Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

As I have taught scientific ethics over the past 20 years to high school, undergraduate, and graduate students, I have been intrigued by the issue of how "scientists" could produce results that contradict the methods of science. Tobacco and cancer is one such example, but many scientific controversies have examples of non-scientific, "scientific" evidence. For the past decade I have been doing research and occasional case-work in forensic entomology, and this issue of scientists presenting non-scientific findings, in my experience, is even more widespread in court than elsewhere. So, I was excited to read "Merchants of Doubt" for new insights into these issues. The authors' thesis, as I make it out, is that the conservative political views of some senior scientists coupled with a corresponding conservative political agenda by some American politicians and administrations led to a strategy of lying and obstruction in the presentation of scientific findings. As it happens, I mostly despise fundamentalist views in all arenas, especially politics, art, and religion. Also, I've lived long enough to see many foolish policy decisions (the lack of response to AIDs, SDI, inaction on climate change, ignoring food safety issues until sufficient people died from E. coli, etc.) that deserve an explanation. So I should be sympathetic to the arguments in Merchant of Doubt. Am I? Not so much. On the surface, the case Merchants of Doubt mount against the political right and certain scientists seems unshakable. Example after example is offered, documentation and interviews are cited, and case after case (tobacco, acid rain, ozone, global warming, climate change) build the argument. But as I read, I became increasingly uncomfortable. I was troubled by insufficient examples of noise, every point supported the thesis. For instance, the authors mention that DuPont voluntarily decided to stop producing CFCs based on results of their own scientists. Wow -- a member of the industry breaks ranks and does the right thing. Is DuPont unique among companies, were there special circumstances? How did one company show a progressive response when in all other examples, companies are reactionary? I don't know, because there is no exploration of these questions. In science, understanding the exceptional often is essential for understanding the ordinary. For instance, characterizing abnormal physiology offers crucial insight into normal physiology. So in a thorough, objective examination I expect the DuPont decision with CFCs to be essential for understanding how companies and industries respond to a challenge. My concern is that because a more nuanced view of industry attitudes and actions would weaken the authors' thesis, they ignore it. I guess that is fine in a debate, but I'm not interested in reading polemics, I'm interested in scholarly, objective explorations. I could offer other points I found troubling, but my "break" with Merchants of Doubt came on page 160. Frequently, in reading newspaper articles or books I don't have sufficient personal knowledge to challenge what I read. But when I do come upon a topic in which I have technical knowledge, I can judge the veracity of the article. On page 160, in reference to cancer risks the authors say "...Singer was promulgating an old adage: that the dose makes the poison. Where did this come from anyway? The answer is Paracelsus, a Renaissance medic who dies in 1541. Singer and Jeffreys were challenging the EPA with a five-hundred year old aphorism." Actually, "The dose makes the poison" is the most fundamental concept in toxicology; indeed, there is a wonderful book called The Does Makes the Poison by Alice Ottoboni that explores the significance of this concept as well as other toxicological principles, in easy, understandable language. Why would Oreskes and Conway ridicule Singer and Jefferies for making reference to such a basic concept? Because they could use this ridicule of dose-response as a starting point for contradicting arguments critics had made about there being potential thresholds in responses to environmental contaminants. Ironically, that thresholds exist for toxins is well-established; for example, the EPA itself requires the determination of No Observable Effect Levels (NOELs) and NO Observable Adverse Effect Levels (NOEALs) for potential toxins, yet the authors (on p 161) have a paragraph criticizing Emil Mrak for nothing more that pointing out that thresholds exist for adverse effects from potential toxins. Thus, my conclusion is that either the authors have no understanding of basic toxicology, which would be troubling given the nature of the book they are writing, or maintaining evidence for their thesis is more important than offering a balanced, objective inquiry. Science differs from other areas of human inquiry because belief does not and cannot play a role. In science, only the evidence and our explanation for the evidence matters. I have learned that in court a prosecutor can ignore evidence that doesn't support the state's version of the crime, and unless the defense recognizes the omission, the evidence is ignored. In science, you cannot ignore evidence. Ever. Debates within science are debates about the validity of evidence and the explanation of the evidence. Debates about belief are, by definition, not scientific debates. Merchants of Doubt ultimately fails, in my opinion, because the authors chose belief over science. They allow their belief, of the culpability of certain scientists and politicians in obscuring science, to trump balanced, objective scholarship. As a matter of belief, I find the notion that the right has employed a deliberate strategy of lying and deception about science entirely plausible; but as a matter of evidence and of the role of scientists in deception, Merchants of Doubt still leaves me in doubt.