Introduction
In "Merchants of Doubt," Naomi Oreskes takes readers on a journey through some of the most significant scientific controversies of the past century. The book explores how a small group of influential scientists, often working in conjunction with powerful industries and political interests, managed to sow doubt about well-established scientific facts. From the dangers of smoking to the reality of climate change, Oreskes reveals the tactics used to mislead the public and delay action on critical issues.
The Tobacco Industry's Smoke Screen
Early Knowledge and Denial
The book begins by delving into the tobacco industry's long-standing campaign to hide the harmful effects of smoking. Shockingly, the industry knew about the dangers of their products as early as the 1950s. However, instead of acknowledging this and taking responsibility, the major tobacco companies banded together to protect their interests.
In 1953, the four largest tobacco companies in the United States – American Tobacco, Benson and Hedges, Philip Morris, and US Tobacco – made a pivotal decision. They hired the PR firm Hill and Knowlton to salvage their deteriorating image. This move would later be used as evidence in court to prove that the industry was well aware of the harmful effects of their products and had deliberately misled consumers.
The Strategy of Doubt
The tobacco industry's strategy was simple yet effective: cast doubt on any scientific evidence that linked smoking to health problems. As more research emerged in the 1960s and '70s showing the harmful effects of tobacco, the industry doubled down on their efforts to challenge these findings.
One of their tactics was to fund research at prestigious universities. In 1979, they committed a staggering $45 million over six years to universities like Harvard. The goal? To produce studies that would show no connection between smoking and health issues. To lend credibility to this effort, they hired Frederick Seitz, a respected scientist, to distribute the funds.
The industry didn't stop there. They even went as far as summoning scientists to testify in court that there was no proven link between smoking and poor health. This concerted effort to spread misinformation and create confusion about the scientific consensus lasted for decades.
The Battle Against Secondhand Smoke
Even as the direct health risks of smoking became harder to deny, the tobacco industry found a new battleground: secondhand smoke. It wasn't until the 1980s that the dangers of passive smoking were scientifically proven and acknowledged.
In 1980 and 1981, British and Japanese studies showed that non-smokers experienced decreased lung function after being in smoky environments. The US Surgeon General reported in 1986 that secondhand smoke was as dangerous as smoking itself. Finally, in 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a comprehensive report detailing the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.
However, the tobacco industry wasn't ready to concede. They shifted their strategy to attack the credibility of scientific methods themselves. For instance, they disputed the EPA's "weight of evidence" approach, arguing that some studies should be given more weight than others. They also criticized the EPA for including studies with a 90% confidence level, claiming this was insufficient for drawing conclusions.
Scientists like Fred Singer, working on behalf of the tobacco industry, dismissed the EPA's report as "junk science." What they conveniently failed to mention was that the EPA report had undergone not one, but two rounds of peer review by panels of scientists and consultants.
Nuclear Weapons and the Prolonged Debate
The Cold War and Détente
The book then shifts focus to another contentious issue of the 20th century: nuclear weapons. In the 1970s, US President Richard Nixon initiated a policy known as détente, aimed at establishing peaceful relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. However, not everyone was on board with this approach.
Scientists like Fred Seitz, who had grown up with the constant threat of Soviet aggression, worked tirelessly to convince the American government that the Soviet threat was still very real. Their efforts paid off when Ronald Reagan became president in 1980.
The Strategic Defense Initiative
Reagan's administration introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also known as "Star Wars." This program proposed deploying weapons in space to intercept incoming nuclear missiles. Naturally, this initiative sparked intense controversy among scientists, with many seeing it as a dangerous escalation that could lead to nuclear war.
By 1986, an impressive 6,500 scientists had taken a public stand against the SDI. However, a small group of scientists, including Fred Seitz, Edward Teller, and Robert Jastrow, founded the George C. Marshall Institute to promote the SDI and continue stoking fears about the Soviet threat.
Manipulating Public Opinion
The Marshall Institute used a clever tactic to keep the debate alive, even though their views were widely dismissed by the scientific community. They took advantage of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that required public TV and radio stations to give equal airtime to opposing views. This meant that even though the majority of scientists opposed the SDI, the Marshall Institute's minority opinion received disproportionate attention in the media.
This artificial prolonging of the debate demonstrates how a small group of well-connected scientists could manipulate public opinion and policy, even when their views were at odds with the broader scientific consensus.
Acid Rain: Science vs. Politics
The Science of Acid Rain
The book then turns to the environmental issue of acid rain, which became a major concern in the 1960s and '70s. Acid rain, which has a lower than normal pH concentration, can cause significant environmental damage. It leads to decreased forest and plant growth and can be lethal to aquatic life.
Scientists traced the cause of acid rain to the burning of fossil fuels and discovered that the pollution often occurred in a different geographical area than where the rain fell. This made it a transboundary issue, affecting relations between countries.
Canada's Concerns and US Resistance
In the 1970s, Canadian scientists found that 50% of the acid rain in Canada resulted from American emissions. This was particularly concerning for Canada, as its economy heavily relied on natural resources that were being damaged by acid rain.
In response, both countries formed technical working groups to research the phenomenon in 1980. The following year, their findings were reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences. However, the US government, seemingly unsatisfied with these results, commissioned a new panel of "independent" scientists to conduct another review in 1982.
Political Interference
The US government chose William A. Nierenberg to assemble this new panel. However, they then overrode his authority to select one of the panelists, insisting on the inclusion of Fred Singer. Singer's primary concern was the financial costs of any proposed action to combat acid rain, rather than the environmental impacts.
The result was a heavily edited final review that made the scientific findings appear much more uncertain than they actually were. Evidence even surfaced later that Nierenberg had altered the review at the White House's request, as indicated by a handwritten note found in his documents.
This episode clearly illustrates how political interests can interfere with and distort scientific findings, even when the evidence is clear and the consequences are significant.
The Ozone Layer Debate
Early Warnings and Industry Resistance
The depletion of the ozone layer is another environmental issue that faced significant opposition from industry interests. The scientific discussion about the hole in the ozone layer dates back almost 50 years, demonstrating how long it can take for scientific consensus to translate into policy action when powerful interests are involved.
In the 1970s, scientists presented compelling evidence that certain chemicals were causing the depletion of the ozone layer. James Lovelock's work in 1970 hypothesized that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), commonly used in aerosol products, were concentrating in the Earth's stratosphere and potentially depleting the ozone.
This led to a flurry of scientific activity, culminating in the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica in 1985. However, the aerosol industry fought hard against these findings. They launched campaigns to defend their products and pointed to natural sources, such as volcanic dust, as major causes of ozone depletion.
Government Action and Industry Pushback
Despite industry attempts to block action, the US government responded to reports from the National Academy of Science linking CFCs to ozone depletion. In 1979, CFC propellants were banned in the United States. This was followed by the Montreal Protocol in 1987, a United Nations regulation that required countries still producing CFCs to cut their production in half.
However, the aerosol industry didn't give up. Throughout the 1980s, they made increasingly desperate arguments against the science behind CFC effects. Once again, Fred Singer played a key role in this fight. As late as 1991, he was publishing articles in media outlets like The Washington Times, arguing that the scientific support for ozone depletion was too vague to be credible.
This persistent denial of scientific evidence, even in the face of international action, shows the lengths to which industries will go to protect their interests, regardless of the environmental consequences.
Global Warming: The Long Road to Recognition
Early Findings and Government Skepticism
The book then tackles perhaps the most significant environmental issue of our time: global warming. Despite clear scientific evidence, global warming wasn't taken seriously until the 1980s, and even then, it faced significant opposition.
In 1977, a group of physicists known as "the Jasons" concluded that increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would lead to rising global temperatures, especially at the Earth's poles. A White House-issued panel that reviewed their work reached essentially the same conclusion.
However, the government remained skeptical. In 1980, they assembled another review panel called the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, chaired by William A. Nierenberg. This committee was tasked with assessing the condition of the climate and the potential issue of CO2.
Divided Opinions and Misleading Reports
The committee faced a divide between natural scientists, who insisted that global warming would occur, and economists, who focused on the financial ramifications. The economists framed the report by authoring its first and last chapters, arguing that the problem would likely be resolved by new technology or that future generations would be able to adapt.
This report led the White House to dismiss calls for the regulation of fossil fuels, effectively delaying action on climate change for years.
Renewed Interest and Continued Denial
The issue gained renewed attention in 1988 when James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated that global warming had already begun. This rekindled public interest, and by 1994, 194 countries had signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which aimed to stop global warming.
However, just as with other environmental issues, prominent scientists continued to dismiss global warming as a media scare. By 1989, Nierenberg had joined the Marshall Institute and was claiming that global warming was a mere ruse. He even briefed people at the White House, arguing that any warming the planet was experiencing was merely due to solar activity.
This persistent denial of climate change, despite mounting scientific evidence, demonstrates how a small group of influential scientists can significantly impact public policy and delay action on critical environmental issues.
The DDT Controversy: A Case Study in Misrepresentation
The Rise and Fall of DDT
The book concludes with a look at the controversy surrounding the pesticide DDT (dichlordiphenyltrichlorethan). DDT was widely used during World War II to control insects that carried diseases like malaria and typhus. After the war, it found widespread agricultural use.
However, scientists soon discovered that DDT had devastating environmental effects. The chemical concentrates in the food chain, remaining in the insects it kills and accumulating in larger animals that eat those insects. For instance, birds in the Catalina Islands still have DDT in their blood, even though the pesticide hasn't been used there for over 30 years.
Rachel Carson and Silent Spring
In 1962, American scientist Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring," a book that highlighted the dangers of pesticides, particularly DDT. Although she initially faced harsh criticism, public opinion eventually shifted. In 1972, DDT was banned for commercial use in the United States, though it was still approved for domestic emergencies and export to countries facing malaria epidemics.
Resurgence of the Debate
Surprisingly, the DDT debate resurfaced in the mid-2000s as part of a broader attack on environmental regulations. Carson's work was misconstrued by the media, with even major outlets like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal accusing her of bearing responsibility for human deaths supposedly caused by the DDT ban.
These critics focused on how malaria could have been overcome using DDT, while ignoring the fact that insects readily adapt to the drug and that it was never banned in malaria-infected countries. This misrepresentation of Carson's work and the DDT ban serves as a clear example of how scientific findings can be distorted for political purposes, in this case to turn public opinion against environmental regulations in general.
Conclusion: The Power of Doubt
"Merchants of Doubt" paints a sobering picture of how scientific truth can be obscured and manipulated by those with vested interests. From tobacco to climate change, from nuclear weapons to pesticides, the book reveals a consistent pattern of doubt-mongering and misinformation.
The key strategy employed by these "merchants of doubt" is not to disprove scientific findings outright – which would often be impossible – but to cast just enough doubt to delay action and protect industry interests. They exploit the media's tendency to present "both sides" of an issue, even when one side represents an overwhelming scientific consensus and the other a tiny minority opinion.
This book serves as a wake-up call, highlighting the need for critical thinking and scientific literacy among the general public. It shows how a small group of well-connected scientists, often working outside their areas of expertise, can have an outsized influence on public policy and opinion.
Moreover, it underscores the importance of understanding the source and funding behind scientific claims, especially when they contradict established consensus. The tobacco industry's funding of research to dispute the health effects of smoking, or the fossil fuel industry's support for climate change denial, are prime examples of how financial interests can skew scientific discourse.
Ultimately, "Merchants of Doubt" is a call to action. It urges readers to be more discerning consumers of scientific information, to question motivations behind contrarian views, and to understand the difference between genuine scientific debate and manufactured controversy.
As we face pressing global challenges like climate change, it's more important than ever to recognize these tactics of doubt and denial. Only by understanding how science can be manipulated and misrepresented can we hope to make informed decisions and take necessary action on critical issues affecting our health, our environment, and our future.