From the Bookshelf of Science and Inquiry…

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke t...

Naomi Oreskes

Start date: July 1, 2011

Finish date: July 31, 2011

Discussion: Book Club 2011

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 18 topics — 476 comments total

Book Club 2011

September, 2011: The Blind Watchmaker
By David · 47 posts · 151 views

last updated Jun 21, 2018 05:08AM

April 2011 - The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
By David · 32 posts · 163 views

last updated Feb 20, 2017 11:56PM

showing 4 of 4 topics view all »

What Members Thought

Jun 12, 2011 David Rubenstein rated it it was amazing

Shelves: nonfiction, science, politics

This is a truly impressive book. The subtitle really says it all; "How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming". The authors did an immense amount of research, revealing how and why a small group of scientists had such a powerful, and negative impact on important issues. The issues were: the danger of cigarette smoke, strategic defense, acid rain, secondhand smoke, the ozone hole, global warming, and the recent vilification of Rachel Carson. The This is a truly impressive book. The subtitle really says it all; "How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming". The authors did an immense amount of research, revealing how and why a small group of scientists had such a powerful, and negative impact on important issues. The issues were: the danger of cigarette smoke, strategic defense, acid rain, secondhand smoke, the ozone hole, global warming, and the recent vilification of Rachel Carson. The authors present a very comprehensive and persuasive case. Several scientists who established their excellent reputations during the Cold War had very strong views about Capitalism, the importance of the free market, and that all regulation is bad. Therefore, in their views, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had to be stopped; they believed that the EPA issues regulations that take the country toward socialism, one step away from Communism.

These scientists used their reputations to publish in the non-scientific press, to present their side of each regulatory issue. Often, their opinions were not objective, as they were partially funded by foundations that were funded by industries (like tobacco, CFC, mining, defense, oil and transportation). They were physicists, and they were not experts in these fields. But their reputations were strong enough to give them a strong foothold in the popular press and with politicians. They often misrepresented the facts, distorted the science, and generally gave the impression that the issues were controversial, even when the vast majority of scientists had long ago reached nearly unanimous opinions. They tried to vilify outstanding scientists, falsely accusing them of the very tactics that they themselves were guilty of.

I strongly recommend this book to all citizens. People need to understand how the very same deceptive tactics are repeated over and over again, for each regulatory issue. People need to understand that science never gives a 100% proof of anything. Science is based on peer reviews and scientist community consensus. The popular press is usually not subject to objective reviews, and often tries to present "both sides" of a scientific issue. However, it is often the case that there is only one side to the science, and the "other side" is a purely political agenda.
...more

41 likes · Like · see review

May 07, 2020 Anna rated it it was ok

I suspect I am not alone in choosing to read this book because a) I love science and b) because I want to understand the historical role of science in society. However, I feel relieved to finally be done with this book - a challenge even in the midst of a stay-at-home order that has seen a dramatic spike in my number of books read. The topic matter is undeniably important. Unfortunately, the delivery is not up to the task.

If I shift my perspective to consider this book as one purely about histo I suspect I am not alone in choosing to read this book because a) I love science and b) because I want to understand the historical role of science in society. However, I feel relieved to finally be done with this book - a challenge even in the midst of a stay-at-home order that has seen a dramatic spike in my number of books read. The topic matter is undeniably important. Unfortunately, the delivery is not up to the task.

If I shift my perspective to consider this book as one purely about history, then my opinion is slightly more positive. Each chapter discusses (in well-researched and extensively documented detail) how a few individuals and institutions cast doubt on a particular scientific consensus - and subsequent policy/behavior change recommendations - to make the needed interventions seem controversial and unnecessary. This approach keeps the book organized, but my attention continually wandered in chapter after chapter of nondescript figures trying to one-up each other. Little detail was given about the lives and motivations of the central players in each chapter, which would have been helpful as most (with the exception of Carl Sagan) are likely to be unknown to even avid consumers of science history books. The individual chapters also failed to provide sufficient context and analysis of the figures’ actions, creating a repetitive effect and leaving the reader wondering what insight this committed retelling of what is largely the same story will provide.

Finally, in the conclusion and epilogue of the book, the authors begin to identify institutional and societal weaknesses that allowed a few individuals and institutions to derail data-driven policy recommendations in significant public matters. However, in stark contrast to the highly-detailed main chapters, the conclusions begin from a perspective that is beyond bird’s eye. The authors suggest that the conflicts described in the book are the result of a capitalist economic system and spend a large chunk of their conclusion providing historical social and political examples demonstrating that (gasp) in a society motivated by profit, profit will be prioritized over truth and the public interest. Which, yeah, I absolutely agree. . . but perhaps a more pragmatic approach to the problem could be addressed in just as much detail? For example, how can we make space in scientific and intellectual circles for responsibly assessing and handling contrarian views? How can we ensure we protect and value independent scientific research and don’t make it astronomically difficult for scientists to succeed in the public sphere, incentivizing some to lend their credibility to institutions and policies that act against the data and public interest? How can we seek out unethical and biased behavior in our research institutions so that those who attempt to smear reputations have less ammunition? Especially as there is now a significant body of research on why we believe what we believe, I was also disappointed that this book didn’t touch on the psychology of holding contrarian viewpoints, tribalism in politics (and how it relates to the mentioned scientific issues), and how to better and more sustainably guide people to improve their critical thinking skills and constantly challenge their own views and biases. Yes, there are already books on these topics, but the intersection of these ideas with the contents of this book would have been a valuable opportunity for insight and discussion. Perhaps it was intended as a joke, but writing a book about the overwhelming body of data in support of hypotheses and theories of public importance and ending it with a quote that states “You just know in your heart that you can’t throw 25 million tons a year of sulfates into the Northeast and not expect some. . . consequences,” made me go, “What? No!” Again, YES, I AGREE, but "knowing in your heart" isn't how science works. And that’s not how this book should work, after pointing out how many people used that same “logic” to discredit science.

To wrap this up, I think this book aimed to address a disheartening pattern of deception in evidence-based policy making. The book is well-researched and would serve as an excellent reference text. However, it didn’t add much to what I already understood about ethical controversies in and public misunderstanding of science. This book also doesn’t serve to win over those who hold and propagate views that aren’t evidence-based, given its esoteric and dry chapters. It took me a whole month to read during a time when I was scientifically and societally bound to stay home and do little else, so let that be a warning to potential readers.

(Physical distancing read #8) ...more

2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 24, 2011 Patricrk patrick rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

What was amazing about this book is how much harm has been done by people who misrepresent science. The authors assert that a series of interlocking think tanks create a mirage of scientific controversy where there isn't any (or much). This results in delay in creating the political will to regulate or change. The main leaders of this movement are former scientists who are not even trained in the fields they are creating doubt about. In their effort to stay influential they have tainted the whol ...more

Like · see review