Bad science?

... is what you are really talking about. It is really business interests controlling the invesitigation and disclosure of science that is the problem.But you are right. Bad science is the result.
And it is a serious source of concern in many forms of science.
Even the science I work in (entomology).
It can get very frustrating for many scientists trying to get a pure research position in the public sector - it's just so difficult - and many necessarily take jobs in the private sector where they are essentially forced to tow the company line and makes sure that, no matter what, the company looks good at the end of the day.
I almost gave in to temption of a 'full benefits' private industry job myself when I was a post-doc, but I am glad I toughed it out. I just could never accept having to get the approval of some damned nitwit adminstrator before publishing my work.Even now, ocassionally we test new insecticide products for companies like Dow and FMC. We give them a straight down assessment of their products back-to-back with others and with a control in return for some token funding. I know that they will only use the results IF their product looks good in the trial, but what can I do? They are paying for the research - I can't tell them what to do with the results they've paid for.

I think your definition is a little too broad.
You are saying that use of the scientific approach, by itself, makes you a scientist. I think that most career scientists (like myself) would like to see some measurement of accomplishment attached to the designation. A true scientist is measured by his record of peer-reviewed publications. At least, if anyone asked me to justify my claim to being a scientist, that is what I would point to first. That, and the citation rate of my articles.So just because you can think like a scientist and understand the application of the scientific method is not enough. You have to actually create some new knowledge and have it validated (or at leaste vetted) by other scientists before you can consider yourself one of them.

I think you have a good point, CS.
My criteria are perhaps also too restrictive because I was desribing the operation of 'pure science' as it would apply to researchers.You have a job in 'applied science' - you utilize scientific principles to solve problems in your profession, principles that you necessarily must have a good understanding of. That entitles you to be called a scientist.But a scientist is someone who uses science to accomplish or produce something. You can't just think about science idly and, convinced of your understanding of it, consider yourself a scientist.

If were are going to stay on topic with this, we need to restrict the term 'scientist' to those creating the 'bad science'. So my definition of creating something with the science would seem the most basic requirement. Whether this is an empirical data set that has been corrupted by biased sampling, or a bogus explanation being touted as theory to gratify some political or economic agenda, you become a 'bad scientist' if you do either. (Reminds of watching the television premiere of 'Bad Santa' last night ).But my contention is that most of the 'bad science' is paid for by the rich corporate private sector that has a vested interest in results that suit their economic agenda. Underpaid scientists just end up being the whores and slaves of industry if they are unlucky enough to be employed there.

I don't think you're reading carefully rat.
I think there are research scientists AND applied scientists who are both deserving of the appelation. Crash and CatholicScientist and Quetzal appear to be applied scientists, but they understand and use scientific principles in their professional work on a day-to-day basis. I agree with Schraf to the extent that I would prefer the term reserved for those who are directly involved with using science in their profession. No, I mean a true research scientist.But then, all academic qualifications tend to be ridiculed by those who lack them. And Ph.D. stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper", right?

The overall enterprise of science is simply the systematic pursuit of mechanistic explanations for natural phenomena using the scientific method.Science can become 'bad science' at one of two levels:Data collection (intentional sampling bias).
Data interpretation (intentional distortion or selective presentation of data).The motivations are varied, but usually come down to material profit, either on the part of the individual who seeks to advance his career at the expence of the validity of his work, or the part of a company that sponsors research and has a vested interest in the nature and implications of the results. The latter is by far the most insidious and dangerous. It is one of the reasons we can never roll over to those conservatives who say 'government need not be involved with sponsoring research - any science worth doing can be done by the private sector' At that point, we completely surrender science to the profit motive and scientific research that is 'generally beneficial' to society, but doesn't yield profitable patents, will cease entirely. Edited by EZscience, : formating

Absolutely. There are plenty of Ph.D.'s out there that aren't worth the paper they are printed on.(ABE: I can say that as I have one, but it doesn't quite carry the same weight if someone says that who only has a grade 5 education.)Edited by EZscience, : added content

No, I am using the two terms interchangably.