Column #95 

Everyone is being informed with Normative Science without knowing what it is. Everyday I hear examples of it when people inquire about my grass-fed and omega-3 meats. The reason normative science is so popular is that it is very compelling in an emotional way. By definition, normative science seeks good methods for achieving seemingly obvious recognized objectives or purposes. In other words it’s a form of policy advocacy.

The standard definition of science as explained in Wikipedia is: “Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material universe; the social sciences, which study people and societies; and the formal sciences, which study logic and mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations. Disciplines which use science, like engineering and medicine, may also be considered to be applied sciences.”

Why is this important when it comes to deciding whether or not to eat grass-fed and Omega-3 meats?

When it comes to nutritional science, animal and forage science, food chemistry, biology, and plant genetics, I’m always using contemporary science. This causes considerable angst with many consumers because they have been inundated with normative science infused with hidden policy preferences. This constant flow of normative science, which is embraced by the media and many marketers, corrupts the practice of good science and becomes the basis for many myths.

Robert T. Lackey, PhD, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, says flat out that “Normative science is a corruption of science and should not be tolerated in the scientific community–without exception.”

The reason he says is, “Using normative science in policy deliberations is not merely a form of policy advocacy, but it is stealth advocacy. I use the word stealth because the average person reading or listening to such ‘scientific’ statements is likely unaware of the hidden advocacy.”

There are scores of examples of normative science and, in some cases, fraudulent “science” that provide reasons for consuming many health foods and supplements. Some marketers use ridiculous scientific claims and innuendo as scare tactics which are gleefully picked up in the media. A prime example of media bias to run with normative science is the popular movie: “Food Inc.” It was so biased it inspired my “Food Inc. Review” essay.

The overwhelmingly popular use of normative science is also why concerned scientists, who are committed to the unsurpassed value of peer reviews in establishing sound science, have been creating websites such as Academics Review, RationalWiki, Sense about Science, and The Genetic Literacy Project, among others.

In spite of their professional efforts to counter myths, the peer-reviewed scientific community is thought to be corrupt by many because it doesn’t agree with the highly publicized normative science. And the bad rap occurs in spite of all the positive scientific breakthroughs we see and learn about on a daily basis that come from contemporary science. For instance, the lithium battery will soon be relegated to the dustbin, surpassed by far better batteries. CRISPR will soon surpass GMO in plant genetics. New planets are being discovered. Anthropologists are learning more about the history of animal life. The list of almost daily breakthroughs is as broad in scope as the breath of scientific inquiry.

As consumers it’s up to us to do our very best to educate ourselves about the differences between normative science and contemporary science. Just like we must master each new phone, each new computer, as well as every other new device or idea to participate fully in our day and age, we must do our best to form our opinions around contemporary science or we may not end up where we intend to go. That’s especially true regarding our health which is governed significantly by what we eat.

To your health.

Ted Slanker

Ted Slanker has been reporting on the fundamentals of nutritional research in publications, television and radio appearances, and at conferences since 1999. He condenses complex studies into the basics required for health and well-being. His eBook, The Real Diet of Man, is available online.

Don’t miss these links for additional reading:

Keep Science and Scientists Credible . . .
by Robert T. Lackey, PhD, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University

Academics Review

RationalWiki

Sense about Science

The Genetic Literacy Project

Food Inc. Review by Ted Slanker

Lithium-Ion Battery Inventor Introduces New Technology for Fast-Charging, Noncombustible Batteries

Questions and Answers about CRISPR

Science Links at SGFM

Science From Wikipedia

Normative Science From Wikipedia

I write skeptically about science, public policy, media and NGOs. By Jon Entine