I spent a fair amount of time last week talking to Iris Kuo, author of this Knight-Ridder story about the meaning of the phrase "sound science." I urged Kuo to check out my book--which contains one of the most extensive analyses of the "sound science" movement that I'm aware of--so that she could actually see that the term has a specific meaning on the political right, and that there are specific "sound science" policies that have been endorsed by conservatives that clearly seek to raise the scientific burden of proof before regulatory action can be achieved.
Oh well. Instead, the frame of Kuo's article is that "No one, however, is sure what 'sound science' means." Wrong, wrong, wrong: It is a term that has been strategically introduced into the discourse by the right, and it means something very specific to conservatives. If that's accurate--and my analysis is very thorough--then a journalist should say it plainly, instead of pretending that no one knows what the phrase means and then relying upon quotes from people like myself to give "opinions" as to what it might mean.
Granted, there's one piece of news in Kuo's piece that I found useful: Apparently Republican pollster Frank Luntz has a book coming out in which he recommends the use of the term "sound science" to his flock...which is my point exactly, and which provides still more evidence that Kuo could have used to show that this is a term embraced on the political right. To be fair, though, science may not be her main beat. In the past year, she has written articles with titles like "Super Bowl seen having a powerful impact on American life" and "Men spend lots more than women on Valentine's day"....
- Log in to post comments
Hi Dr. Mooney
I'm a research scientist in the Columbus, Ohio area and I was wondering when you may be speaking (if at all) in my area. I realize it's pretty red down here and you may have skipped over our state capitol because of that fact, however, please reconsider. I would consider travelling to other areas however I'm a bit house-bound due to illness and fear of the crazy conservatives. I dig your blog, and your friend's blogs, they have restored my sanity in these very uncertain times. Also, because of your site, I got my first copy of SEED magazine and was BLOWN AWAY by the quality! Thanks for everything you do. I never really considered that Science would need it's outspoken defenders, but it does, and thank you for your courage. I used to think it was enough to discover the truth, but hey...I may be an idealist!
Looking forward to attending one of your events. Sincerely, Debbie H.
There's also "Trust Us We're Experts".
I don't know why the author is so surprised. I thought "Sound Science" was a PR term of art.
Another example of a reporter relying on "balancing" quotes from both sides of an issue instead of actually expending the intellectual energy to figure out the reality.
As you say, oh well.
Hi Debbie,
No current plans to be in the Columbus area...but if you'd like to invite me...and thanks so much for reading and for your kind words.
"Sound science" is less a meaningful phrase than a tactic. I thought Kuo's article explained that reasonably well. But I agree that saying "No one is sure what 'sound science' means" lets people come off as innocent, when 9 times out of 10 they're not.
Just for fun: "Sound Science" makes an appearance in this video of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog taking on climate change:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3356749997251913569&q=earth+to+…
we should just start calling it what it is - which is usually "fake science" or just lowering the bar - and repeating repeatedly discredited claims. Lambert just picked up another reference to the "analysis" by Benny Peiser:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/zombie_lurch.php#more
Jon, Four talking heads giving great word along with what sounds like representation, as in republic. Three lawyers and one insurance broker on the public payroll desperately seeking sound science for the people.
I thought "Sound Science" was the "Study of Sound Bites" to see which ones work the best.
Well, it cannot mean "science" or there would be no need to throw in the word "sound". So it must be science which is sound,.according to somebody (such as ME) instead of some more general standard like the consensus of climate scientists.
When I hear the phrase a chill goes down the back as I picture murderous gangsters in a hollywood movie mumbling darkly about "our thing" as they plot a killing. I really do not care whom they plan to kill, they are just plain wrong and should be re- educated, says I. However I have no private meaning to attach to "re-educate". And I do not propose one should let these types appropriate "science" either. If they use a prefix they are attempting to kidnap a public asset with a view to murder.
Believe it or not (I doubt Ripley would believe it), there's actually something called the "Advancement of Sound Science Center".
Run by a scientist?
Nooooo...
By a columnist for Fox News -- Steven Milloy (aparently out of his garage.)
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
This stuff is just too pathetic for words.
Wake me up when the nightmare is over.