将“sound science”译为“真科学、真正的科学、可靠的科学、靠得住的科学”。“politicized science”译为为“为政治服务的科学、政治化的科学、政治性的科学”。“sound science”与“politicized science”、“good science”、“junk science”、“pseudoscience”等的关系,请看下面的资料。

请阅读背景资料：

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sound_science

Sound science is a phrase often used by corporate public relations and government agency spokesmen to describe the scientific research used to justify a claim or position. Sound science, however, has no specific scientific definition itself, so the phrase is used subjectively. "Sound science" is not a synonym of "good science" practices, but rather it is an ideological policy statement more about the criteria for the use of science in policy making. It is invoked mostly to call into question the validity of a given study or scientific statement.

Lack of "sound science" is a common critique used against public health and consumer activists in an attempt to discredit their concerns about public safety and environmental risk. Junk science is often presented as the opposite of "sound science," usually for propagandistic purposes that favor industry.

According to Chris Mooney in his book, The Republican War on Science,. "sound science", especially in conjunction with the Data Quality Act, often means "requiring a higher burden of proof before action can be taken to protect public health and the environment." He also states that, "the sound science movement also confuses the quality of scientific analysis with the degree of scientific certainty that has been achieved on a given question" and manufactures uncertainty by "relying on scientific outliers to sow doubt about mainstream findings"

In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled "The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America", obtained by the Environmental Working Group, conservative political consultant Frank Luntz, said "sound science" arguments provide "a window of opportunity to challenge the science." and he has urged politicians to "be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." In other words sound science advocates are not interested in "good science", objectivity, or even "sound" science practices, but in politicizing science to support a specific viewpoint, often relying on testimonials from their own hired, special interest "experts."

The intended result is often to delay or prevent government regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the concept of spurious information being posited as science. For the studio album by Deep Dish, see Junk Science (album).

"Sound science" redirects here. For the branch of physics, see acoustics. Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. The term may convey a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation.[citation needed] More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view.  These terms have been particularly promoted by Steven Milloy and the Advancement of Sound Science Center. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.

The terms 'junk science' and 'sound science' do not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; they are primarily terms of political debate.