Author: Tanaka Sigeto (Tohoku University)
Scientific research uses highly complex theory and technical methodology, which can be difficult for non-professionals to understand. Thus, if professionals make an unscientific policy recommendation using fake evidence, it will be difficult for the public to screen such an inauthentic proposal.
This happened in 2010s Japan. Obstetricians and gynecologists created data to show how rapidly women's fecundity decreases along with their increasing age by fabricating, falsifying, and cherry-picking results from studies of biology, medicine, demography, and psychology. Based on those questionable data, they and their organizations carried on a campaign for early marriage and childbearing. The campaign aroused public attention and influenced the government to introduce a new pronatalist policy in March 2015 that aimed at early marriage. Although there are many defects in the data that served as evidence for the policy, these defects had not been properly scrutinized at that time. In August 2015, a newspaper first reported faulty data on women's fecundity, which was being used in a high school textbook to encourage early pregnancy. Criticism subsequently grew, leading to the discovery of many questionable data used during the campaign. However, it was too late to challenge the hegemony of the discourse already established.
This scandal yields lessons in the importance of protecting democracy against fake science. This paper addresses two topics. First, we need a system that allows non-professionals to review scientific literature to conduct fact-checks of the evidence presented by professionals. Second, our review system should be ready for real-time checking of newly emerging discourses. My observation of the scandal carries suggestions about a concrete case of fake science and how we can rebuff it. (See http://tsigeto.info/misconduct/ for details.)
Keywords: Fertility; State, family and population; Gender
Conference: International Sociological Association (ISA), RC06/RC41 Joint Conference: Changing Demography / Changing Families (May 2018, Singapore)
Status: Before the abstract submission
- Locating Family in the Gender Equality Politics: A Focus on Economic Situation after Divorce in Japan (Symposium "The Impact of the Humanities and Social Sciences: Discussing Germany and Japan" in Tokyo) 2017-11-14 (2017-11-14)
- Science as a Vital Point of Democracy: Lessons from the 'Egg Aging' Panic in 2010s Japan (2017-10-31)
- ウィメンズヘルスリテラシー協会 (2017-09-22)
- Hijacking the Policy-Making Process: Political Effects of the International Fertility Decision-Making Study for 2010s' Japan (XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology, July 2018, Toronto) (manuscript) (2017-09-20)
- Fake Information for the 'Egg Aging' Propaganda: The Role of Experts and Journalists in Its Emergence, Authorization, and Radicalization (XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology, July 2018, Toronto) (manuscript) (2017-09-20)
- 濫用される国際比較調査と日本の世論形成: International Fertility Decision-making Survey と少子化社会対策大綱 (第61回数理社会学会大会 2016-03-17) (2016-03-17)
- 【論文】「妊娠・出産に関する正しい知識」が意味するもの：プロパガンダのための科学? (2016-03-09)
- 11月30日（月）シンポジウム「高校保健・副教材にみる専門家の倫理と責任―データ改ざんと出産誘導」(東京ウィメンズプラザ) (2015-11-30)
- A Spider's-Eye View of National Sociologies: Web 2.0 Technologies to Go Beyond Borders (ISA Forum of Sociology, 2016 Vienna) (under review) (2015-09-30)
- Dynamics of Ideology and Institution: Probable Scenarios for Changes in Beliefs about Gender and Family in Japan (ISA Forum of Sociology, 2016 Vienna) 2016-07-11 (2015-09-30)
- 学会報告メモ即時公開の手順 (2015-06-14)
- Maintaining diversity in policy-oriented research (第88回日本社会学会大会 2015-09 報告申込、審査中) (2015-06-08)
- What will we witness when we seriously try to boost fertility? (第25回日本家族社会学会大会 2015-09 報告申込中) (2015-06-07)
- WLBと児童給付の経済的効果のシミュレーション (2015-05-26)
- 政府が本気で出生力増大に取り組んだら何が起きるのか? 普遍的児童給付政策の規範的制約 (2015-05-25)
Leave your comment
All items are optional (except the comment content). Posted comment will be immediately published, without preview/confirmation.
To pass my SPAM filter, include some non-ASCII characters more than 1% of Your Comment content. If you cannot type non-ASCII characters, copy & paste the star marks: ★☆★☆★☆.