington D.C., 1988.

Glas, J.P., "Protecting the ozone layer: a perspective from industry", In Technology and Environment (ed. by Ausubel, J.H. and H.E. Sladovich), Washington D.C., 1989.

Skinwalker

I am not saying the chemical reactions you are describing are wrong. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that the amount of Freon we were using for air conditioners and for the Space Shuttle foam had any measurable effect at all on the ozone layer. The fact that we banned it with only theories to go by was irresponsible and unnecessary. It is all about what is called the "precautionary principle" that states if something cannot be proven to be absolutely safe then it must be banned or kept off the market.

There is nothing wrong with being cautious and making sure products are safe, but the level in which we have gone is ridiculous. If we had of used the "PP" during the industrial revolution we would still be riding in horse and buggies. But, hey plenty of people died riding in them, so I guess those are out too.

So never mind the direct correlation of the use of CFCs and the observable effects of the ozone concentrations at high-altitude over the Antarctic, right? Interestingly enough, the concentrations drop and rise in direct correlation to the amounts of chlorine measured in the stratosphere. The chlorine rises in drops in direct correlation to the introduction then disuse of CFCs after their banning.

You don't find that at all convincing? You didn't actually read the citations that demonstrated the levels of chlorine, which is released in the reactions above, were increased during the years that CFCs also increased? Or the citations that note the decline in chlorine present with the subsequent decline in use of CFCs?

The pseudoscience is that which the politicians and CEOs are dressing up and presenting to the unwitting such as yourself.

Moreover, you have yet to cite any source that concludes that the current foam is of inferior quality than that of the previous used with the Space Shuttle. It that can be demonstrated, then I, too, would agree that the old method should be utilized. An exception should be granted and steps should be taken to minimize the pollution of chloroflourocarbons. But lets see the evidence first rather than make ignorant and foolhardy statements like, "this caused the Columbia accident." That is bad science, my friend.

SkinWalker

Correlation does not prove causation. Just because you can take a period of time that there may have been thinning in ozone, and an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not mean that the C02 caused the thinning, or that Freon from our air conditioners caused the increase in C02. You could just as easily make the case that there is a high correlation between people eating carrots and getting in car accidents, or because a lot of Chinese ate rice on a day it rained does not mean that Chinese eating rice caused it to rain. One does not cause the other no matter how high the correlation.

The studies I read and cited mentioned chlorine increases, consistent with the expected reactions of chloroflourocarbons with UV and O₂, no C0₂.

It is the fact that the predicted results of chemical reactions are consistent with the correlations that provides more likelihood than not that CFCs are directly responsible for ozone depletion.

What is most fascinating, however, is the continued refusal to acknowlege actual data in favor of psuedo-data which appears to fit the beliefs you wish to subscribe to. The status quo among your political ideology resembles a powerful form of magical thinking, very similar to that of young-earth creationists, proponents of ESP, and ETI-UFO believers.

One does not cause the other no matter how high the correlation.

If the correlation is 1, then one might as well have caused the other, since you can be sure that if one happens, so does the other.

Here are the facts about ozone depletion:

The presence of chlorine in the Ozone 'hole' is 400-500 times greater than it is outside the 'hole.'
Chlorine atoms in the stratosphere are catalytic, meaning the same chlorine atom can react with tens of thousands of ozone molecules
Chlorine atoms can remain in the stratosphere for long periods of time, perhaps a hundred years or more
For each 1% decrease in ozone, penetration of UV to the earth's surface increases 2%
The National Academy of Scientists concluded that for every 1% decrease in concentration of atmospheric ozone, there will be a 2-5% increase in cases of basal cell carcinomas and a 4-10% increase in squamous cell carcinomas (Maugh, 1982)
By 1987, the value of goods and services connected to CFC use or application was $28 billion annually in the United States alone, employing 715,000 workers
Mt. Pinatubo's eruption had a negligible effect on ozone depletion, contrary to the claims of pseudoscience proponents. By it's eruption in 1991, the United States had lost 3% of its ozone protection. (Mankin et al, 1991) The eruption of El Chichon, likewise, produced only a few percent of the global chlorine atoms present in the atmosphere (Mankin and Coffey, 1983). Both eruptions were subjected to direct measurements of chlorine content.
There was no ozone 'hole' prior to 1976. The instruments that discovered the 'hole' were in place since 1956 and data goes back this far (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin).
Ozone depletion is the result of CFC and this is concluded "beyond a reasonable doubt" by Russel, et al (1996), who used satellite measurements of chlorine and chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere to obtain their data
Opponents like to say that the "science behind the CFC ban is debateable." Yet they never debate it in a peer-reviewed manner and will stick only to the popular media where they can appeal to the working class and the consumer.

Here are the facts about this thread:

Brutus hasn't refuted the data presented or presented any data that is contrary
Brutus hasn't validated his haphazard and ignorant statement that the last shuttle accident was caused by the failure to use freon in the foam insulation manufacturing process
Brutus hasn't demonstrated the validity of the assertion that NASA's new foam is inferior to it's previous (and that this is because of the lack of freon in the manufacturing process).
Brutus keeps making claims of "junk science" from the pseudoscientific perspective and bias of capitalistic conservatism -which is a fine ideology for making and keeping money, but has no place in science. This is a "political" position and not one concerned with science, but one that likes to direct the adjective "junk" at scientific results that threaten it.

One has to wonder, "what are the conservatives conserving (Sagan, 1997)?"

References:

Farman, et al., "Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antarctica Reveal Seasonal ClOx/NOx Interaction", Nature, May 16, 1985, pp 207-210.

Mankin, W., and M. Coffey, "Increased stratospheric hydrogen chloride in the El Chichon cloud", Science, 226, 170, 1983.

Mankin, W., M. Coffey, and A. Goldman, "Airborne observations of SO2, HCl, and O3 in the stratospheric plume of the Pinatubo volcano in July 1991", Geophysical Research Letters, 19, 179, 1992.

Maugh, Thomas H. (1982). "New link between ozone and cancer." Science 216

Roan, Sharon L. (1989) Ozone Crisis: The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Russell, et al (1996). "Satellite Confirmation of the Dominance of Chlorofluorocarbons in the Global Stratospheric Chlorine Budget" Nature, February 8, 1996, pp 526-529.

Sagan, Carl (1997). Billions and Billions. New York: Ballantine

Skinwalker

My argument is really not with the science, but what leftists do with the science. They will take a true scientific principle and bastardize it in a way that it becomes junk science. Take global warming for instance. Even if the earth was warming because of human behavior it doesn't mean that we must give up all of our technological advances and become good socialists to stop it from happening. If liberals fight tooth and nail all technological advances they are really fighting the very thing that could solve the problem. I would be completely willing to stop politicizing science if the left would too.

So, science is OK, as long as it doesn't influence anything? Shouldn't we use the lessons learned from science? What if something basic about how humans are living now really is bad for the health of the planet? Most environmentalists I know are stupid enough to suggest that technology is the solution to environmental problems.

Errmmm, Brutus, theres quite a few lefty environmentalists saying we need more nuclear power in order to save on CO2. Theres plenty more saying we need new technology breakthroughs in renewable power, recycling etc. As a lefty green liberal kind of bloke, who also happens to work in the insulation industry, I am all for more better technology to solve problems, as long as it doesnt cause new ones.

Guthrie

I have no quarrel with true environmentalists that want clean water, clean air, natural spaces preserved and everything. It is the activists that use the environment to push their leftist agenda.

Leftist agenda is environmentalist agenda. Leftists want corporations regulated, righties want de-regulation so they can pollute. Leftists want protection for natural spaces, righties want drilling in such areas and opening of roadless areas up to logging. Lefties want governments to promote alternatives to oil, righties didn't even acknowledge officially until recently that use of oil leads to global warming.

spidergoat is quite right on that...
I'm a lefty like guthrie. I believe in better energy sources and a lot of things that benefit both the environment AND the economy...

Skinwalker

My argument is really not with the science, but what leftists do with the science.

Therein lies your problem and why the ideologies you subscribe to and support are, in fact, pseudoscientific. I could really give a shit less about the various political agendas in Washington with regard to either side of the environmental issue. Power-mongers seeking to play to whatever demographics they think will most likely win them votes has no place with regard to science.

My opinions go with what the hard, scientific conclusions are. Show me scientific evidence that shows logging can't be a renewable resource and a benefit to the American economy, and I'll side with it. Show me the scientific evidence that demonstrates arsenic can have acceptable levels within our drinking water and I'll support it. Show me the scientific evidence that concludes CFCs are harmless and demonstrates how previous researchers got it wrong, and I'll revise my position.

I'm for nuclear power over coal; hybrid cars over hydrogen (for now); logging in the U.S. over importing lumber; and many other things that you might not expect from someone that considers himself more liberal than conservative. In reality, I'm a progressive. I see the value in conservative as well as liberal ideals, but progress depends on science and the willingness to revise as new information is shown.

The "junk science" you keep referring to in this thread appears to be nothing more than radical-conservative rhetoric and not "science" at all.

So, are we in agreement with regard to CFCs? Do you accept the science? Are you at least willing to give it a real critical look and make an individualistic opinion based on the evidence as opposed to "toeing the party line?"

Skinwalker

Of course I accept the science. It is what is done with the science that I have trouble with. It is good to hear that you do approve of nuclear power and other energy sources. You don't seem to be on the loony left that jumps on every scientific fad that comes out in hopes they can use it to further their leftist agenda. I blame the media the most because they don't ever question anything the scientific community comes out with. It also bothers me that more scientists are not more skeptical because whenever science becomes a dogma it ceases to be science.

I accept that CFC's probably doeffect the Ozone layer, but it's not going to destroy it or severely effect climate. I just don't see how using Freon for making the foam for the space shuttle was enough to do any damage at all. It was not worth losing the Columbia, and now endangering the Discovery.

This is the danger of junk politics, when people exploit the inherently uncertain nature of science to further their political goals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/science/space/04foam.html?hp&ex=1123214400&en=7967ca8ac5c6f74d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

This just in, it is not the formulation of the foam that appears to be the problem, but the method of application, which they had problems with as far back as the early 1980's!

Care to print a retraction, Brutus1964?

Skinwalker

Of course I accept the science. It is what is done with the science that I have trouble with. It is good to hear that you do approve of nuclear power and other energy sources. You don't seem to be on the loony left that jumps on every scientific fad that comes out in hopes they can use it to further their leftist agenda. I blame the media the most because they don't ever question anything the scientific community comes out with. It also bothers me that more scientists are not more skeptical because whenever science becomes a dogma it ceases to be science.

I accept that CFC's probably doeffect the Ozone layer, but it's not going to destroy it or severely effect climate. I just don't see how using Freon for making the foam for the space shuttle was enough to do any damage at all. It was not worth losing the Columbia, and now endangering the Discovery.


Frankly, every time I see someone complain about the "loony left", I see a horse's ass.

"Science" is infested by junk science. Witness the arguments on global warming or race to be convinced of that!

Frankly, every time I see someone complain about the "loony left", I see a horse's ass.

Yes, but that's not necessarily a logical reaction (neither is using the term "loony left").

Be scientific, now.

I'll be scientific: When someone complains that a particular notion is symptomatic of the existence of, or of someone being a member of, the loony left, that person reveals by that statement a very striking resemblence to the posterior end of that member of the equine family popularly referred to as "the horse."

. I just don't see how using Freon for making the foam for the space shuttle was enough to do any damage at all. It was not worth losing the Columbia, and now endangering the Discovery.

Deranged environmentalists are running NASA. Did you hear what she-commander said in interview while their fate is being decided? That she saw environmental damage from the orbit!

I hate to think that this piece of .... will be back in two days :D

ES

Reprinted From Ablogatory Anecdotes (http://brutus1964.blogspot.com).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Mad_scientist_caricature.png

Scientists tell us that global warming is a proven fact, and if the United States does not ratify the Kyoto Protocols that the sky will fall. We are told that practically everything we enjoy eating will kill us, and our American way of life is destroying the planet. Products such as Freon, aerosol cans, Styrofoam, and a host of other products must be banned because they harm the ozone layer. We are told that it is better for millions of third world people to die than use DDT because it hurts bird eggs. The latest miracle drug must be pulled from the market because a study linked it to some kind of malady.

Well a new study has come out in the New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915) that calls in to question the validity of at least half of all scientific studies.

Most published scientific research papers are wrong,
according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new
paper is itself correct, problems with experimental
and statistical methods mean that there is less than
a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen
scientific paper are true.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University
of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small
sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and
elective reporting and other problems combine to make
most research findings false. But even large, well-designed
studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the
public have to be wary of reported findings.

It is interesting to note that the paper sites researcher bias as a cause for frequent errors. Particularly with global warming and other scientific theories that have become politicized. Many researchers are forced either by peer pressure or prejudice to automatically accept that global warming is a fact. Therefore they will only look for evidence that supports their preconceived theories. Any evidence to the contrary will be discounted or suppressed. This dogmatic approach to science has been the greatest cause of the proliferation of junk science, and has cost our economy billions not to mention the waste of perfectly good products that have had to be recalled. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and good companies forced into bankruptcy because of bogus scientific studies.

There is a doctrine in science called the Precautionary Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) that states that unless something can be proven absolutely safe it is better to ban it and keep it off the market.

Maybe it is time to apply this same standard to scientists themselves? :D

Statistics is not a flawless resource.
Specially when we are talking about capitalism and the market..... :rolleyes:

This guy (http://oracknows.blogspot.com) has some great insight into junk science.

Brutus, ask the AIDS scientists and they will tell you that in spite of there being no scientific basis at all for their theories, and in spite of your information, AIDS is 100 percent accurate, no need for review, kill anyone who disagrees.

Brutus, I think it's very clear that you missed the mark in your continued attempts to paint a negative picture of science. You use pejorative buzz words like "junk science" in misapplied manner then quote a study that says studies can only be 50% correct. I don't miss the irony that the New Scientist study itself falls into the same category of being "50% correct" by chance.

But this isn't a problem for science. Its the reason for the peer-reviewed process. The New Scientist article fails to explore the author's methodolgy. What was the data set? Was it peer-reviewed journals only? If so, how did they choose which journals from which to gather data? By circulation numbers? Did they include low as well as high circulating journals? What fields did they include? How many studies/journals were examined? How did they determine the "wrongness" of the studies that were determined to be "wrong?"

Its that last question that the critical thinker will key in on. Logically, the only ways the author of the study, Ioannidis, could have determined the "wrongness" of other studies would be to test their methodologies himself or rely on the tests of others. This is called peer-review.

Now. Since we've established that science is self-correcting, perhaps you can get past the political pejoritives (i.e. "junk science") and move on to point-by-point refutation of that which you disagree with in science. You need not test the hypotheses yourself, you can simply cite the tests of others.

But instead, we get "junk rants" like, "We are told that it is better for millions of third world people to die than use DDT because it hurts bird eggs."

Who has told us this? I point you to my refutation of this point in your own blog. Yet rather than provide a counter-refute, you simply restate it. DDT isn't banned in the "third world." It can still be used in regions where malaria is a risk, but the problem is mosquitos are now resistant to DDT. Other, more effective pesticides are used if the people of peripheral nations can afford the chemicals.

Rather than resort to pseudoscientific methodologies of shouting down the "establishment" of science, try to actually find the data and the works which refute studies that claim results that run counter to your political ideologies.

But the pejorative term of "junk science" is a misused one by those that seek to make political influences and obstruct critical thought and reason that is counter to it. Nothing more.

You use pejorative buzz words like "junk science" in misapplied manner then quote a study that says studies can only be 50% correct. I don't miss the irony that the New Scientist study itself falls into the same category of being "50% correct" by chance.

It's actually not a study. It's an opinion piece published in the "Public Library of Science".

Skin Walker

I have been anxiously waiting for you to responed. I am not against Science. I love science and all manner of learning. Believe me if I got some absolute proof that there was global warming and man was responsible then I would accept it, but so far no absolute proof has come forward. They have been talking about this since the 80's and none of the predictions have come true. Even if we are in a warming trend it could be a natural occurance. We simply do not know what real effect human activity has on the environment.

I am against dogmatic science. Glogal warming has become a dogma that to question it is a kin to herassy. Scientists have a responsiblity to question it and weigh all sides. If they go into it with preconcieved ideas or feel peer pressure to come up with a certain result then that is exactly what they will find. Science should be about finding facts not about trying to prove peoples pet theories. Anything else is scientific malpractise.

I also have my post in my blog (http://brutus1964.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientists-glasses-are-half-empty.html) . Feel free to comment in there too. It would be fun to get another debate started.

Global warming caused by human activity is as certain as anything known in science. Since there is always some uncertainty in science, as it is based on statistical evidence. It is the nature of statistical evidence that the only kind of conclusions you can make is that something is more or less likely to be happening. In this case, the likelyhood is very, very good that humans are the cause of global warming.

Brutus, you have been the victim of an insidious propaganda campaign financed by energy industries with the intention to muddle the argument to such a degree that the best you can say is we don't know. This is the goal. This achieves an atmosphere where they can continue to make money and not change. The time is over when anyone can say legitimately that the data is inconclusive.

Imperfectionist

Your post illistrates my point perfectly. You say global warming is a proven fact then you also say there is always some uncertainty in science. Since you believe in an uncertainty you are relying on faith not science.

I've noticed this thread to be titled "The Dangers of Junk Science". I'm going to provide a few examples of junk science.

1. Evolution and Supernatural Creationism (God created all life on Earth). We did not evolve from primates, nor were we created by a supernatural god. All life on Earth was created by scientists from another planet.

Evolution states "survival of the fittest". Does that mean we should eradicate physically weak people. Also, evolution states that organisms (including us) need to spread our genes by any means possible. Does that include rape? So it seems that the theory of Evolution states it's okay to be violent among one another. Talk about the dangers of junk science.

Also, Supernatural Creationism creates a caste system like we have all over the world with rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. Women are treated as inferiors based on this concept of junk science. And the concept of God-fearing makes sheep out of people. Talk about the dangers of junk science.

2. The Big Bang. The universe is infinite in space and time but the Big Bang states that there was nothing before then. Well I can't think of anything dangerous about the Big Bang but it's still junk science.

3. (National) Patrtiotism. Having patriotism for your country can revert to fascism. With brainhole terrorists like Bush brainwashing people into patriotism, innocent people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we need is "world patriotism" for lack of a better term. We need to view our planet as a whole rather than as separate countries. That way we can truly be humanitarian towards the world and achieve world peace.

3. (National) Patrtiotism. Having patriotism for your country can revert to fascism. With brainhole terrorists like Bush brainwashing people into patriotism, innocent people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we need is "world patriotism" for lack of a better term. We need to view our planet as a whole rather than as separate countries. That way we can truly be humanitarian towards the world and achieve world peace.


Tell you what. After you have converted all the terroists and religious radicals and hate mongars, come back and we might talk.

1. Evolution and Supernatural Creationism (God created all life on Earth). We did not evolve from primates, nor were we created by a supernatural god. All life on Earth was created by scientists from another planet.

There is an abundance of evidence for evolution; none for creation; and none for this ufo-nutter shit. The placement fo the term, "junk science" is clear with this regard.

Evolution states "survival of the fittest". Does that mean we should eradicate physically weak people.

An obvious fallacy of the undereducated. Evolution simply implies gradual changes over time. It is Natural Selection, one of the four evolutionary forces that concerns itself with "fitness." But even in this instance, it is more concerned with an organism's ability to take advantage of a niche rather than its strength over other organisms. Get an education and stop reading that raelian shit.

Also, evolution states that organisms (including us) need to spread our genes by any means possible. Does that include rape? So it seems that the theory of Evolution states it's okay to be violent among one another. Talk about the dangers of junk science.

More like, "talk about the dangers of ignorance and lack of education." Get off the internet and go to school.

Well I can't think of anything dangerous about the Big Bang but it's still junk science.

Translation, "I'm ignorant, and undereducated, so big bang must be stupid."

Obviously I'm responding to a sock-puppet and not a genuine new-member to scifoolems. Nobody's that stupid, so I don't feel bad about being harsh.

There is an abundance of evidence for evolution; none for creation; and none for this ufo-nutter shit. The placement fo the term, "junk science" is clear with this regard.


No there's not. Everytime someone "observes" evolution, it's merely a misinterpretation. This observation is nothing more than a mutation of the "original design". A genetic defect but still the same species.

You keep mentioning education. Just because it's taught in school doesn't mean it happened that way. An example, The Big Bang is junk science because the universe in infinite in time and space. A lot of "circumstantial evidence" that claims to prove the Big Bang is misinterpreted. The worst misinterpretation is the fact that most physicist think that the constant c (speed of light in a vacuum) is the fastest speed in the universe. Not so. Scientists are just starting to measure things that are faster than light. I don't know where you can find this documentation but I know it's there. Given that as a fact, the Big Bang theory "explodes" pun intended.

I keep mentioning education because it is clear that you lack one.

I keep mentioning education because it is clear that you lack one.

Actually, I'm a very educated individual. For you, I would not use the term educated but brainwashed because you believe in the nonsense of evolution and the Big Bang Theory.

Tell you what. After you have converted all the terroists and religious radicals and hate mongars, come back and we might talk.

Look, I'm not justifying what the terroists, religious radicals and hate mongars are doing to our planet. They need to be arrested and tried for their crimes just like any other criminal. My point was, with Bush's patriotic campaign of violence against Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just making the situation worse. Thanks to him, these terror group can now recruit more terrorists because violence just begets more violence.

So where is the evidence for that which you claim?

No there's not. Everytime someone "observes" evolution, it's merely a misinterpretation. This observation is nothing more than a mutation of the "original design". A genetic defect but still the same species.

Beeep. No cookies for you. Seemingly here you do confuse speciation with evolutionary change.

Short definition of evolution: change of the gene-pool composition over time.
Now guess again.
Given the fact that in your short post you revealed several misunderstandings with regards to evolution, I can only support Skinwalker here:
get a textbook regarding this topic and read it. Then think again.

We could start with appointing doctors, not representatives of the drug industry, to regulatory positions in the FDA.

We could allow the government to negotiate lower prices as a group with the drug industry.

We could have universal health care funded by taxes.

The Dangers of Junk Science are obvious in Spidergoat constantly making inane statements about things he/she clearly doesn't understand.

The FDA is a very tough regulator and typically uses physician specialists in public hearing to advice them (the FDA) on the acceptability of proposed new drugs.

It is the cost of doctors, nurses and hospitals that are the vast majority of medical costs, not drugs.

Even if drugs were given away you wouldn't have enough to marginally dent the medical care bill. And if they were cheap - would you trust that they had been developed with safety in mind?

Just for once it would be nice to see Spidergoat engage brain before begining to type.

No there's not. Everytime someone "observes" evolution, it's merely a misinterpretation. This observation is nothing more than a mutation of the "original design". A genetic defect but still the same species.

You keep mentioning education. Just because it's taught in school doesn't mean it happened that way. An example, The Big Bang is junk science because the universe in infinite in time and space. A lot of "circumstantial evidence" that claims to prove the Big Bang is misinterpreted. The worst misinterpretation is the fact that most physicist think that the constant c (speed of light in a vacuum) is the fastest speed in the universe. Not so. Scientists are just starting to measure things that are faster than light. I don't know where you can find this documentation but I know it's there. Given that as a fact, the Big Bang theory "explodes" pun intended.
Ahhh, open season on numpties....

Youve already been pilloried for the first mistake.
How do you know that the universe is infinite in "time and space"?

Where are your measurements of faster than light entities?

If you cannot produce any evidence for anything like the above, you are not doing science. By evidence, I mean replicable observations that do not depend upon the observer for their results.

The Dangers of Junk Science are obvious in Spidergoat constantly making inane statements about things he/she clearly doesn't understand.
What did I say that had anything to do with science?

The FDA is a very tough regulator and typically uses physician specialists in public hearing to advice them (the FDA) on the acceptability of proposed new drugs.
Yes, doctors that used to work for the drug industry.

It is the cost of doctors, nurses and hospitals that are the vast majority of medical costs, not drugs.
For individuals, drugs are often the most expensive daily burden.

Even if drugs were given away you wouldn't have enough to marginally dent the medical care bill. And if they were cheap - would you trust that they had been developed with safety in mind?
It's the job of the FDA to regulate drugs, it should not be dependent on cost.

Just for once it would be nice to see Spidergoat engage brain before begining to type.
http://img78.exs.cx/img78/5603/bush_finger.gif

What did I say that had anything to do with science?


No - Doctors who are clinicians and specialists in hospitals.


For individuals, drugs are often the most expensive daily burden.


It's the job of the FDA to regulate drugs, it should not be dependent on cost.


http://img78.exs.cx/img78/5603/bush_finger.gif



What did I say that had anything to do with science?
Duh ... It's in the title of the Thread - but you're right in this Science Forum you rarely say much to do about science.

Yes, doctors that used to work for the drug industry.
No - Doctors who are clinicians and specialists in hospitals.


For individuals, drugs are often the most expensive daily burden.
No - The tax and insurance costs paid in case medical support is needed is the biggest cost for individuals.


It's the job of the FDA to regulate drugs, it should not be dependent on cost.
Yes - but unfortunately good science (which is what the FDA try to ensure) does cost a lot - the average cost to develop a new drug is circa $1bn

http://img78.exs.cx/img78/5603/bush_finger.gif[/QUOTE]
Wow - your eloquent, well thought out, carefully targeted rebuttal has floored me - how can I possibly answer that - keep up the good science!

Regardless of the title, this has become more a debate about policy than science.


[spidergoat] Yes, doctors that used to work for the drug industry.
[judgesid]No - Doctors who are clinicians and specialists in hospitals.
The FDA relies on outside advisory panels to provide recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices. However, many of the scientists who serve on these panels have financial conflicts-of-interest that bias their recommendations, or at least give the perception of bias. For example, 10 of 32 scientists on the FDA's Cox-2 advisory panel had ties to manufacturers of the drugs. Had their votes had been eliminated, two of the three drugs in that class would have been voted down by the panel, instead of receiving narrow support. In April, an FDA panel reviewing the evidence supporting the controversial silicone gel breast implants included a scientist that had made a promotional CD supporting the products.
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/fda_reformbill.shtml

Cancer Risk Not Sticking To Teflon (http://brutus1964.blogspot.com/2006/02/cancer-risk-not-sticking-to-teflon.html)

<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">It looks like the attempt to link </span><a href="http://www.teflon.com/NASApp/Teflon/TeflonPageServlet?pageId=/consumer/na/home_page.jsp"><span style="font-family:arial;">Teflon</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> as a carcinogen may not be sticking. Earlier this month the </span><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-02-15-epa-teflon-carcinogen_x.htm"><span style="font-family:arial;">EPA put out a report </span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">stating that the chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) which is a component of Teflon, as a "likely carcinogen". Do-gooders, activists and scare mongers everywhere have sounded the alarm and threw out their pots and pans demanding the government ban the product. After all Teflon is made by DuPont, the same evil company that created the dreaded silicone breast implants. I am sure that liberals loved the idea of linking Teflon to something sinister since the word is associated with Ronald Reagan ever since the former Congressette and short time presidential candidate </span><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-06-schroeder_x.htm"><span style="font-family:arial;">Patsy “Cry me a river” Schroeder</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> dubbed him the "Teflon President" in the 80’s, because nothing the Democrats threw at him would stick.

Well housewives and domestic goddesses everywhere may have no need to throw out their Teflon wares after all. It seems that Teflon may be just the latest victim of junk science run amok. According to George B. Corcoran, a noted toxicologist and chairman of the department of pharmaceutical sciences at Wayne State University in Detroit, who is a member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee says that the proof is not there and that he would have no problem using a Teflon product himself.</span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;">
</span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">From </span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/02/23/hscout531173.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">Forbes.com</span></a>
<span style="font-family:arial;">
<em><strong>"Do I still use Teflon cookware, even though I've been on this panel for over a year and a half now?" he said. "The answer is: Yes."</strong></em></span></div><div align="justify">
<em><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>According to Corcoran and other experts, the evidence for PFOA-related harm from everyday cooking remains slim. "My sense is that we [scientists] are being prudent in reducing further exposure, because we just don't know what the bottom line is yet," he said.</strong></span></em></div><div align="justify">
<em><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>For its part, the EPA on its Web site says that, because of "scientific uncertainties at the present time, EPA does not believe there is any reason for consumers to stop using any consumer or industrial related products that contain PFOA."</strong></span></em></div><div align="justify">
<span style="font-family:arial;">In the first EPA report they stated that Teflon contains a "likely carcinogen" now they say it is a "scientific uncertainty". Why did they irresponsibly put out a report they knew would put the press in a lather, and cause activists to demand the immediate banishment of the product? Not to