The Influence of  Junk Science and the Role of Science Education

Lee Ann Fisher Baron
 Savona Professor of Natural Sciences, Hillsdale College

Lee Ann Fisher Baron is the Vincent and Anneliese Savona Professor of
Natural Sciences at Hillsdale College, where she has taught since 1989. A
graduate of Wittenberg University with M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of
Michigan, Dr. Baron has distinguished herself in the field of elementary
and secondary science education by developing programs to interest middle-school girls
in scientific careers, writing laboratory study guides for high school
summer science camps, and formulating the science curriculum for Hillsdale Academy,
Hillsdale College's K-12 model school. For her achievements she has
received an Emily Daugherty Award for Teaching Excellence, a Lubrizol Award, a Paul F.
Bagley Fellowship, a Dow Chemical Foundation Fellowship, and membership in
the Phi Lambda Upsilon and Sigma Zeta Honorary Societies and the American Chemical
Society. Most recently, she was named to the 2000 edition of Who's Who Among
America's Teachers.

On September 10-14, 2000, the Hillsdale College Center for Constructive
Alternatives held a seminar on Junk Science: The Political Abuse of Research.
Participants discussed the unfounded scientific claims and theories that
are employed today for political purposes, and in particular for
justifying more intrusive regulation of private and economic life. From persistent doomsday
scenarios like global warming to the latest ergonomic arguments for
near-total regulation of the American workplace, this abuse of science represents not only an economic
threat, but a threat to freedom as well. This threat can succeed only if
Americans become gullible to the point of failing to distinguish solid science from
junk science. In the following presentation, Dr. Baron discussed the
increase of such gullibility in our nation today and one of its root causes: declining
standards in science education.

Science is exciting partly because single discoveries can change the
course of history. Think of the effects on human health and longevity of
the discovery of antibiotics, the multi-faceted impact on our lives of the discovery of
polymers, or the far-reaching importance of the Human Genome Project.
Unfortunately, however, most of the revolutionary discoveries made throughout history
have turned out to be wrong.

Error is a regular part of science. That is why reports of new findings or
discoveries, no matter where or how widely they are reported, should be
regarded with healthy skepticism. The proper scientific approach to such claims involves
a set of procedures called the scientific method. This method requires the
design of tests or experiments that can be repeated with the same results by anyone. These
tests must also contain controls to ensure that the results are statistically significant.

Let me illustrate the importance of controls by describing briefly an
experiment in which my daughter participated as a subject some years ago
at the University of Michigan Medical School. Its purpose was to determine whether the vaccine
for tuberculosis could lengthen the interval during which newly-diagnosed
type 1 diabetics do not experience severe high or low blood sugar. The subjects
were divided into a group of those who received the vaccine and a control
group of those who received a placebo. The subjects did not know who got the vaccine and,
just as importantly, neither did the researchers a type of control referred to as a
double-blind. By using two groups, the researchers were able to measure
the placebo effect a phenomenon in which patients improve because they
falsely believe that they are receiving medicine. And by keeping themselves
ignorant of the breakdown of the groups, the researchers were prevented
from reading their hypotheses into the results.

Junk Science

Most Erroneous conclusions by scientists are discovered during the process
of publishing their research. Other scientists review submitted articles,
often repeating any relevant tests or experiments and always evaluating the conclusions
that have been drawn from them. So-called junk science bypasses this
system of peer review. Presented directly to the public by people variously described as
experts or activists, often with little or no supporting evidence,
this junk science undermines the ability of elected representatives, jurists, and others
including everyday consumers to make rational decisions.

An example of junk science I like to use with my students is the myth of
fat-free foods invented by the food industry with the help of federal
regulators. By regulatory definition, these foods may contain monoglycerides and
diglycerides, but not triglycerides. From the point of view of solid
science this definition makes no practical sense, given that the body metabolizes mono-, di- and
triglycerides in essentially the same way. Meanwhile unwary consumers take
the fat-free label as a license to eat these foods to excess, and Americans are more obese
now than ever before.

A more amusing example is Vitamin O, a wonder supplement advertised to
maximize your nutrients, purify your blood stream, and eliminate toxins
and poisons in other words, [to supply] all the processes necessary to prevent
disease and promote health.It was described on its label as stabilized
oxygen molecules in a solution of distilled water and sodium chloride.In other words, the
60,000 consumers purchasing Vitamin O to the tune of $20 a month were taking salt
water! Although this product was legally exempted from certain FDA
requirements by virtue of its status as a natural diet supplement, the
FTC was able to file a complaint against it in 1999, based on false claims by its promoters that
it was being used by NASA astronauts. Otherwise Vitamin O would still be
one of the world's best-selling placebos.

The potential lasting power of =93junk science=94 is demonstrated by the story
of German physician Samuel Hahnemann, who took quinine back in 1776 to
investigate its use against malaria. After taking the quinine he experienced chills
and fever, which are the symptoms of malaria. From this he concluded,
wrongly, that likes cure likes, i.e., that diseases should be treated with medicines that
produce similar symptoms to the diseases. In the course of testing this
theory with other herbal remedies, Hahnemann discovered that many natural herbs are toxic and
made his patients worse. To reduce the toxic effects, he diluted the
remedies until they seemed to be working. On that basis he formulated a law of
infinitesimals stating that higher dilutions of herbal cures increase
their medicinal benefits. To be fair, Hahnemann conducted these experiments more than 70 years before
scientists understood that a dilution weaker than one part in 6.02 x 1023
may not contain even a single molecule of the dissolved substance. Thus he did not realize
that upon administering to his patients 30x preparations dilutions of
one part herb to 1030 parts water the placebo effect was all that was really left to
measure.

Incredibly, homeopathic medicine today still relies on Hahnemann's
theories. Not only does it often come in 30x preparations, it comes in
200c dilutions  solutions of one part herb to 100 parts of water 200 times, resulting in
one molecule of the herb per 10400 molecules of water! Modern
homeopathists obviously can't deny that such preparations are beyond the dilution limit, but they
insist that the dilutions still work because their water or alcohol/water
mixtures somehow remember the herbs. Despite this preposterous claim, the market for
these remedies is enormous.

Just as many homeopathic preparations are diluted to the point that they
are nothing but water, many natural herbs on the market contain drugs
and chemicals which interact with the human body like prescription drugs. For example,
Echinacea stimulates the immune system, which could prove harmful to
people with type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or other autoimmune diseases. It is
therefore unwise to put it gently to take herbal remedies or
supplements of any kind without consulting a doctor and/or the Physician's Desk Reference for
Herbal Medicines. But many Americans do so, equating natural with
harmless and good.

Cause and Solution

I have addressed here the corrupting influence of  junk science in the
area of consumer foods, vitamins and diet supplements. The same dynamic
increasingly affects other aspects of our individual and collective lives as well. But
I believe the root cause is the same: Americans are losing the
common-sense skepticism toward scientific claims that animates the scientific method itself. And
one of the reasons for this is a slow but steady degradation of our
educational system. In short, as Charles J. Sykes explains in Dumbing Down Our Kids, theories
such as outcome-based education, cooperative learning, and
maximization of self-esteem are fast replacing reading, writing, and arithmetic as the
goals of education.

Anecdotal evidence of this trend is vast and compelling. For instance,
when average SAT math scores fell from 500 to 424, the College Board
responded by allowing the use of calculators. When that didn't work, they recente
red the test by adding approximately 20 points to the math scores (while also
adding 80 points on the verbal side, for a total of 100), regardless of achievement. At the
state level, many high school competency exams are written at an
eighth-grade level. And coloring for credit in elementary-level math classes is now fairly common.
Is it any wonder that so many of the kids we now graduate from high school
enter the workforce unable to add in their heads or make correct change, or arrive
at college incapable of solving the simplest equations?

The situation is no better in the sciences. Students at a Seattle middle
school spend two weeks studying the eating habits of birds by trying to
pick up Cheerios with tongue depressors, toothpicks, spoons, and clothespins between their
teeth. Educationalists call this creative and engaging. But it doesn't
create useful or important knowledge. And surely it is not true that such activity is more
engaging than learning about Newton's Laws or DNA.

A popular high school chemistry book moves from Supplying Our Water
Needs,=94 which includes a discussion of acid rain, to Chemistry and the
Atmosphere, which addresses the ozone layer. This approach would not be all bad if the
chemistry behind these issues was rigorously taught and if important
topics unrelated to social controversies were also included. Unfortunately they are not. When I
called the American Chemical Society ? which, sadly, produced this
textbook ? one of those responsible justified its approach by pointing out that most high school
graduates don't pursue science in college. Furthermore, he said, students
introduced to chemistry in this way enjoy it more and find it easier to handle,
resulting in higher self-esteem. I asked if it had occurred to him that
perhaps students don't pursue college science because they don't obtain the requisite skills or
knowledge in high school. Regardless, when the American Chemical Society
endorses a high school science text that doesn't even list the scientific method in its
index, we shouldn't be surprised that so many Americans gorge themselves
on fat-free foods, throw their money at Vitamin O, or risk their health by taking natural
herbs without investigating their effects.

The solution to the problem I have outlined is easy to see, and is by no
means impossible to accomplish. Individually, we must be careful to take
our bearings from the scientific method when confronted with scientific claims, employing
healthy skepticism and asking questions before believing what we hear or
read. Together, we must work diligently to revive real standards in primary and secondary
science education.

POWRÓT