Tiền bẩn và nguỵ khoa học

by David Michaels, Phạm Trang Nhung (dịch)

NHỮNG MÁNH KHÓE, CHIÊU TRÒ ĐỊNH HƯỚNG DƯ LUẬN CỦA CÁC TẬP ĐOÀN CÔNG NGHIỆP ĐƯỢC PHƠI BÀY TRONG CUỐN SÁCH NÀY!

Chưa bao giờ việc tạo ra sự hoài nghi lại mang lại nhiều lợi ích đến thế.

Bắt nguồn từ triết lý tuyên truyền lợi dụng những lời dối trá hoang đường của Goebbels, các tập đoàn công nghiệp lớn đã áp dụng chúng để khiến công chúng rơi vào nghi ngờ chính niềm tin trước kia của mình, từ đó khiến cho các sản phẩm độc hại trở thành "con gà đẻ trứng vàng" mang đến một nguồn lợi nhuận khổng lồ. Cũng từ đây, một ngành làm ăn béo bở mới ra đời từ giữa thế kỷ 20, và vẫn còn tồn tại đầy mạnh mẽ đến tận bây giờ: Khoa học vụ lợi.

Với nhiều năm kinh nghiệm khi phục vụ hai đời tổng thống Mỹ, cũng như kinh qua nhiều chức vụ quan trọng trong bộ máy chính quyền đất nước cờ hoa, David Michaels đã nhìn thấu và phơi bày chi tiết các mánh khóe của các tập đoàn công nghiệp nhằm làm suy yếu bằng chứng, định hướng dư luận, trì hoãn các quy định bảo vệ và thắng các vụ kiện tụng như những nguyên đơn đã và đang chịu thiệt hại.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Politics, History, Psychology, Economics, Society

400 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2024

Reviews

[Atila Iamarino · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Michaels é um epidemiologista que foi administrador da Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, Administração de Segurança e Saúde Ocupacional) dos Estados Unidos pelo maior tempo. Ele tem experiência de primeira mão de como empresas subvertem o conhecimento científico para continuarem fazendo o que não deveriam estar fazendo.

Do aquecimento global à manipulação de emissões de gases de carros a Diesel, do cigarro ao uso de opioides nos EUA, do açúcar a compostos químicos que se acumulam no nosso corpo sem perspectiva de que serão degradados, o livro é uma parada de situações de passar mal, destrinchando como se semeia a dúvida e a controvérsia ao redor de temas onde o consenso científico é claro, para que quem se beneficia da situação corrente não precise mudar suas práticas.

Quando foi demonstrado, por exemplo, que o acúmulo de silício nos pulmões era muito problemático, assim que se tentou regulamentar as condições de trabalho de quem se expunha a pó de sílica, a indústria começou a promover a argumentação de que isso não era um problema ou, mesmo se fosse, seria caro de mais para se resolver. No fim das contas, foi bem mais prático e barato de se resolver do que haviam argumentado e a produtividade dos trabalhadores ainda aumentou, já que deixaram de ficar doentes. Mas o processo não foi nada fácil.

Uma leitura um tanto longa, mas que vale muito.

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is so refreshing to read David Michaels’ The Triumph of Doubt. He has the facts researched, vetted and thoroughly cited, and is not afraid to lay blame, call people liars and companies frauds. He is clear-thinking, organized and direct. At one point he recites a long list of claims by Big Sugar as to how truly benign their product is, and the last line is “None of this is true.” He calls climate skeptics climate terrorists because they are doing severe damage and causing vast numbers of deaths with their lies. He says what they all have in common is manufacturing uncertainty to keep the market confused.

The book uses Big Tobacco’s decades-long battle to put off the inevitable (while continuing to rake in billions) as the blueprint that everyone is copying in their similar quests. They all want to keep killing their customers as well as innocent bystanders while profiting exorbitantly from dangerous products and practices. The playbook was actually created in the early fifties by Big Sugar, which already saw the writing on the wall at that time. Its campaign chief moved over to the tobacco version when Hill & Knowlton created it at the end of 1953. That’s how long ago Big Tobacco knew the end was in sight. The tactics were to deny and deflect, to produce bogus studies refuting real studies, to create and finance fake grassroots support groups and industry support groups, and to place endless articles in both scientific journals and mass media by financing their authors.

The (desired) result is always confusion in the marketplace, as talk shows and magazine articles fall for the industry-approved stories and promote their diversions. We’ve all heard or seen them: It doesn’t matter how much sugar you consume as long as you exercise, that athletes are immune to concussions because they brace for it, and that opioids are not addictive for people who are not already addicted. How does anyone know what is real with all the contradictory stories? How did we get to this state of affairs?

Michaels explains it all matter-of-factly, because this is a well-worn playbook by now. For example, he says: “The tobacco strategists also realized that they couldn’t mount their own studies, which would take years and millions of dollars, so they figured they could get the raw data from the incriminating studies, change some of the basic assumptions, change the parameters, tinker with this and that, and make the results go away. Tobacco’s approach is now commonplace; ‘re-analysis’ is its own cottage industry within product defense.“ It kept lawmakers at bay for an additional 50 years.

He deeply probes the new industry of professional deniers that has grown out of Big Tobacco’s need for distraction. For decades, the same names and the same firms show up at congressional hearings and in court, publish refutable studies and challenge all the true studies, which they simply attack as faulty and inadequate. The same individuals are instantly experts in every field. They love to say “more study is needed” and “the causal connection has not been proven” to send everyone back to square one. In the US system, they’re allowed to. Michaels names them all – something to watch for in future controversies. Known liars and frauds should be outed, and at very least, their claims ignored.

They have convinced Congress to enact laws that for example, require federal agencies to use only studies provided to them by the industry they are overseeing. This was after getting those agencies to have to hand over all their own raw data so the industry could twist and refute it. With these advantages, industry could and does challenge every line in every report, forcing the agency to go back and create a thorough rebuttal to the criticism. This can add years to any process. Whatever industry has to pay for it, it’s worth it. In the interim, customers die.

Michaels has had a front row seat to all this. For seven years in the Obama administration he headed OSHA, which regulates safety in workplaces. He has written widely and deeply on the topic of doubt, and has been called to testify under oath numerous times. His credibility is unassailable, though the industry flacks keep trying. His whole life has been epidemiology, how disease spreads, so he holds his own in these proceedings with total confidence. He says he has no worries about any of the claims he makes in the book. Bring it on. This combative book is a rarity, particularly as protective agencies are being hobbled.

Horrifyingly, Michaels shows the same playbook in numerous other such (what should be) criminal cases, including opioids, Teflon, alcohol, sugary drinks, Volkswagen’s diesel fraud and even concussions in American football. So everything in the book is current and familiar. He sees his job as stopping industry from killing everyone in the quest for vast profit, and theirs is to stop him at all costs, or at least put it off until they can retire wealthy.

One of Michaels’ greatest achievements was nailing down regulations for silica (from sand), a battle that went on for two decades. The delaying tactics included a memorable incident when an industry lawyer challenged a government witness to prove that silica actually caused silicosis, claiming no such connection was ever demonstrated. As Michaels calmly points out, the very definition of silicosis is lung disease caused by silica, hence the name. This is the kind of thing industry routinely resorts to as it flails in any and all directions. In the meantime, miners, construction workers and neighbors are sentenced to death.

He calls for more respect for government agencies, which are packed with dedicated scientists who gave up lucrative careers to research and promote truth, safety, and security for everyone. He says they should be allowed to ban not just individual chemical compounds, but the whole range. He says industry, banned from using one specific chemical compound, simplify reformulates it with the same active ingredient, and the whole dance starts over while innocents die. Science itself is totally disrespected as can be seen daily in the current administration, and one of the political parties actively pursues that line of prejudice. The result is ineffective government, which the administration uses to show regulation is bad.

So is it true that exercise counts more than the sugar you drink? Or that alcohol in moderation is actually good for you? Or that nine out of 10 smokers don’t develop cancer from tobacco (as VP Mike Pence declares), so people should have the freedom to smoke around others? Should you really distrust all the scientists who have concluded that climate change is real and instead believe the senators and governors of backward states? Or the corporate lobbyists over the career government researchers who claim that CO2 is not a pollutant? If you are confused because a flurry of studies pops up in the news saying something is actually beneficial and that all the other studies are wrong, this is the book for you. Because not knowing can be fatal.

David Wineberg

[Roo Phillips · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Michaels headed OSHA during the Obama years. This book is basically a list of controversial episodes in product history and how industries worked with product defense firms to manufacture doubt about "good" science at the expense of human lives. A few of the topics covered include tobacco, silica, sugar, opioids, climate, forever chemicals, VW pollution, etc. You will never read a book with more acronyms than this one. I liked the book. I felt like Michaels was the right person to write this story. No doubt he has his own biases, but he seems well qualified to speak intelligently on this subject. My takeaway, not that I didn't already feel this way, is that where there is money there is corruption. Industries making billions of dollars on a product often times will, at a minimum, do everything possible up to being illegal to make money. Crossing over the illegal or unethical line is all too easy at that point. Much of how difficult or easy it is for companies and industries to get away with this corruption has to do with our political leaders and their own motivated interests.

The number one way for addressing the problems of motivated reasoning and conflict of interest, according to Michaels, is for scientists and research studies to be required to disclose all connections, in particular those ones motivated with money. A secondary solution is to limit the opportunity for product defense firms to just do meta analysis (take existing studies and reinterpret them) instead of making their own hypotheses and doing proper science. The book is a bit of a broken record with the same type of nefarious obfuscation being played out over and over, whether it is just a different product or a different industry.

[Marcel Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

ENGLISH

“The Triumph of Doubt” describes in great detail the most famous — and some unbelievable — corporate scandals related to products that reveal themselves dangerous to the health of consumers and workers.

The book recognizes a pattern in the “modus operandi” of the industries involved in these scandals, used in an attempt to cover up problems or defend products that can harm health. This way of acting always involves spending millions or billions of dollars, generally with the co-optation of scientists to support such defense.

According to the author, this “modus operandi” began with the case of the tobacco industry, which for years invested heavily in putting scientific studies in doubt that pointed to the harm of cigarettes to the health of active and passive smokers. From then on, industries such as those producing chemicals, medicines, beverages, food, and fuels began to use very similar tactics, including hiring common strategists. The author also criticizes the lack of transparency when scientists do not adequately disclose their conflicts of interest even though they are paid by the industry to produce studies.

The book provides a critical reflection on the way capitalism works. Despite the obvious advances for the well-being of humanity, the system has flaws that promote the continued exposure of consumers and workers to risks to life and health for many years, thanks to the economic power of large corporations.

The author headed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States government between 2009 and 2017. Due to his long tenure at the agency, he had major clashes with industries accused of selling dangerous products.

In fact, this book is about perhaps one of the “places” of greatest “friction” in the capitalist system. It is a point of failure in functioning (“market failure”), where repetitive conflicts, regardless of the industry involved, are bound to occur.

Marx (my review here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) and later Schumpeter (my review here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), described the essence of how the capitalist system works and its incentives: the constant need to overcome competition in the name of profit leads to the creation of new and better products, destroying the “status quo” even in relation to society's way of life. The point is that this struggle not only brings about benefits, but also the desperate behavior of companies to keep products on the market that put the population at risk. If, to achieve this goal, the alternative is to distort science, even if only to spread uncertainty, there is no doubt that this will be the choice of the corporations involved, eager for profits or even to ensure their survival.

From the vast majority of disputes described, what is clear is that the industry of a product under suspicion almost always ends up losing the battle. Sooner or later, these products end up being restricted or banned. This raises questions about the rationality of these companies’ actions in defending these products so aggressively (and costly). Motivations that may explain this behavior include reducing costs, which in the US can be high — although the author complains that in many cases, even billion-dollar fines or compensations end up being a fraction of these companies’ profits — or buying time until a new product or technology is rolled out that exceeds the profits and costs of the product under suspicion.

Another important topic for reflection is that the “product defense industry,” as the author calls it, adopts as a strategy using one of the main characteristics of science against itself. In fact, no matter how rigorous and accurate scientific studies may be, it is the essence of science not to present definitive conclusions for its questions and to allow them to be overcome through new studies — which some call “falsifiability.” The “product defense industry” then uses this premise to always point out some aspect that is not perfectly addressed in existing studies and accuse the absence of a causal link between exposure to the product and harmful effects.

However, as the author explains, products on the market do not enjoy fundamental protective principles, such as “in dubio pro reu”. In the case of public policies, especially those involving public health, the precautionary principle prevails. Even if science does not offer definitive proof, “in dubio pro societatis” applies whenever strong evidence points to a harm to health.

Unfortunately, the topic involves an evident ideological and partisan dispute. The author does not shy away from pointing to the American Republican Party as a bastion of plunder against science or against attempts to regulate dangerous products, naming some of its members who have sometimes acted with these objectives.

The fierce defense of science in public policies can sometimes arouse antipathy because it sounds arrogant, as if it intended to replace democracy with technocracy. It is also easy for the author to be labeled a “leftist” or “communist”. Furthermore, defending a product is a right recognized in democratic systems. The author, however, argues that regulation serves to protect capitalism itself. The idea is to raise the bar so that the market operates under rules that protect the population, which is likely to be harmed by the problem of information asymmetry.

This is a thought-provoking topic, addressed competently with courage and clarity in this book. The author also proposes measures or solutions for the problems identified, obviously always involving strict regulation of potentially dangerous products and greater transparency in science.


PORTUGUÊS

“O Triunfo da Dúvida” descreve com riqueza de detalhes os mais famosos — e alguns inacreditáveis — escândalos corporativos relacionados a produtos que se revelam perigosos para a saúde de consumidores e trabalhadores.

O livro reconhece um padrão no modus operandi das indústrias envolvidas nesses escândalos, utilizado na tentativa de acobertar problemas ou defender produtos que podem prejudicar a saúde. Esse modo de atuar sempre envolve gastos de milhões ou bilhões de dólares, em geral com o aliciamento de cientistas para lastrear tal defesa.

Esse modus operandi, segundo o autor, nasceu com o caso da indústria do tabaco, que por anos investiu pesadamente na criação de dúvida sobre estudos científicos que apontavam para os malefícios do cigarro para a saúde de fumantes ativos e passivos. A partir daí, indústrias como a de produtos químicos, remédios, bebidas, alimentos e combustíveis passaram a se valer de táticas em tudo semelhantes, incluindo a contratação de estrategistas em comum. O autor critica também a falta de transparência quando cientistas não informam adequadamente seus conflitos de interesse mesmo sendo pagos pela indústria para produzirem estudos.

O livro realiza uma reflexão crítica de fundo sobre o modo de funcionar do capitalismo. Apesar dos evidentes avanços para o bem estar da humanidade, o sistema possui falhas que favorecem a continuidade da exposição de consumidores e trabalhadores a riscos à vida e à saúde por longos anos graças ao poder econômico de grandes corporações.

O autor foi chefe da Administração de Segurança e Saúde Ocupacional do governo dos Estados Unidos entre 2009 e 2017. Devido ao seu longo tempo à frente da agência, ele teve grandes embates com indústrias acusadas de comercializarem produtos perigosos.

De fato, este livro é sobre talvez um dos “locais” de maior “fricção” do sistema capitalista. Trata-se de um ponto de falha de funcionamento (“falha de mercado”), onde conflitos repetitivos, independentemente da indústria envolvida, devem sempre ocorrer.

Marx (minha resenha aqui https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) e posteriormente Schumpeter (minha resenha aqui https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), descreveram a essência do funcionamento do sistema capitalista e seus incentivos: a constante necessidade de superação da concorrência em nome do lucro leva à criação de novos e melhores produtos, destruindo o status quo até mesmo com relação aos modos de vida na sociedade. A questão é que essa luta não traz apenas benefícios, mas também o comportamento desesperado de empresas para manter no mercado produtos que colocam a população em risco. Se para esse objetivo a alternativa for desvirtuar a ciência, nem que seja apenas para disseminar a incerteza, não há dúvidas de que essa será a opção das corporações envolvidas, ansiosas por lucros ou mesmo por garantir sua sobrevivência.

Da grande maioria das disputas descritas, o que se percebe é que a indústria de um produto sob suspeita quase sempre acaba perdendo o embate. Mais dia menos dia, os produtos acabam restringidos ou banidos. Isso leva ao questionamento sobre a racionalidade da atuação dessas empresas na defesa tão aguerrida (e custosa) desses produtos. Motivações que eventualmente podem explicar o comportamento são reduzir os custos, que nos EUA podem ser altos — apesar de o autor reclamar que em muitos casos mesmo multas ou indenizações bilionárias acabam sendo uma fração do lucro dessas empresas — ou ganhar tempo até que um novo produto ou tecnologia sejam lançados superando os lucros e custos do produto sob suspeita.

Outro tema de reflexão importante é que a “indústria de defesa de produto”, como o autor a chama, adota como estratagema usar uma das características principais da ciência contra ela mesma. De fato, por mais que estudos científicos possam ser rigorosos e apurados, é da essência da ciência não apresentar conclusões definitivas para suas questões e permitir sua superação por meio de novos estudos — o que alguns chamam de “falseabilidade”. A “indústria de defesa de produtos”, então, utiliza essa premissa para apontar sempre algum aspecto não perfeitamente abordado nos estudos existentes e acusar a ausência de nexo causal entre exposição ao produto e efeito maléfico.

Ocorre, porém, como bem explica o autor, que produtos no mercado não gozam de princípios fundamentais protetivos, como o “in dubio pro reu”. No caso de políticas públicas, especialmente envolvendo saúde pública, vale mais o princípio da precaução. Mesmo que a ciência não ofereça provas definitivas, vale o “in dubio pro societatis” quando evidências fortes apontem para malefícios à saúde.

O tema envolve, infelizmente, evidente disputa ideológica e partidária. O autor não se esquiva de apontar o Partido Republicano norte-americano como bastião da pilhagem contra a ciência ou contra tentativas de regulação de produtos perigosos, citando nominalmente alguns de seus membros que por vezes atuaram com esses objetivos.

A defesa aguerrida da ciência em políticas públicas pode às vezes despertar antipatia por soar prepotente, como se pretendesse substituir a democracia pela tecnocracia. É fácil ainda o autor receber a pecha de “esquerdista” ou “comunista”. Além disso, defender um produto é um direito reconhecido em sistemas democráticos. O autor, no entanto, defende que a regulação serve para proteger o próprio capitalismo. A ideia é elevar a barra para que o mercado funcione sobre regras que protejam a população, passível de ser prejudicada pelo problema da assimetria de informação.

É um tema instigante, abordado de modo competente, com coragem e clareza neste livro. O autor propõe ainda medidas ou soluções para os problemas identificados, obviamente sempre passando pela regulação severa de produtos potencialmente perigosos e pela maior transparência na ciência.

[Richard S · Rating 4 out of 5]

Among the many unsung heros who walk among us are those wonderful few who devote their lives to protecting us against the excesses of corporate irresponsibility in various ways, and in the case of Professor Michaels, who served eight years as assistant director of the OHSA under Obama, we have received a wonderful and well-written summary of the regulatory battle waged between those do us harm and those who struggle to defend us. The battle is lopsided - on the one hand the large corporate behemoths with virtually unlimited funds, which they use to fund biased studies to support their spurious claims, and on the other hand government regulators, in a government "captured" to a large degree by these interests. The main point of the book is how corporations do "fake science" to create "doubt and uncertainty" when they create their toxic products using the same group of usual suspects.

Each chapter generally covers one area or another of corporate malfeasance, from Big Tobacco hiding the lung cancer evidence to silica exposure. Most of Michaels' points are excellent and revealing, and the extent to which corporations engage in nefarious practices is astounding - imagine expending all that time and money and energy, just so you can kill people for a little bit longer. The Volkswagen story is particularly incredible, and just shows that the largest companies are not immune.

In some areas the book fails however, whenever Professor Michaels goes outside of the areas that he has personal experience with (like silica) into areas where he doesn't have depth of knowledge as an epidemiologist - global warming being a particular example of this, where he just parrots what he has heard; a deep dive would reveal the complexity of the issue, although his treatment is much more intelligent than let's say the treatment of climate change in Tucker Carlson's "Ship of Fools". Thankfully - except for a inappropriate cheap shot at Kavanaugh's dad (?), the book doesn't engage in the usual psychotic derangement railing against Trump found in a lot of recent science books; the book criticizes him and his deregulation efforts in a clear way (if only all writers on the left could do this) to show how utterly terrible he has been on the regulation front in the area of public health. While many government regulations are terrible and meaningless, the ones related to worker health and safety are incredibly important. And the costs are so minimal - with silica in particular, the cost of modifying equipment and creating new equipment creates new, safer technology at a cost which is pretty insubstantial.

I bought this book as it was on a list of science books recommended by Yale and it just happened to be at the bookstore. It's kind of a random book to read for me, but I found it fascinating, and although it got a bit tedious at the end it was consistently well-written and interesting.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very important book and also very timely. It is disturbing on many levels and every citizen of the planet should understand the tactics of of corporations to obfuscate, deflect or sow doubt via alternative facts, the health or environmental impact of their products, components or waste.

Profits before people, that’s all it is. This book left me with a profound feeling of dread. When it comes down to it, pay to play politics, regulator to industry revolving doors and the erosion of science and fact are changing the planet to the detriment of the environment and our health. Money really is the root of all evil.

I strongly recommend this book for everyone. We ignore at our own peril.

[Scott Schneider · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterful expose of how industry misuses science to delay and obfuscate resulting in years of inaction by the Federal government and huge profits for the industry, even factoring in eventual settlements and lawsuits. Most people think of science as objective and scientists have a positive reputation. Industry uses that perception to their advantage to back up their false claims. Science is not always clear and there is always uncertainty, particularly when it comes to long term risks and diseases like cancer. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse to delay action and harms thousands or millions of people. Hopefully this book will be a wake up call for people to be skeptical of industry-funded "science" and press for more transparency and reliance on independent science and "science for the people."

[Counsel182 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well written--I will give him that--but horribly one sided. A lot is well researched an accurate but michaels himself is hell bent on advancing a political agenda. There certainly are "experts" on the left who are bought and paid for as well but you wouldn't dream of that reading this diatribe.

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a page-turner, but chock-full of important information about how the evil techniques developed originally to defend Big Tobacco have been used over and over for other deadly industries.

[Alex Rubenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an exceptionally important book. Michaels carefully outlines the myriad ways in which product defense firms and for-hire scientists have serially undermined inquiry into public health effects of various products by injecting doubt and misinformation.

Major approaches:
1. Cast doubt on the weight of the evidence. Findings are uncertain, more work is needed, it's unclear. AKA let's conduct our own seriously flawed studies and give more weight to them than the independent science out there, create uncertainty, and use this to defer or avoid regulation, despite people dying from exposure, all in the interest of maximizing short-term shareholder value.

2. Conduct a "risk assessment": Torture the data enough and it will tell you anything. What are the likely effects at different exposure levels? Let's cherry-pick the evidence and industry will always support standards that are much higher than are actually safe.

3. Reanalysis: As much of the raw data is now required to be made publicly available, let's do a re-analysis to make a significant effect disappear (much easier than the opposite). Yes, some studies have limitations, but this is outright unethical in fitting the results to your predetermined conclusions.

And others, but front groups that are portrayed as independent researchers, yet do the dirty work for industry, are particularly sickening. How do these people sleep at night?

These are the key chapter examples:
DuPont: Teflon and polyfluoroalkyl substances have adverse effects on humans and animals. DuPont actively blocks scientists from speaking to the EPA. Hires their own "scientists" to conduct junk studies to exonerate the company and chemicals and conveniently find that PFOAs are safe.

Paul Tagliabue and the NFL: CTE is bad. NFL hires Exponent, a product defense firm to create the Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries committee and investigate, which by name alone assumes an answer (i.e., "mild") before the research is even done. Of course, these papers give conclusions minimizing or denying existence of long-term effects of head trauma from playing football. MTBI says the researchers have no financial conflicts of interest, but yes, yes they did. Then the players start dying...

Alcoholic Beverages: Promote that moderate alcohol consumption can actually be good for people, even if recognizing that high amounts are bad. Questionable methods, unreliable results, cherry-picked findings. Big Alcohol hires hundreds of questionably ethical scientists who work to suit the industry's interests.

Volkswagen and Diesel (never buy VW): This story is just insane. Much more than cheating emissions tests, VW installed defeat devices into its engine to fool emissions testers into showing that new diesel was more efficient than gas. Hires its own scientists to support the conclusions it wants. Gets caught, execs blame lower-level employees rather than take responsibility, revises engines to just make better defeat devices rather than fix things. Conduct very unethical study testing monkeys and exposing them to diesel particulates. EPA chief Pruitt complicit in all this, claiming inability to regulate. It's all really even so much worse than this blurb.

Opioids and Purdue Pharma: OxyContin quite addictive and dangerous. We'll investigate, do research, and review existing research! Oh, but the studies are paid for by the opioid industry, written by docs on Big Pharma's payroll or industry ghostwriters. Not difficult to say there's no bad effects when you suppress some studies, cherry-pick others, and misrepresent still others. Drug makers pay millions to physicians to promote more addictive pills. Do these doctors not have any morals?!?

Silica and Talc (Johnson & Johnson), Climate Change Denial (ExxonMobil, Shell, and the Republican Party), Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper, et al.) are all prominent examples of things that are clearly bad for public health, yet industry has their financial hands deep in the pockets of people who publish research under the guise of science but really are only there to support the claims of the industry: that the product is safe or at least no intervention/regulation is needed. It's unethical, fraught with financial conflicts of interest, and infuriating to me that juries would side with corporations who inject doubt into their minds with questionable science by people who were hired by them to show what they want them to show. Oh, 99% of this industry-funded research gives findings that supports the industry's position? You don't effin' say.

And yes, the Republican party is known for its hostility to any scientific evidence that doesn't support the needs of its financial benefactors. I'll cede that some Democrats may be, too, but to argue that the GOP isn't nearly entirely on the side of big business and anti-regulation is laughable. Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord, Pence voting against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Koch brothers funding efforts to stop gov't action on these issues and supporting only Republican interests, Trump appointing product defense lobbyists or other completely unqualified individuals to science-related positions in his administration (e.g., Louis Cox, Charmaine Yoest), the list goes on (like him firing the 2018 pandemic response team before the coronavirus, or putting polluters as EPA officials). Support the free market and de-regulation, because it's in the interest of the economy, despite the fact that people are dying without such regulation. These products cause harm, and the industry is conflicted in its research to argue it is safe, and has multiple tactics to undermine our health. But here's the rub: Republicans do such things all under the guise of personal freedom and free market enterprise/capitalism. I can't buy that, because regulation fosters a safe space for market growth. Michaels concludes: "Freedom is not possible unless we are secured from being harmed by others, and in our modern world we individuals cannot bargain with the factory owner or manufacturer of contaminated products and food...product defense science doesn't just game our free-market system; it prevents our government from protecting people from harm".

5 Stars.

[Rachel Renbarger · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is one of the most dramatic yet redundant books I have ever read. The author has credibility by being a former leader of OSHA but he's way too one sided --- and I'm even on his side! It's obvious that he just wants to say everything industry scientists do is bad but it's so unrealistic and contrary to what scientists are doing regarding the open science movement. He had some interesting components for a non-epidemiologist like me, such as the journals and articles cited that are bogus, and many of his concerns are valid, but all you need is to read the introduction with a gallon of salt and you'll get the same idea. I only finished it because I'm writing a book review on it. Otherwise I would've put it down maybe 1/3 of the way through. It doesn't get better.

[Stephanie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book didn't provide me with any new understanding of how science can be manipulated to meet any end. Though some of the case examples were new to me (teflon), the overall book provided too redundant of a narrative for me to appreciate reading to the end. We gave up about 3/4 of the way through.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Like in 1984, Michaels needs a Pravda, one Truth to rule them All. Away with this liberal dystopia where the people could decide for themselves, this Hive needs some order!

[Ngoc Vu · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Tiền bẩn và nguỵ khoa học” là một cuốn sách rất hay viết về cách mà các tập đoàn và các ngành công nghiệp dùng tiền bạc và chiêu trò để thao túng khoa học, qua đó phủ nhận những tác hại của những sản phẩm của họ lên sức khoẻ và tính mạng của người tiêu dùng hay của chính những nhân công đang ngày đêm làm việc cho họ. Bản thân tác giả là một giáo sư về dịch tễ học tại trưởng Y tế Cộng đồng, trực thuộc đại học George Washington và trong đó có nhiều năm làm việc tại Cơ quan Bảo vệ Sức khoẻ và An Toàn Lao động tại bộ Lao Động Mỹ nên hơn ai hết ông hiểu những mánh khoé này và trực tiếp đối đầu với nhiều trong số chúng. Cuốn sách chia làm nhiều chương, đề cập đến rất nhiều ngành nghề lớn như: ngành thuốc lá, rượu bia, thực phẩm, mỹ phẩm, y tế, khai thác khoáng sản và nguyên liệu hoá thạch, xây dựng, ô tô và thậm chí là cả thể thao. Cuốn sách tập trung sâu vào cách các chiêu bài mà các đoàn thể trong ngành công nghiệp dùng để đối phó với các tiêu chuẩn và quy tắc về an toàn bằng cách dùng chính khoa học để phản bác khoa học. Làm sao có thể như vậy khi sự thật chỉ có một ? Ấy vậy mà vẫn có thể, bằng cách chi tiền cho một ngành công nghiệp phái sinh: biện luận sản phẩm. Và ngành này đã làm cách nào ?: họ phản bác lại những bằng chứng khoa học là thiếu chứng cớ, ko đủ cơ sở để kết luận, họ tung ra những bài báo, nghiên cứu có kết quả trái ngược để tạo dư luận hai chiều, và khi không thể phản bác, họ kéo dài quy trình kiện tụng chứng minh (có khi đến vài năm) để tranh thủ kiếm chác. Không thiếu những nhà khoa học không có tâm, và thiếu tri thức làm việc cho ngành khoa học bẩn này. Vấn đề quan trọng nữa ở đây là khi đối mặt với khủng hoảng, cách làm quen thuộc của các doanh nghiệp là phản bác, phản bác, tìm mọi phương cách để phản bác, ko chỉ lôi kéo khoa học, họ còn lôi cả chính trị vào cuộc. Họ cũng ko xem xét xem những quy định mới về An toàn cho người lao động và người tiêu dùng có thực sự tốn kém và gây tổn hại như họ nghĩ hay thật ra có thể đỡ tốn kém hơn nhiều so với những phí tổn từ kiện tụng và pr phát sinh.
Nói chung các chiêu bài của các doanh nghiệp này khá quen thuộc, mà tác giả đã tổng hợp trong chương cuối của cuốn sách, tuy vậy với mỗi chương người đọc vẫn thấy sửng sốt trước những gì mà các tập đoàn này làm để phủ nhận sự độc hại trong môi trường làm việc hay sản phẩm mà họ sản xuất ra. Đọc mới thấy là những tiện lợi của xã hội hiện đại cũng tiềm ẩn biết bao nguy cơ đang ngấm ngầm ảnh hưởng đến sức khoẻ của chúng ta mà là người tiêu dùng bình thường hay chỉ là một công nhân/ nhân viên thấp cổ bé họng ta chẳng thể nào biết được hay làm gì được. Nền văn hoá trọng dụng nhân tài này không đồng nghĩa với việc đạo đức của họ được nâng cao. Nếu ko có những doanh nghiệp coi trọng đạo đức kinh doanh và những người đấu tranh bảo vệ an toàn lao động thì sức khoẻ của chúng ta và con cháu chúng ta sẽ về đâu đây ? Một vài dòng thông tin sản phẩm trên bao bì sẽ ko thể đủ để chúng ta biết các thành phần hoá học của một chất hay một hợp chất sẽ tác động lâu dài đến ta ra sao hay bao nhiêu là một ngưỡng an toàn chấp nhận được cho một hoá chất hay lượng bụi mịn mà ta hít vào. Chúng ta tin tưởng và hi vọng các nhà khoa học sẽ làm điều đó, nhưng nếu khoa học bị thương mại hoá, khi kết quả của khoa học phải làm hài lòng sự kỳ vọng của các doanh nghiệp chi tiền ra cho nó, thì kết quả của nó đã bị bóp méo đi mất rồi. Ở chương cuối tác giả cũng đưa ra các gợi ý, ý tưởng để đối phó với tình trạng trên, mình vì hi vọng những điều này sẽ được áp dụng triệt để trong tương lai gần.
Về cách viết thì cuốn sách này tác giả có luận điệu rất đanh thép, luận chứng rõ ràng, ko ngần ngại chỉ mặt điểm danh và ông thậm chí còn công khai chê trách Đảng Cộng Hoà :D Đảng này đã ngấm ngầm bảo vệ sự sai trái của các doanh nghiệp dưới danh nghĩa là tự do thương mại để giảm bớt các quy định ràng buộc , thứ sẽ giúp nâng cao lợi nhuận cho doanh nghiệp (để làm hài lòng các nhà đầu tư), thứ đánh đổi tiền bạc bằng sức khoẻ và tính mạng của chính người dân.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

6/10

"The only reason for money to flow from a company to scientists through a law firm is for information to be withheld from the public."

Essentially this is what I imagine merchants of doubt to be. Michaels has all the credentials you could ask for, and no clear biases that would shade his opinion unduly. Throughout, he shows that in no way can you trust any report that has funding to the industry it is investigating. On its face, this seems incredibly obvious, and yet every year numerous peer reviewed papers are excepted and published despite being funded by the industries they 'investigate'. Its patently ridiculous, and yet standard operating procedure. Michaels advocates for companies paying for the funding of this research, but that money being sent through an intermediary of neutral judges, who will then select researches, and publish results regardless of findings. This is probably a little to hopeful, but would most likely solve the issue.

The bulk of the book is in case studies, from the NFL and the concussion scandal to VW and their emission scandal. It strikes me that he should have included companies that have gotten away with bad research, rather then those that were caught. He does reference the Tabaco industry and fossil fuels of course, but even so...

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprise! Corporations that produce things that could harm or kill you will do whatever it takes to make it look like that's not the case. Michaels does a fantastic job of linking the paper trails of various mercenary "product defence" firms designed to make you (and the government) feel uncertain about what's true and what's not. This book largely focuses on the U.S., but the behaviour of these firms and corporations is not limited to just that country.

[Hoai Le · Rating 4 out of 5]

He seems the most suitable person to write about this topic. I have mixed feelings reading this book. It opens what has had happening surrounding dark money and the science of deception. It’s so true “where is the money, there is corruption”.
It’s tough to live kind, and to fight for the integrity, and transparency in the science that saves and serves human kind. It’s not easy to become a researcher, but much harder to be one of a kind one.

[Todd Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read

Truth be told, this isn't a feel good book. But it is necessary to understand how bad science effects our lives. It is encouraging to see there are good people still out there fighting the good fight, and David Michaels is one of them. His straightforward approach outlines common tactics used, and how we can spot them for ourselves. I highly recommend reading through this book and soaking it all in.

[Vicki · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has some really good data and gives you a lot of think upon. Corporations are there to sell you something and make money, even if it’s detrimental to the buyer. I did detect some bias but then again pretty much everyone who writes a book is trying to tell you something from their point of view.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are convinced that large corporations generally work to do good in the world, then this book is probably not for you (or maybe it is). The author comes from a background of public service - a public health, safety, and epidemiology. His description of the science for hire industry and the horrific examples of corporate malfeasance are terrifying. Could this all really happen?

[Nicolas Martorell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Está muy bien y aprendí algo que considero muy importante, pero es muy repetitivo y no está muy bien organizado. Te da los conceptos importantes en el capítulo 2 y despues te los ejemplifica durante el resto del libro. Igual lo recomiendo.

[Chrissy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mandatory reading for people who care about science and public policy.

[Bruce Rennie · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent overview of the tactics of product defense firms and the techniques used to sow doubt to undermine any science attacking industries and their products.

[Simon Freeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

These are perilous times

[Joris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book.

[Mikael Cerbing · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should be necessary reading for all.

[Adam Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great book by David Michaels. He could write a whole book covering each individual chapter and I would buy them all.

[Hà Võ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Như đang đọc luận văn hay nckh vậy.

[Nhl Ng.]

7.5

[Margherita Melillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great, impressive book. The book builds on the literature on the manufacturing of doubt, developed by Oreskes, Conway and Nestle before. It stands out for two reasons: the first-hand experience in governance accumulated by the author in several administrations, and the clarity of writing. He made me understand even very technical issues like chemicals and diesel. I haven't yet read David Michaels' first book, so I can't compare it (will do, I just ordered it!). But this book is also markedly political, as it directly attacks the Trump administration and the Republican party.

The story Michaels narrates is partly based on public examples, and greatly based on his personal experience. The book nicely mixes well-known (alcohol, sugar, opioids, diesel, climate change) and less-known (PFAS, silica, talc) topics. The only chapter that is perhaps a bit of an odd one out is the one on football brain injuries - but as it is evident from the introduction, it is clearly a favourite sport of Michaels, and it is still a very interesting story that can be of interest to sports fanatics and non.