Merchants of Doubt

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naomi Oreskes , science historian and first author of the book

Merchants of Doubt , (full title: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming ) is a nonfiction book published in English by the American science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway in 2010 , which organized the Has science denial on the subject. It has been translated into several languages, and since 2014 it has also been available in German under the title Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft: The Network of Denial .

The book shows how scientists such as Fred Seitz and Fred Singer have joined forces with conservative think tanks and private companies over and over again in the past decades to dispute the scientific consensus on many environmental and health science topics. It describes the denial of the harmfulness of tobacco smoking and passive smoking , the attempts to downplay the dangerousness of the insecticide DDT , the efforts to downplay the dangers of acid rain and the ozone hole and the denial of man-made global warming . The same organizations and scientists sometimes appeared on these different topics.

For the most part, the reviews were excellent. The English version alone was cited more than 3,300 times as of July 2019. In 2014, based on the book, the film of the same name, Merchants of Doubt , was released, directed by Robert Kenner .

content

Oreskes and Conway describe how a handful of politically conservative scholars with strong industry connections "have played a disproportionate role in the controversial debate." The authors write that this has led to a "deliberate obfuscation" of the issues and thus has a corresponding influence on public opinion and politics.

Merchants of Doubt is divided into a total of 9 chapters that follow a prologue. This prologue describes the attacks on climate researcher and IPCC author Benjamin D. Santer , who with his research on fingerprint methods made a significant contribution to proving the human cause of global warming. The first chapter describes the strategy of the tobacco industry , which dates back to the 1950s, to stir up doubts about the scientific findings on the harmfulness and carcinogenicity of tobacco products, even though these dangers were already scientifically known at that time. In the second chapter, the role of the George C. Marshall Institute and some of the associated scientists in promoting the SDI program is analyzed, who later jointly deny a large number of scientific findings. Chapters 3 to 7 are thematically conceived and each deal with the disputes and doubts of various scientific findings by the Merchants of Doubt and associated organizations: Chapter three deals with the questioning of acid rain , Chapter 4 with the construction of opposing opinions on the ozone hole , Chapter 5 of denying the health dangers of passive smoking , chapter 6 of denying man-made global warming, and chapter 7 of a re-launched attack against Rachel Carson in the 1990s to belittle the environmental dangers of DDT. In Chapter 8, the authors analyze the backgrounds and motivations of the previously described Merchants of Doubt, identifying their political attitudes as an important driver. Merchants of Doubt finally ends with an epilogue.

Fred Singer, one of the "Sellers of Doubt" described in the book

The book criticizes the so-called "Merchants of Doubt", some predominantly American key figures in science, above all Bill Kidneyberg , Fred Seitz and Fred Singer . All three are physicists: Singer was a space and satellite researcher, while Kidneyberg and Seitz worked on the atomic bomb. Beginning in the 1970s, however, they expressed themselves on many topics, particularly in the environmental and health sciences, which were far beyond their research focus and competence. The book shows that these scientists challenged and watered down the scientific consensus in the various areas, including the dangers of smoking, the effects of acid rain, the existence of the ozone hole, and the existence of anthropogenic climate change . Seitz and Singer had strong ties to US conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation , the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute. Funded by corporate and conservative foundations, these organizations oppose many forms of government intervention or regulation by US citizens. Tactics similar to those described in the book were used to achieve their respective goals: discrediting science, spreading false information, creating confusion, and promoting doubt.

Seitz, Singer, Kidneyberg and Robert Jastrow are described in the book as anti-communist, who disregard any state regulation such as B. saw the introduction of environmental protection mechanisms as a step towards socialism and communism . Accordingly, they fear that a political response to environmental problems would lead to serious government intervention in the market and the regulation of people's lives. Oreskes and Conway make it clear, however, that the longer these environmental problems exist, the more likely it is that governments will have to take exactly the draconian measures that conservatives and market fundamentalists fear most.

The authors also express strong doubts about the mass media's ability to distinguish between correct science and false truths scattered as disinformation . With reference to the study "Balance as Bias" by Boykoff and Boykoff, they argue that the journalistic norm of balanced reporting has helped to reinforce the misleading messages of the "Merchants of Doubt". Oreskes and Conway state, "Small groups of people can have a large, negative impact, especially when they are organized, determined, and empowered".

The main conclusion of the book is that without the influence of the false "experts" there would have been more advances in policy making in the above areas. Similar conclusions were drawn elsewhere, including about Fred Seitz and Bill Kidneyberg in the book "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change" (2010) by the Australian scientist Clive Hamilton .

Reviews

The reviews of "Merchants of Doubt" were mostly "enthusiastic"; the book is now considered to be the standard work on the denial of man-made global warming by industry lobbyists.

science

Philip Kitcher called Merchants of Doubt in Science a "fascinating and important" study. Oreskes and Conway provided convincing evidence for their surprising and unsettling thesis that resistance to scientifically very well-founded statements in the field of environment and health was used to implement political goals and economic interests in order to prevent this important information from being passed on to the American public. They meticulously set out the ways in which a handful of well-connected conservative academics with strong ties to specific industries have had disproportionate roles in the public and political debate on controversial issues, mostly outside their own areas of expertise. Nevertheless, they would have had enough influence to delay the public acceptance of this consensus, in some cases for a long time, despite the scientific consensus. In doing so, they would have posed as experts in numerous debates in order to offer an "alternative opinion" to the actual statements of the respective specialist scientists, which were problematic for certain industries by which they were supported or endangered the political views of their supporters. Her conclusion that there are many reasons for the United States' failure in terms of climate policy, but at least one of them being the confusion by William Kidneyberg, Fred Seitz and Fred Singer, is a harsh claim, but in light of those committed by and by Oreskes and Conway's proven attacks on climate researchers are fully justified.

David Lindenmayer called "Merchants of Doubt" "a book that all ecologists and environmental scientists should read". The book examines political aspects in the scientific debate on specific topics such as the consequences of cigarette consumption and secondhand smoke , the scientific evidence on the ozone hole , acid rain , the environmental impact of pesticides and climate change . The core thesis is that a small group of politically right-wing scientists, especially physicists, frequently and mostly successfully cast doubts about the scientific evidence of many very important environmental problems. This behavior of the physicists, who had developed a strongly anti-ecological character after the collapse of the Soviet Union in particular, was driven by the desire to maintain or expand market fundamentalism and further strengthen capitalism . Although this thesis initially seems like a conspiracy theory from a political thriller, "Merchants of Doubt" is flawlessly researched and has, among other things, a 60-page annotation apparatus. It was informative and well-written, even if it was repetitive in places, and had several important messages, including the importance of explaining how real science works, the importance of peer review , and the need for people to Statements in the environmental sector made to examine their credibility. Among other things, Oreskes and Conway would point out several times in their book how scientists published in peer-reviewed journals that were read almost only by their own kind, while the creators of the doubt were well-versed in putting their counter-theses in the mass media where they one received a great deal of public attention. The refutation of the claims of these lobbyists by the scientific community then appeared in scientific journals, which meant that the public response to them remained low. A key message from “Merchants of Doubt” is that scientists need to improve their public relations work, another is to clearly emphasize the importance of scientific competence. So are z. For example, many of the attempts to sow doubts about the harmfulness of tobacco smoke or the existence of climate change were initiated by people who were not at all technically qualified to make statements on these topics. There are many reasons to read this book, but the most important one for ecologists and politicians is likely to realize how difficult it is to bring about political change in the environment, even when the scientific evidence is absolutely clear.

Dale Jamieson calls Merchants of Doubt required reading . If you really want to know why the US failed to protect the climate , read this book. There are several works that examined climate policy, but these do not have the same historical and scientific depth as “Merchants of Doubt”. Oreskes and Conway located the denial of climate change in front of the counter-movement against environmental policy , which has persisted since the Reagan period and which has led the political right to increasingly shrill attacks on science. They showed how the denial of climate change is linked to the denial of acid rain, the ozone hole or denying the danger of passive smoking. The same rhetorical and political strategies were used for all of these topics, just as often the same groups of people were involved. They locate the roots of this movement in a small group of scientists who had influence during the Cold War. However, individual statements by the authors can be questioned, e.g. B. what role the political ideology played. He feels this is too strongly emphasized, while z. B. Regard rivalries between individual departments and people as underrepresented. He also sees the cold war physicists described as too stereotypical.

Brian Wynne wrote in Nature that Merchants of Doubt is a powerful account of the role of science in many key public issues. Oreskes and Conway would have described clearly and in detail the vulnerability of science to the tactics of powerful elites. The authors would rightly demand the energetic refutation of arguments made by skeptics. However, they would overlook the fact that the very assumption that scientific evidence is the only authority that can justify political action ( scientism ) makes both politics and supporting science vulnerable to the “dogmatic reinforcement of doubts”. If political action were reduced to whether the scientific basis is right or wrong, the evidence could quickly be called into question. However, political issues always also have other dimensions, such as social benefit. So there are z. For example, there are good non-scientific reasons for reducing the ecological footprint and “ consumerism ”, and for advocating more justice. If these other factors were taken into account, science would no longer be the sole authority and thus no longer the sole goal of resistance. Wynne criticizes that Oreskes and Conway did not examine all relevant areas. For example, the area of genetically modified organisms is missing , in which influential actors with similar motives have downplayed (rather than increased) doubts. In his opinion, Oreskes and Conway did not go far enough in examining how scientific uncertainty in politics could be misinterpreted.

Reiner Grundmann criticizes Merchants of Doubt as an "extremely well-written" but also "problematic" book. He in no way doubts the “characterization of the climate skeptics as fundamentalists of the free market economy who try to take action against regulations on environmental protection by influencing advisory processes and public debates and thus effectively operating as a loud lobby group that pretends to exercise scientific authority argue". The presentation and selection of the examples and the cited literature is, however, partial and would reduce the complex topic to a simple black and white matter. From his point of view, the book is therefore less a scientific work than a passionate attack against a group of scientists who have become lobbyists, and he wonders whether the authors are doing more harm than good to their cause.

Christian Rohr stated that the reviews of Merchants of Doubt were "largely enthusiastic", which is why it was very gratifying that a German translation with the title Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft was published in 2014 . The book is about a group of American physicists who tried, on behalf of the George C. Marshall Institute , a conservative think tank close to the Republican Party and business, to consciously cast doubt on scientific knowledge in various areas of environmental research. Although initially normal researchers who had published regularly in specialist journals, since the 1970s they turned more and more in the direction of conservative interests and engaged in targeted lobbying during the Reagan and George HW Bush administrations , which Oreskes and Conway demonstrated convincingly. They used the same tactics on a number of different issues. These included a very high media presence, the discrediting of researchers and their results, the targeted use of false information, measures to spread confusion, and the doubting of the seriousness of scientific findings, even if they found great confirmation in science. The Machiavellis of Science is a "very important book about the interplay between science, politics and society", which is "scientifically well-founded in every section and at the same time a courageous political statement". In addition, the readability has not deteriorated due to the translation, so that it is a compelling and sometimes oppressive read for both scientists and laypeople.

media

In the Christian Science Monitor, Will Buchanan says that Merchants of Doubt has been extensively researched and documented and would be one of the most important books of 2010. Oreskes and Conway show that the doubting traders are not "objective scientists" as the term is popularly understood. Instead, they are "science-speaking mercenaries" hired by companies to process numbers to prove that the company's products are safe and useful. Buchanan says they are salespeople, not scientists.

Bud Ward published a review of the book in the Yale Forum on Climate and the Media. He writes that, with regard to climate science, Oreskes and Conway leave little doubt about their contempt for what they consider to be the abuse of science by a small group of scientists whom they see as largely lacking the required climate science expertise.

Phil England reviewed The Ecologist that the book's forte is rigor of research and detailed focus on key events. At the same time, he pointed out that the chapter on climate change was only 50 pages long and recommends several other books for readers who want to get a more complete picture of this aspect: Jim Hoggan's Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming , George Monbiots Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning and Ross Gelbspans books The heat is on (In German under the title " Der Klima-Gau. Erdöl, Macht und Politik published) and Boiling Point . England also wrote that there was little coverage of gives the millions of dollars Exxon Mobil has poured into charities actively involved in promoting denial of human-made global warming.

Thomas Weber calls Merchants of Doubt in the FAZ an "excellently documented and captivatingly written book" that is particularly haunting due to the "historical perspective" on the strategies of the "mostly generously financed deniers" of climate change . It shows "how geo- and climate sciences and epidemiology actually underpin their findings". The book shows how "doubters" of scientific knowledge "used a misleading picture of science" to suggest that science "should and can" provide absolutely certain knowledge "in order to then" pounce on any loophole, health or Present environmental risks as unproven ".

Stefanie Reinberger writes in her review for Spektrum: "There was deliberate spreading of misinformation and misinterpretations, opinions and media manipulated, the credibility of science strategically undermined and unpopular scientists ignored. This" tobacco strategy "worked so well that lobbyists have since used it for numerous others applied health and environmental policy debates. [...] The book reads like a thriller and is based on a solid technical foundation, as evidenced by the extensive literature. "

expenditure

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Naomi Oreskes . Google Scholar . Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  2. ↑ 'Merchants of Doubt' shows how public opinion is manipulated . In: Los Angeles Times , November 13, 2014. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  3. ↑ Maxwell T. Boykoff, Jules M. Boykoff: balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 14 , 2004, p. 125–136 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 .
  4. ^ A b Christian Rohr , The Machiavellis of Science. The network of denial. In: Physics in our time 46, Issue 2, 2015, p. 100, doi: 10.1002 / piuz.201590021 .
  5. ^ Klaus-Dieter Müller : Science in the digital revolution. Climate communication 21.0 . Wiesbaden 2013, p. 46.
  6. ^ Philip Kitcher , The Climate Change Debates . In: Science 328, No. 5983, 2010, 1230-1243, doi: 10.1126 / science.1189312 .
  7. ^ David Lindenmayer : Book Review Merchants of Doubt. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming . In: Austral Ecology 37, 2012, 15, doi: 10.1111 / j.1442-9993.2012.02367.x .
  8. ^ Dale Jamieson : Talking about the Weather . In: Bioscience 60, No. 8, 2010, 639–642, doi: 10.1525 / bio.2010.60.8.11 .
  9. ^ Brian Wynne: When doubt becomes a weapon. In: Nature . 466, 2010, pp. 441-242, doi: 10.1038 / 466441a .
  10. ↑ Reiner Grundmann: Debunking skeptical propaganda. Book review. In: BioSocieties , 8, 2013, pp. 370–374. doi: 10.1057 / biosoc.2013.15
  11. ↑ Merchants of Doubt . In: Christian Science Monitor , June 22, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  12. ↑ Oreskes / Conway's Merchants of Doubt Draws Extensive Climate Denier Connections . In: Yale Climate Connections , July 8, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  13. ↑ Merchants of Doubt . In: The Ecologist , September 10, 2010. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  14. ↑ N. Oreskes & E. Conway: Merchants of Doubt: The false ideal of knowledge can easily be shaken. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . October 26, 2010. Retrieved July 10, 2019.
  15. ↑ Staged distrust . In: Spektrum.de , February 6, 2015. Accessed July 6, 2019.