"Junk Science Judo"

By Steven J. Milloy

Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., Washington, D.C. 20001; 202-842-0200; fax: 202-842-0779; www.cato.org

$18.95.

A few years ago, Steven J. Milloy and co-author Michael Gough wrote a slender volume called "Silencing Science." The book dealt with both junk science and how interest groups attempt to suppress valid scientific evidence that they find to be inconvenient to their version of the truth. Even though the book didn't deal directly with risk management, I wrote at the time that risk managers would do well to read it, if only to adhere to the ancient doctrine of "know your enemy."

Risk managers would do well to read Mr. Milloy's "Junk Science Judo" for the same reason.

In fact, Mr. Milloy begins "Junk Science Judo" with his Lesson 1, "Know Thine Enemy." This is how Mr. Milloy-publisher of JunkScience.com-characterizes that enemy:

"Junk science users don't care about science. They don't care about your welfare. They're out for themselves, pure and simple. This might not be so bad if they admitted up front: `Hey, we're about to start a health scare. But don't worry. It's only a scam.'

"There's the rub, though. At their core, they simply aren't an honest lot. Deception is their stock in trade. They'll never admit they were wrong for fear the public will permanently turn a deaf ear to their `boy cries wolf' tactics. Instead they blame the public for health scares."

Strong stuff, and a hint of how this breezy examination of the theory and practice of junk science will progress. In fact, the book's very breeziness may turn some readers off.

That would be unfortunate. Despite a series of Supreme Court decisions that rein in the worst excesses of junk science, cases based on fringe theories still find their find their way into some courts. The expense of defending against such time-consuming suits forms the stuff of risk managers' and insurers' nightmares. While Mr. Milloy writes for a general audience-or least the type of audience that's likely to buy books published by a free-market think thank like the Cato Institute-there's more than a little of value here for anyone who is interested in how risks should-and shouldn't-be assessed.

Among the examples of junk science cited by Mr. Milloy are an attempt to link certain plastic products to cancer, which was ultimately refuted by the World Health Organization's Agency for Research on Cancer; the infamous Alar pesticide scare, which caused panic when mice were reported to have developed a rare cancer after consuming doses of Alar "that equated to a human consuming on the order of 19,000 quarts of apple juice per day for life"; and Canadian researchers' failure to adjust results of a study linking secondhand cigarette smoke with breast cancer to reflect a variety of other risk factors that have nothing to do with smoke but could have something to do with developing cancer.

Mr. Milloy points the finger at the usual suspects-trial lawyers, activists of various stripes, regulators and the media-but also notes that businesses themselves aren't above using junk science for their own ends. He notes that "the vast majority of businesses aren't part of the junk science mob" and are instead its victims. But he also has the intellectual honesty to point out that businesses use junk science to undermine competitors, make bogus product claims and even to defend themselves against junk science attacks. He's willing to name names-some of which are of the household variety.

The author devotes most of the book to explaining how junk science works, how to spot it and how to refute it. As he puts it, "The scientific method places the burden of proving the truth of a scientific theory on its advocates-not on you. Your job is to doubt until they've met the burden of proof. Theories, anecdotes and assumptions aren't proof of anything."

Mr. Milloy ends by spelling out various ways in which his readers can further the fight against junk science. One of the most significant is to support so-called Daubert panels, or groups of experts selected by courts to review scientific and technical evidence before trial. These panels take their name from the landmark 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., which calls on federal trial judges to act as "gatekeepers" by determining whether evidence meets standards of admissibility. As Mr. Milloy points out, not all state courts convene Daubert panels, and he urges his readers to push for them on the state as well as federal level.

Sometimes frightening, sometimes ironically funny and consistently provocative, "Junk Science Judo" is a welcome addition to any bookshelf with room for a volume concerned with sound risk assessment.

Mark A. Hofmann is a senior editor in the Washington bureau of Business Insurance.