If it's not politically helpful, it must not be "sound science".

• Position: Environmental Intelligence

The term "sound science" is popping up more and more often in media coverage of critical issues affecting the human prospect. In his editorial in this issue, science writer Chris Mooney observes that for the Bush administration, "sound science" has become a convenient way of dismissing any research that, for ideological reasons, the administration doesn't like. Use of this term as a propaganda weapon began at least a decade ago, when Philip Morris established a nonprofit front group called the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, to ridicule the evidence linking smoking with cancer. Here are some more recent uses:

* August, 1999: The Associated Press reports from Ohio: "Conservative board members said they wanted to make sure that schools teach sound science, arguing that evolution is a flawed theory that cannot be proven"

* April, 2001: Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force urges the Interior Department to open up more of Alaska for oil and gas drilling, claiming that the recommendation is based on "sound science and the best available technology."

* Sometime in 2002. Republican strategist Frank Luntz sends a memo to Republican congressional candidates suggesting that when they discuss global warming, the thing to emphasize [in furthering the party line that no government action is needed until more research "proves" the need] is "your commitment to sound science."

* March, 2003: Senator James Imhofe, questioning why the U.S. should take any legislative action on global warming, asks "Why go...