Merchants of Doubt: Confusing Science on Media

Author Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway are historians in fields of science and science and technology, respectively. Oreskes’ work concerns climate change and more specifically the inconsistencies between scientific works and the way it is presented on media platforms and specifically how lay persons receive information. Oreskes’ research has been cited by Al Gore in his independent work for Climate Change. Together the pair elicited an idea called the “Denial Network” which is the basis of why confusion exists surrounding science. Their idea conceptualized into this book because some scientists and organizations are creating doubt to keep things secret.

Through their combined work in Merchants of Doubt, readers are allowed see how industries have used science to convince or confuse the public depending on the ideals of the panels and teams presenting the information. Throughout the chapters in this book, we learn about the Tobacco Industry fraud, the strategic defense initiative dream, and global warming, we see just how the authors’ reveal concise, in depth research on how they believe think scientists funded by major corporations are aiming to confuse. In the 1980’s research started flooding the mainstream that cigarettes had been linked to Lung Cancer. It seemed according to top secret corporate documents that big cigarette corporations had known this since the 1958.

“The goal was to fight science with science or at least with the gaps and uncertainties existing in science, and with scientific research that could be used to deflect attention from the main events.” (pg13) Big Tobacco companies had found a new tactic to confronting the newly discovered science, ensure that “doubt is our product.” They created doubt with their private scientists finding inconclusive data that links smoking to cancer. If there is no common consensus on a controversial idea, then doubt can be added to the equation to question the validity of the science. Oreskes provided many great examples of how this happened in the past and how it is still occurring today with the climate change debate.

In Merchants of Doubt, we see recurring name, specifically Fred Sietz and Frederick Singer, old cold war boys, who thought that communists were involved in the free market and were just waiting to forge a new socialist attack. These two men had a problem with every one of the problems that came up in this book, from tobacco to global climate change, they were involved. However, it wasn’t that these men had a problem with each of these ideas. These men had a problem with the solutions to climate change and the problems of tobacco, they were against any type of regulation. If the government was able to get involved, they were involved, too. Oreskes elicits in her book that Americans already know what it’s like to have restrictions, we are not completely free.

We are raised on core values to follow regulatory laws; these regulations include the inability to commit homicide on free will. We are all used to having some infringement to the word ‘Freedom.’ If it meant the earth we exist upon being treated a little better, and expanding the life expectancy for its occupants I think we could all agree that government regulation wouldn’t kill us or create socialism. While reading Merchants of Doubt, you sit in amazement while learning about the history that has come before us. The Strategic Defense Initiative, an idea that is still outrageous decades later. Also, the savagery of the tobacco industry allowing billions of people to harm themselves so they can turn a profit, and then lying to their dying customers. The science is there, but the science is confusing, it’s not perfect and it doesn’t provide instant gratification.

Two different people can look at the same chart and say opposite things, data can be obscured depending on who is using it, it’s important to know if the data is coming from a reliable, unbiased source. This brings me to the unit question; Can Science survive in a free market? I believe that science can survive, but isn’t allowed to openly thrive in a capitalist society, because the market isn’t fair, companies are allowed to use money to influence laws and society, they are able to utilize public relations representatives to skew the story of their latest misfortune. However, science isn’t dying in a capitalist society either, we have seen change, even if it slow. After reading this book I have learned that not all hope is lost. We have seen the reform with DDT, people have become educated on the risks of cigarettes and people are still being educated on global warming. Scientists are prevailing, but it’s a marathon, not a jog, it takes time and effort.