Merchants of Doubt: truth, trust and deception in science

“In creating the appearance of science, the merchants of doubt sold a plausible story about scientific debate.” 

– Merchants of Doubt (pg 245)

In a society governed by truth and reason, we have become too trusting of the loudest voices in the room. They may be scientists, they may be politicians, or perhaps Loud Larry from down the street, but as soon as we hear “scientists say” or “research shows” it’s easy to drop our guard. But who are these people funded by? And how do we know they have our best interests at heart?

Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, recounts the mass fraud and misdirection of trust conducted by a group of scientists over the last 50 years. Scientists, including Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz and Bill Nierenberg, were mouthpieces for the tobacco industry and anti-global warming organisations such as the George C. Marshall Institute. By leveraging their influence as scientists, these men distorted scientific research to conjure doubt concerning the negative health effects of second-hand smoke, severity of acid rain, and existence of human-induced global warming. By misrepresenting scientific discussion as a 50/50 debate, they delayed policy action and manipulated public opinion. These men are known as the merchants of doubt. 

Whilst this book discusses specific historic circumstances, the overarching emphasis on the importance of being scientifically literate and the role of responsible science media remains critical. Regardless of whether you’re a science geek or not, reading about business and governmental influences in science is vital and I encourage everyone to read and watch Merchants of Doubt.

Here are my main takeaways:

Peer review: the used and abused

As a science student, the importance of only referencing peer-reviewed research has been drilled into me again and again. Essentially, peer review means journals give your research to other experts in the field for review. Peers are expected to scrutinise every aspect of your work, including methodology, choice of references, and how logic is applied to arrive at a conclusion. This acts as a refining process which raises the standard of published research and ensures that everything published has been approved by multiple experts.

Oreskes and Conway recount a scenario in which peer review was manipulated to favour particular parties. The Nierenberg Acid Rain Peer Review Panel, founded by physicist Bill Nierenberg in 1982, was a collective of scientists who reported the effects and severity of acid rain in the United States. After writing the long-awaited report - a strong-worded document demanding government action - it was mysteriously edited by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. They admitted to making changes which would ‘soften the tone’, without the panel’s approval. By weakening the scientists’ message, the government felt justified to do…nothing. As a result, no acid rain legislation was instated during the Reagan administration.

The sentiment isn’t that peer-review is bad. But rather it highlights how careful we must be when digesting newly published research. Some organisations cheat the system by leveraging the respect which peer-review garners. Finding trusted media outlets and science communicators is key.

The role of the media

It’s no surprise that the media is highly influential in our everyday lives. Manipulating a news story’s tone, authority and context persuades people to sit on a particular side of the fence. Of course, this is expected in political campaigns and suburban debates, but distorted contexts and leveraging the ‘scientist’ title should not be tolerated when communicating science. Fred Singer and his buddies were able to influence not only the US, but international opinion. Singer was a physicist, meaning people felt that he could a credible source for all science-related matters. This, of course, is not the case. After all, a smart person is not smart about everything. Regardless, authority and charisma made them science rock-stars in the pro-smoking and climate denier communities. This all comes down to their portrayal in the media. There’s no way they could have gained the status they did without major influence in the media. By amplifying climate naysayers’ voices, the media created an illusion that climate change was a great scientific controversy. In reality, scientists had agreed global warming was happening long before.

“Journalists were constantly pressured to grant the professional deniers equal status - and equal time and newsprint space - and they did.

- Merchants of Doubt (pg 214)

Procrastinating climate change

You know when you really need to clean the bathroom? It’s getting grimier by the day, and you manage to come up with every excuse under the sun not to do it? Do “It’s just going to get dirty again”, or “I’m not the one making the mess so why do I have to do it?” sound familiar? That’s pretty much how we were told to treat climate change. We knew it was coming, we understood what we needed to do and yet, doubt and controversy fostered by the merchants of doubt gave us permission to operate business as usual. It was convenient to say global warming wasn’t a concern for 20th and 21st century generations. In response, the general response was to throw up our hands and say, “who cares”.

Peer review, distorted media coverage, and procrastination are methods which the merchants of doubt used to fulfil their mission; create doubt. By disrupting the way government and general society perceived tobacco, acid rain, and global warming they were able to slow political action for economic gain. As humans, we need a sense of urgency and a threat of immediate consequences in order to take action. The merchants of doubt successfully shrouded these issues with doubt and confusion.

Science has become a scapegoat in political warfare and blind trust is as dangerous as no trust at all. Whilst not everyone can or wants to become a scientist, we must practice questioning the assumptions and credibility of the loudest person in the room.

“Rome may not be burning, but Greenland is melting, and we are still fiddling. We all need a better understanding of what science really is, how to recognise real science when we see it, and how to separate it from the garbage.”

– Merchants of Doubt (pg 265)