Science is non-partisan. This make it problematic for many people. Unfortunately, folks of all political stripes take published research that agrees with their worldview and hold it up as justification for their long-held beliefs. Published research that doesn’t fit, well that is just bad science.

This attitude makes it impossible for the aforementioned people to learn and change. In a world where knowledge is power, this is bad for them and for the rest of us.

Before going further, it is important to acknowledge that there is dishonesty in research and publication. It is also true that if you look hard enough, you can find some research to prove almost any viewpoint.  Rather than throw our hands in the air and proclaim that all is hopeless, we can eliminate most problems by only relying on peer-reviewed published research in journals that have been around a long time. You can google a journal to find out if it has been around awhile or is simply a newer publication that will publish anything for money.

It is important to focus on the forest, not the trees. For example, I can reliably state that the vast majority of climate based research tells us that our global climate is getting warmer, that polar ice caps are melting, ocean levels are rising, these changes are caused by people and the continued consequences are life altering. Are there outlier researchers disputing these findings? Absolutely.

I can also reliably state the vast majority of research tells us  conventionally produced food in the United States is safer now than it ever has been and is the world’s safest. Is there outlier research disputing this? Absolutely.

What seems to exasperate all this is that some people want to believe the outlier research so badly they pay exorbitant fees to get one of these researchers to tell their group of like-minded people what they want to hear. In other cases, authors go after the mass market with books proclaiming alarmist bad science and rake in millions. The problem with all this is that the din of outlier science drowns out the overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed, published research.

The hypocrisy of misusing science

This gets ridiculous when people wave the banner of climate based science yet decry the safety of conventionally produced food (including GMOs). Published research for climate science and food safety each had to pass the same rigorous review processes in prestigious science journals. The hypocrisy is rampant in promoting the validity of one type of research while decrying the other. Either you believe in science or you don’t. You can’t pick the one you want to believe in and discard the other if equal rigour went into both fields of research. And yes, the opposite holds true for those who passionately defend the research on food safety and condemn the vast majority of climate research.

Science destroys the racist myths that defines today’s Republican Party. Most studies find white children’s IQ’s roughly one standard deviation higher than black children. However, when white and black children with the same family income levels and home environments are compared, the IQ differences disappear.

Likewise, published research in criminology journals document significantly longer prison sentences for black men than white men in the same court rooms for similar crimes and similar criminal backgrounds. Athletes that knelt during the national anthem used their platform to highlight these studies and other abuses in the criminal justice system. Republicans did everything possible to change the debate from unequal criminal justice (where they couldn’t win) to patriotism.

The point of all this is that if we spent as much time learning from well done published research as we do fighting it, we would all be better off. Having a certain level of skepticism is a healthy thing. Letting one’s emotions, prejudices and long-held paradigms over-ride good science is not a healthy outcome.

Not all unpublished research is bad. This website in particular uses a great deal of research that only appears here. Frugal Ron cites data sources and often provides formulas so readers can access the data, do the math themselves and reach their own conclusions. Transparency is the key in cases like this.

Epilogue

On a personal note, to head off accusations of Frugal Ron’s own hypocrisy, this author acknowledges he has read the research detailing the very negative consequences of sugar consumption and acknowledges the research’s accuracy. Frugal Ron, knowing it is impossible for him to die young, will continue pouring maple syrup on his pancakes, drinking orange juice and occasionally eating ice cream. Frugal Ron respects the research on sugar, accepts the ramifications and chooses to ignore it.