The Republican War on Science

by Chris Mooney

book data

180 ratings, 3.59 average rating, 39 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		17%
4		37%
3		33%
2		9%
1		1%

edit

published

August 28th 2006 (first published 2005) by Basic Books

binding

Paperback, 357 pages

isbn

0465046762 (isbn13: 9780465046768)

description

The New York Times bestseller that exposes the conservative agenda to put politics ahead of scientific truth.

Science has never been more crucial to

...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | compare prices…

new topic
discuss this book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists. Add this book to your favorite list »

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 365)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

08/19/07

Rick rated it:

The material in The Republican War on Science might have been better served had the book been written by two authors; one focusing on politics and the other on science. Mooney's forte appears to be political journalism, which leaves the book's science somewhat lacking in depth, and renders the work as a whole a bit disjointed. (Also, I often found his sentence structure, particularly when quoting from interviews, to be rather awkward. Instead of writing "Dr. John Smith, a professor of physi...more The material in The Republican War on Science might have been better served had the book been written by two authors; one focusing on politics and the other on science. Mooney's forte appears to be political journalism, which leaves the book's science somewhat lacking in depth, and renders the work as a whole a bit disjointed. (Also, I often found his sentence structure, particularly when quoting from interviews, to be rather awkward. Instead of writing "Dr. John Smith, a professor of physics at UCLA, says 'this and that," he would write 'this and that,' says UCLA physics professor, Nobel Laureate and former chairperson of the Acronym Committee, Dr. John Smith." The backwards construction and the modifier overload are tiresome.) Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile overview of the crimes against reason that the Republican party has been committing over the past few decades, particularly under the Reagan and W. Bush administrations. (Mooney admits that the Democrats haven't been blameless, citing their groundless objections to genetically modified foods, but he maintains that the Republicans have been incomparably worse.)

Mooney observes that science needn't be the final word in deciding political questions, but that politicians should be ethically bound to use the information that their science advisors give them in an honest way. He illustrates this form of integrity with Kennedy's position on the reason for the Moon program: Kennedy's science advisors had told him that there was (at the time) no way to justify the expense of a manned lunar landing from the point of view of science. As a result, Kennedy never tried to sell the Apollo program on the grounds of scientific advancement; he promoted it instead on a platform of national pride. By contrast, when Reagan's Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, reported that there was no scientific link between abortion and breast cancer (which an advisor of Reagan's had hoped could be used as an argument against abortion), Reagan's response was to suppress the report. (Reagan also suppressed Dr. Koop's effort to raise public awareness of the nascent AIDS pandemic, and he ignored the criticisms leveled by his science advisors against his missile defense program, as its supporters continue to do to this day.)

Mooney writes that alteration and suppression of disagreeable findings have become commonplace weapons for the Republican party. He also cites many cases of individual scientists being impugned and discredited in response to their having written reports or articles at odds with Republican positions, and he points out that it's become routine for conservative pundits to label any scientific findings with which they disagree as "junk science," and to bequeath the meaningless title of "sound science" on any finding that jibes with their political goals (or religious beliefs). Mooney also points to many instances of Republicans either disbanding advisory committees whose recommendations ran counter to their politics or stacking committees with sympathetic ideologues. The Office of Technology Assessment for example, was a respected and effective advisor to Congress that was shut down by a Republican Congress in 1995. Among other tactics employed by Republicans are attacks on the scientific method itself, exemplified by the foolish Creationist claim that Evolution is "just a theory." (In the jargon of science, "theory" refers to a framework of ideas that explain observations and make falsifiable predictions; it does not refer, as Creationists repeatedly insinuate, to a tentative guess.)

Yet another Republican tactic is the exaggeration (and even outright manufacture) of uncertainty in, for example, the question of whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, the addictiveness of tobacco or the severity of ozone depletion. In science nothing is ever absolutely certain; there are only degrees of confidence. It's therefore rare for scientists to agree unanimously on current issues; a consensus is the most that can usually be achieved. The perpetual demand for "more proof" and "further studies," and the concordant reliance on outliers -- that is, the small minority of scientists who oppose the consensus on some issue -- is in itself an abuse of the scientific process, and a distortion of information. Outliers are vitally important within the scientific community, where they have the opportunity to challenge the mainstream by making arguments and reporting research in peer-reviewed journals. Outside of the scientific community however, lay people (especially politicians) need to trust the consensus, not cherry-pick the views of the dissenters simply because they like what those outliers have to say. (This isn't elitism; it's an understanding that historically, the consensus has almost always been correct and the outliers incorrect. On the rare occasions that the evidence turns out to support the unorthodox position, the community acknowledges its error and heaps praise on the maverick. The scientific consensus isn't the arbitrary whim of an anointed few; it's simply the most reliable information available at any given time, on any particular scientific question.)

Mooney also discusses many specific instances of Republicans distorting scientific information. Perhaps the most well known example of this in recent years was W. Bush's claim that there were "more than sixty" embryonic stem cell lines in existence, thus justifying his ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In fact it turned out that there were only about twenty stem cell lines, many of which weren't even viable for research. Of the remaining lines, a lack of genetic diversity severely limited their usefulness. What's more, restricting biologists to studying stem cell lines created before some particular date means that they'll never be able to avail themselves of any techniques for creating them that might be developed in the future.(less)

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

2 comments

08/17/07

Barron rated it:

It's mostly focused on how they bend science in favor of corporate interests. Like Gore's "Assault on Reason," it misses the more interesting story--that conservatism is actually a wholesale critique of the enlightenment, and conservative policies reflect that.

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

09/12/07

Nathan rated it:

bookshelves: history, history-politics, science, science-social-theory-etc-

Read in August, 2007

recommends it for: People tired of seeing Science get picked on.

Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" is a fascinating chronicle of the way Republicans (& some conservative Democrats) have manipulated scientific results and statistics to further their own political agendas. Not much can be said about the book that isn't made clear by its title, and it probably is slightly partisan. But the fact is that it would be impossible to write a non-partisan book like this because the record of the Republican Party under George W. Bush is one of com...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

06/12/07

Glenn rated it:

bookshelves: journalism

Read in November, 2005

In February of 2004, this series featured Judith Levine, the author of “Harmful to Minors,” a powerful book about the perils of “protecting” children from sex. In that book, Levine revealed the methods used, and the damage caused by people who take information, twist it to suit particular ends, and in so doing, do damage in real time, and into the future, for a generation of kids growing up ignorant of a vital, primal part of their lives. In her view, truth was immaterial for those obf...more In February of 2004, this series featured Judith Levine, the author of “Harmful to Minors,” a powerful book about the perils of “protecting” children from sex. In that book, Levine revealed the methods used, and the damage caused by people who take information, twist it to suit particular ends, and in so doing, do damage in real time, and into the future, for a generation of kids growing up ignorant of a vital, primal part of their lives. In her view, truth was immaterial for those obfuscating the facts about human sexuality--control, power and profit were their talismans.

In very much the same way, and in a book that rivals Levine’s in both importance and necessity, and with little hyperbole--for the reality is shocking enough--Chris Mooney has carefully, patiently and in a clear, concise manner, spelled out the dangers inherent in the hijacking of science by the Republican right for political ends, and the unholy alliance between conservative politicians and industry lobbyists.

For most people, even hearing the word “science” conjures up thoughts of high-school classrooms, where seemingly arcane knowledge is imparted, only to quickly exit the mind as soon as the period bell rings. Many will approach this book with some fear of not understanding the subject. But Chris Mooney’s approach--his careful, organized investigative reporting--makes the issues plain as day, and relatively simple to understand. There’s an elegance in the book’s form that stems from his writing style--with no pretension, things pared to their essence, perhaps because the author understands that any distraction from the main object--pointing out how science has been abused over the last 30 years--would be ironically like the methods being used by those he criticizes in “The Republican War on Science.”

From acid rain to obesity, from second-hand smoke to stem cells, global warming to creationism, Chris Mooney expertly spells out the damage done to public discourse, and the concurrent damage done to the planet and the political process. This is an essential book, one that hopefully will be part of making changes that simply cannot wait.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

04/16/07

Kyle rated it:

Read in June, 2007

recommends it for: people who like science and politics

I really enjoyed this book. It definitely made me think a lot. I could probably write a paper about it. The basic idea of the book is how conservative politicians will manipulate science or lie about science or create false science to fit in their political goals.

For me the most fascinating parts of it were the reasons why conservatives/republicans would make up fake science. For a lot of the issues, it was "big industry" that would fight a claim. Examples include is...more I really enjoyed this book. It definitely made me think a lot. I could probably write a paper about it. The basic idea of the book is how conservative politicians will manipulate science or lie about science or create false science to fit in their political goals.

For me the most fascinating parts of it were the reasons why conservatives/republicans would make up fake science. For a lot of the issues, it was "big industry" that would fight a claim. Examples include issues like Climate Change and the Ozone Hole. So, these big companies have a lot to lose if it turns out their product has these negative impacts -- so they invest money in fake science to fight it. Interesting, sure. But to me, the more interesting issues are those where there is no "big industry" perpetuating the false science. So these issues include things like abortion, birth control, intelligent design, condom effectiveness, the morning after pill, etc. The people/politicians making up fake science to fight or create these issues are doing so just because of their personal moral beliefs. So I wonder where the money comes from. I also, in my head, was trying to figure out which is worse: lying about something for the sake of money or for the sake of your personal belief system? As Dylan pointed out to me, it's still lying regardless of your purpose. So yeah, this book just made me think a lot about society and how morality can affect it. I'm just left wondering what the purpose is of those who fight to have Intelligent Design taught in schools or those who fight abortion by making up some study about its detrimental effects. Probably as soon as you saw the issues listed, you knew it was a conservative Christian issue. So, what's in it for them?

In conclusion (although I could say more), I do see the reason why you need more than just scientific evidence in order to make decisions. You need to consider things like "just because we can, should we?" I think that both science and personal religious beliefs can exist inside a person's own mind. But the line should be drawn somewhere before you start making up science to match your religious/conservative/moral beliefs. And end.(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

03/22/07

Tina rated it:

Has a copy to sell/swap — Read in October, 2006

A great review of the "intelligent design" debacle, the fight against stem cell research, the absurdity of emergency contraception not being approved for over the counter status and a number of other infuriating ways Republicans have undermined science and policy related to it. Highly recommended for anyone who cares about science and politics.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

02/05/09

Bookmarks Magazine added it (review of isbn 0465046754)

A book titled The Republican War on Science is bound to court controversy, and whether critics liked the book or not surely reflected their own political views and opinion of the current administration. Nonetheless, most reviewers believed that Mooney makes a convincing case that the GOP has launched a systematic assault against unbiased scientific inquiry and that it allows dogma to drive public policy. But critics viewed with skepticism Mooney's contention that the political right has a virtua

...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/17/07

brook rated it:

I would have preferred a book written by a scientist, but having a journalist write the book would help someone less familiar with the arguments. Good read for someone who's not a wonk.

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

02/18/08

Summer rated it:

Read in December, 2005

recommended to Summer by: Was looking for an interesting read at the bookstore.
recommends it for: Everyone interested in educating themselves.

I actually read this book twice! Chris Mooney is a journalist specializing in the meeting place of science and legislation. His focus on politics put my current field of interest into better focus. Mooney examines the decisions of the republican executive branch "from FDR to Nixon." Topics covered are extensive, relevant, and powerful. Among such are creation science, global warming, contraception and stem cell research. You have to read this book. It's more shocking than any dr...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

01/16/08

Tim rated it:

One of the most insidious and underhanded tactics of current political operatives is the use of pseudo-science. As Chris Mooney demonstrates in War on Science, it’s not a new practice, though it has reached a volatile crescendo that’s not only alarming, but often drowning out the voices of real intellectual inquiry.

While Mooney’s thesis primarily targets the GOP, he does give difference to both sides of the aisle as he dissects the historical progression of “junk science” ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

08/16/08

Marge rated it:

Read in September, 2008

I had a tough time finishing this book and though I found it quite interesting in spots, there were chapters that I skimmed. The politicizing (love that word) of science has been going on for a few years, but it seems recently the topics of science are changing quite rapidly and must be acted upon with corresponding urgency. Topics such as stem cell use, global warming, energy use are also controversial and seems the party in power has opportunity to hand pick the "experts" for committ...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

02/12/09

Timothy rated it:

This is a disturbing book describing how recent Republican administrations have worked diligently to suppress solid, peer reviewed scientific evidence when it comes to making policy decisions. It also talks about how we might return to solid data driven decision making.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

01/25/09

Reb rated it:

recommends it for: Everyone

A disturbing account of the active dumbing of this nation. If reading this does not anger you about the future of our nation and our children, I feel sorry for you.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/16/08

P. rated it:

Read in May, 2008

recommends it for: Republicans

There is not a lot new here, but there is more depth and connections made. From the irrational 'Intelligent Design', to the chronic assertion that 'Global Warming' doesn't exist and more. It is all here and there is more. Junk science in support of new drug sales is just one facet of an overall ignorance of and contempt for science. The problem with this Luddite approach is that science works. It details results from inputs, it is not just a good idea, it is the law. Ignore it at your peril...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

12/31/08

Amy Walker rated it:

Read in January, 2009

I tried and had to give up. Much too verbose and I got the point before much earlier than the chapter ending... not fun to read.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/19/08

jack is currently reading it

bookshelves: currently-reading, non-fiction

Read in April, 2008

Just picked this up. To start, I am intrigued, but also a little wary of the attack tone and the non-objective qualifiers in the sentence structure. It just gives me the feeling of spin in its flavor, which is fine in some scenarios, but in a book claiming scientific high ground... well its like a Michael Moore documentary. Very important topic. Very well researched, but the hyperbole actually makes it less convincing than it would be otherwise.

Its early in th book. I'll see how...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

03/30/09

Geoffrey rated it:

Throwing a bunch of facts at the reader until some of them stick is not the same as crafting a cogent critique of ideological warfare in American politics.

Good concept, but Mooney falls astoundingly short of making any serious, lasting arguments. The facts won't interpret themselves, Chris. That's your job.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

01/27/09

Ellis is currently reading it

bookshelves: currently-reading, environment, health, nonfiction, politics, science

Before reading:
A couple of months ago I heard an interview of the first surgeon general in the George W. Bush administration. The in the interview, a common theme was the repression of science by the Bush administration. (The administration strategically ignored scientific findings in order to grease the wheels of big businesses that supported them.) I tried to find a book written by the surgeon general (his name escapes me now), but after striking out I found this one instead.

Like this review? yes

6 comments

06/04/09

Jim rated it:

Documentation for our anger.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

07/27/07

Chris rated it:

Read in March, 2007

Interesting look at the (mostly successful) efforts of religious fundamentalists, lobbyists, and the completely in-the-dark to shape policy decisions in our administration based on a misunderstanding of science. Scary stuff. I guess if you've paid attention to anything going on over the past 6 or 7 years, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to you, but there's still some interesting stuff in here that may shed a bit more light on topics you don't completely understand yet.

Like this review? yes

add a comment