The Republican War on Science

Last updated
The Republican War on Science
The Republican War on Science.jpg
Author Chris Mooney
Publisher Basic Books
Publication date
2005
ISBN 9780465046751

The Republican War on Science is a 2005 book by Chris Mooney, an American journalist who focuses on the politics of science policy. In the book, Mooney discusses the Republican Party leadership's stance on science, and in particular that of the George W. Bush administration, with regard to issues such as climate change denialism, intelligent design, bioethics, alternative medicine, pollution, separation of church and state, and the government funding of education, research, and environmental protection. The book argues that the administration regularly distorted and/or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims.

Contents

The book was reviewed in Science and Nature Medicine as well as the popular press. It was featured on the cover of The New York Times Book Review and selected as an "Editors' Choice" by The New York Times , which described it as "[a] frankly polemical survey of scientific findings and procedures in collision with political operations." [1]

Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock (of Super Size Me fame) optioned the rights for the book to create a documentary film, [2] but in 2008 announced that he had released the option. [3]

Reviews

In scientific journals

A review in Science by Naomi Oreskes states the author recounts the 20-year campaign by "influential Republicans—initially in Congress and now also in the White House—in concert with determined allies in private industry and fundamentalist Christian organizations" to systematically deny, disparage and misrepresent scientific information related to public policy. She gave the following list of topics: "acid rain, global warming, the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the health impacts of excess dietary sugar and fat, the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer, the status of endangered species, the efficacy of abstinence-only sex education programs, the therapeutic potential of adult stem cells, and more." Oreskes goes on to detail the tactics used in the attempt to mislead both the public and politicians, "misrepresenting real debates, exaggerating uncertainty, interfering with the activities of expert agencies, trumpeting the views of outlier scientists whose interpretations are rarely to be found in the refereed literature, and attacking the integrity of genuine experts." She states that Mooney points out that multiple misinformation campaigns have involved the same individuals and groups. Oreskes concludes, "Mooney's book makes it clear that when sensible people stand on the sidelines, a great deal of nonsense can be spread." [4]

Michael Stebbins wrote in Nature Medicine: "This book should serve as a harsh wake-up call to the scientific community and the American public." He stated that Mooney "painstakingly documents the roots of the efforts to undercut the influence of science on national policy and the relentless politicization of US science policy by conservatives working on behalf of the Republican Party." He notes that the author clearly documents the "Bush administrations' attacks on the integrity of science information" listing examples that include some of those mentioned by Oreskes and "undercutting the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act, and stacking agencies and advisory committees with unqualified ideologues." Stebbins credits the book with providing context by detailing the tactics employed by "conservative Republicans" and establishing the roots of these undercutting techniques with examples from the last 40 years. He goes on to state, "Mooney's documentation of the willful manipulation of science on the part of conservatives to suit an agenda is well supported and nauseating." Stebbins addresses two criticisms of the book: the first, that it doesn't explain the science involved, which he explains is not the purpose of the book, and the second, that it doesn't detail the misuse of science by Democrats and liberals, which he dismisses as untrue. He finds issue with the last chapter, which proposes solutions, stating, "His suggestions are sound and well thought out, but seem more of an afterthought than a real goal of the book." [5]

Daniel Sarewitz panned the book in a review in Issues in Science and Technology , describing it as a "tiresome polemic masquerading as a defense of scientific purity." [6]

In a positive review in Scientific American , Boyce Rensenberger described the book as "a well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists." [7] Lisa Margonelli of The New York Times Book Review wrote that Mooney "juggled extensive research and sharp arguments [...] with precision and a showman’s wink that made his unpromising subject fun." [8]

Keay Davidson wrote in the Washington Post that "Mooney's political heart is in the right place" but says "Mooney is like a judge who interprets a law one way to convict his enemies and another way to acquit his friends." [9]

Writing in The New York Times, John Horgan said of the book that the prose was "often clunky and clichéd", but explains that Mooney "addresses a vitally important topic and gets it basically right." Horgan defends the book against another reviewer's criticism, saying "the journalist Keay Davidson faults Mooney for not acknowledging how hard it can be to distinguish good science from bad... But in many of the cases that [Mooney] examines, demarcation is easy, because one side has an a priori commitment to something other than the truth— God or money, to put it bluntly." [10]

Stuart Derbyshire, a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham School of Psychology, praises Mooney and notes that he explained how Republicans had manipulated the uncertainty in science "to ensure that Congress rarely hears any consensus opinion that may damage a Bush policy." Derbyshire agrees with Mooney's claim that there is Republican "flagrant twisting" of research findings and that it "violates the integrity of science." [11]

Media

Mooney was interviewed about the book on Science Friday . [12]

Publishing information

Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science . Basic Books. ISBN   9780465046751.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine</span> Scientific national academy for the U.S.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), also known as the National Academies, is a congressionally chartered organization that serves as the collective scientific national academy of the United States. The name is used interchangeably in two senses: (1) as an umbrella term or parent organization for its three sub-divisions that operate as quasi-independent honorific learned society member organizations known as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM); and (2) as the brand for studies and reports issued by the unified operating arm of the three academies originally known as the National Research Council (NRC). The National Academies also serve as public policy advisors, research institutes, think tanks, and public administration consultants on issues of public importance or on request by the government.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative think tank, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1991 in Seattle as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.

The politicization of science for political gain occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom, and as a result it is considered taboo to mix politics with science. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George C. Marshall Institute</span> Former American nonprofit conservative think tank

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) was a nonprofit conservative think tank in the United States. It was established in 1984 with a focus on science and public policy issues and had an initial focus in defense policy. Starting in the late 1980s, the institute advocated for views in line with environmental skepticism, most notably climate change denial. The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry.

The "teach the controversy" campaign of the Discovery Institute seeks to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design as part of its attempts to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses. Scientific organizations point out that the institute claims that there is a scientific controversy where in fact none exists.

The Information Quality Act (IQA) or Data Quality Act (DQA), passed through the United States Congress in Section 515 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001. Because the Act was a two-sentence rider in a spending bill, it had no name given in the actual legislation. The Government Accountability Office uses the name "Information Quality Act".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Office of Technology Assessment</span> Defunct office of the United States Congress

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was an office of the United States Congress that operated from 1974 to 1995. OTA's purpose was to provide congressional members and committees with objective and authoritative analysis of the complex scientific and technical issues of the late 20th century, i.e. technology assessment. It was a leader in practicing and encouraging delivery of public services in innovative and inexpensive ways, including early involvement in the distribution of government documents through electronic publishing. Its model was widely copied around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chris Mooney (journalist)</span> American journalist and author

Christopher Cole Mooney is an American journalist and author of four books including The Republican War on Science (2005). Mooney's writing focuses on subjects such as climate change denialism and creationism in public schools, and he has been described as "one of the few journalists in the country who specialize in the now dangerous intersection of science and politics." In 2020 he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles on global warming published in The Washington Post.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Horgan (journalist)</span> American science journalist

John Horgan is an American science journalist best known for his 1996 book The End of Science. He has written for many publications, including National Geographic, Scientific American, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and IEEE Spectrum. His awards include two Science Journalism Awards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award. His articles have been included in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 editions of The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Since 2010 he has written the "Cross-check" blog for ScientificAmerican.com.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naomi Oreskes</span> American historian of science

Naomi Oreskes is an American historian of science. She became Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Marburger</span> American physicist (1941–2011)

John Harmen "Jack" Marburger III was an American physicist who directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the administration of President George W. Bush, serving as the Science Advisor to the President. His tenure was marred by controversy regarding his defense of the administration against allegations from over two dozen Nobel Laureates, amongst others, that scientific evidence was being suppressed or ignored in policy decisions, including those relating to stem cell research and global warming. However, he has also been credited with keeping the political effects of the September 11 attacks from harming science research—by ensuring that tighter visa controls did not hinder the movement of those engaged in scientific research—and with increasing awareness of the relationship between science and government. He also served as the President of Stony Brook University from 1980 until 1994, and director of Brookhaven National Laboratory from 1998 until 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agnotology</span> Study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt

Within the sociology of knowledge, agnotology is the study of deliberate, culturally induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion, or win favour, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data (disinformation). More generally, the term includes the condition where more knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty.

Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming is a 2007 book by Chris Mooney. Mooney discusses tensions between two different approaches to analyzing global warming and its effect on hurricanes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change denial</span> Denial of the scientific consensus on climate change

Climate change denial is the pseudoscientific dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.

<i>The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science</i> 2005 book by Tom Bethell

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science is a 2005 book by conservative journalist Tom Bethell, in which the author makes questionable and highly politicized claims on subjects such as HIV/AIDS, intelligent design, and the relationship between science and Christianity. It was published by Regnery Publishing.

<i>Merchants of Doubt</i> 2010 book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming is a 2010 non-fiction book by American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the global warming controversy and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached was the basic strategy of those opposing action. In particular, they show that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues.

<i>Unscientific America</i> 2009 book by Chris Mooney

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future is a nonfiction book by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. It was a New York Times best seller. In the book, the authors tackle the problem of scientific illiteracy in America. The authors criticize scientists for talking down to the misinformed and insulting the religious while calling for more friendly and magnanimous science advocates. They also blame the New Atheist movement, the creation–evolution controversy, the entertainment industry, the media, and science skeptics.

The climate change policy of the United States under the presidency of George W. Bush differed from Bush's promises on the campaign trail to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants: within two months of taking office he walked away from his commitment.

<i>The Republican Brain</i>

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science — and Reality is a 2012 book about the psychological basis for many Republicans' rejection of mainstream scientific theories, as well as theories of economics and history, by the American journalist Chris Mooney.

References

  1. "Editors' Choice". Browsing Books. The New York Times . 25 December 2005. Retrieved 2014-04-25.
  2. "'Science' Scooped Up". Washington Post . December 17, 2005.
  3. "See Morgan? That's Why You Should Have Made The Republican War on Science". ScienceBlogs . Archived from the original on 2008-05-02.
  4. Oreskes, Naomi (7 October 2005). "Anti-realism in government". Science . 310 (5745): 56. doi:10.1126/science.1115765. S2CID   153326894.
  5. Stebbins, Michael (April 2006). "The wake-up call". Nature Medicine . 12 (4): 381. doi: 10.1038/nm0406-381 . S2CID   46555187.
  6. Sarewitz, Daniel (2006). "Scientizing politics". Issues in Science and Technology . 22 (2): 91–3.
  7. Rensenberger, Boyce (24 September 2005). "Science abuse". Scientific American (book review). Retrieved 2014-04-24.
  8. Margonelli, Lisa (1 July 2007). "Wild is the wind". The New York Times Book Review . Retrieved 2014-04-23.
  9. "Research and the Right", The republican war on science reviewed by Keay Davidson, The Washington Post September 18, 2005
  10. Horgan, John (18 December 2005). "Political Science". The New York Times . Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  11. "Bush isn't the only one who's anti-science". Spiked . 28 November 2005.
  12. Flatow, Ira (11 November 2005). "Interview: Chris Mooney discusses 'The Republican War on Science'". Talk of the Nation: Science Friday . NPR. Archived from the original on 11 June 2014. Retrieved 2014-04-24.