The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It by Shawn Lawrence Otto

The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It Reviews

• 
  Thomas

  3.5 stars
  
  A dense and informative book about the war on science that threatens our democracy. The War on Science comes at quite the relevant time as our current US President often outright denies facts and spews falsehoods, much to the detriment of our country. Donald Trump serves as only one villain in the war on science, though, and Shawn Otto delves deep into the many players who refuse to believe the truth about climate change, evolution, the healthfulness of vaccinations, and many other important topics. He includes a vast history of the origins of science as well as its current antagonists, such as the extremely religious who refute secular truths, industries that prioritize making money over spreading objective information, and journalists who believe in sharing two sides of every story even if one side is completely driven by myths and/or opinions. Otto concludes this book by sharing a barrage of actions we can take to reclaim our democracy and return science to its rightful place.
  
  I appreciate how Otto does such a thorough job investigating the roots and current trends of science denial, and I would recommend this book to anyone interested in science and its precarious yet vital place in society. My main criticism, though, stems from Otto's attack on "identity politics" and how postmodernists and marginalized academics have hurt science. He writes that postmodernists "[confuse]... science with the politics surrounding the power that science creates." He conveniently ignores how scientists - predominately those of the white male persuasion - have advocated for scientific racism, labeling homosexuality as a brain disease, and many other social injustices. I wish Otto had written about how addressing the rampant sexism, racism, etc. within science would actually make science even better, more diverse and more tolerant, and more effective at capturing a variety of individuals' lived experiences. Instead, he derides scholars who try to
  fight for change within academia, thus alienating a group that cares a great deal about science and how to improve it.
  
  Additionally, I would have preferred if Otto argued for a mutually symbiotic relationship between the humanities and the sciences instead of just lampooning humanities' majors for not understanding science. If you think about it, one of the reasons why scientists often lack the tools to communicate their findings is because they have forgotten how to write well after only taking science classes in college (I have heard and read this from several scientists themselves.) Here's to working across the aisle to ameliorate science's tenuous position within society and to enhance the positive impacts it can create for us all.
• 
  Socraticgadfly

  Too much blind praise from unskeptical 'skeptics'
  
  This book is uneven in spots, has seeming straw men in spots, and has errors of commission and omission in spots, among other things.
  
  As best as I can tell, at least some of that is related to what I suss out as its apparent target audience — moderate mainline Protestants who aren't totally liberal politically but aren't totally conservative either. In fact, given some of the specific straw men and errors of omission, and Otto's residence, I'll venture that he's thinking about (fellow??) Minnesota Lutherans of the ELCA persuasion in writing this.
  
  Arguably, the book is worth a third star, but with all the tribalism apple-polishing, per my headline, it gets knocked down. Even without that, I'm not sure it's worth three, though.
  
  First, Otto projects a Democrat/Republican split on science backward and overreaches — badly. Related to that is a factual error, claiming that William McKinley defeated William Jennings Bryan in part due to evolution. Reality is that evolution was a VERY minor campaign issue, if it was any at all, in 1896 and 1900, a full generation before the Snopes trial. McKinley won because he had a lot more campaign money, employers threatened employees with job loss if Bryan won, and the race was fought over the gold standard vs. free silver. Otto's clams are ahistorical at best, antihistorical at worse.
  
  Second, his "Religion, Meet Science" chapter is chock full of errors.
  1. The Puritans didn't come to America for religious freedom. They came for religious freedom for *themselves only.* BIG difference.
  2. He straw mans Catholics by pretending that only Protestants of the Reformation and beyond had a serious natural theology. That would be a surprise to the thousands of Catholic and non-Catholic scholars who still study Thomas Aquinas.
  
  Third, in a later chapter, he claims antivaxxerism basically started as a left-wing stance, then spread to religious conservatives over HPV. Wrong. Orange County, California, is full of anti-government libertarian antivaxxers.
  
  Fourth, he gets a number of things at least partially wrong in relation to modern media and news coverage. That includes an exact discussion of the issue of "objectivity."
  
  I remember Otto's Science 2008 project. It sounded promising. Maybe there was already then less than meets the eye.
  
  Unfortunately, by dipping below the three-star level, I put myself in the company of climate change denialists. Don't blame me; blame Otto for serious errors elsewhere. (He's totally correct on climate change.) Blame "skeptics" for failure to give a more critical read. Blame Otto again for his presumed Minnesota nice liberal Lutheran target audience.
• 
  John

  The Definitive Book on Science Denialism in America
  
  “The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, and What We Can Do About It” should be viewed as the definitive book on science denialism in America and belongs on the bookshelves of anyone in government or politics seeking to make public policy decisions that require sufficient knowledge, understanding and appreciation of science, including medicine and technology. This is no mere sequel to Otto’s earlier – and still terrific – “Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America”. Instead, what Otto does here is to cover both the history and philosophy behind science denialism, doing an exemplary job in describing how the scientific method actually works, and in praising Karl Popper’s philosophy with regards to testing scientific hypotheses. He also reminds us of science’s importance – especially with regards to basic research – in promoting democratic values, which even scientifically-literate Founding Fathers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson understood and appreciated, realizing that they were creating a democratic republic that would promote the growth of scientific knowledge, with that knowledge used to further our country’s economic success; a point which others, most notably Kenneth R. Miller and Niles Eldredge, have emphasized in their own noteworthy books on evolution denialism, by pointing out that failing to deter and to defeat science denialists – in this case, Intelligent Design creationists and other, so-called “scientific” creationists – has grave implications for ensuring America’s future economic and intellectual success as a preeminent global economic, intellectual and cultural power.
  
  Otto shows how moral ambivalence over the development of atomic weaponry, and fear of the military-industrial complex, sowed the seeds for much contemporary American science denialism, transforming the once pro-science Republican Party, whose luminaries included such notable scientists as distinguished astronomer Edwin Hubble, into an intellectual backwater dominated increasing by those skeptical of science within the Religious Right, aided and abetted, oddly enough, by the emergence of postmodernist relativist philosophers like Jacques Derrida who had no understanding or appreciation of science. It is this thinking which Otto contends has established one of the three main fronts in the war on science; the others are ideological and industrial, borrowing heavily from Postmodernist thought. Postmodernists like Derrida dismissed scientific claims for objectivity via the scientific method, and instead, saw science as myths to preserve or acquire power; clearly a less than desirable aspect of identity politics; a point of view that would become part of the mindset of right-wing Intelligent Design creationists, as well as progressive anti-science movements like vaccine denialism. It is within this academic environment that philosopher Thomas Kuhn developed his concept of “scientific revolutions”, which Otto notes persuasively is one worthy of dismissal simply for relying upon Postmodernist thought.
  
  In his chapter entitled “The Ideological War on Science”, Otto describes how faith-based ideological warfare is being conducted not only on whether one should teach as science, biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory, but even, on a more personal level, adequate sex education for teenagers. In each and every case, he demonstrates how religious thought has too often been heeded, resulting in dismantling credible science education, including sex education, and harming greater public understanding of the science behind biological evolution. My only cautionary note here is that Otto is not giving credit where credit is due to theistic scientists like Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller and religious leaders like the Dalai Lama who recognize that their respective faiths should endorse greater public awareness and understanding of science, with the Dalai Lama famously noting that if Buddhism is wrong and science is right, then Buddhism should conform with science. I also suspect that Miller and former National Center for Science Education director Eugenie C. Scott’s efforts in engaging with religious leaders – other notable instances include Michael Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project and noted evolutionary ecologist Edward O. Wilson’s efforts at reaching common ground with those creationist-leaning Evangelical Christians interested in preserving Earth’s biodiversity - may ultimately be more successful than the “slash and burn” tactics advocated by some militant New Atheists, including one notable figure interviewed by Otto.
  
  Otto devotes a surprisingly large portion of his chapter on “The Industrial War of Science” to the rise of modern advertising in the United States, but it’s a history worth noting, since that includes numerous efforts by industry to cast ample doubt on “unsettled” science, whether it is smoking as a primary cause of cancer – which was recognized as early as the 1930s by the Nazis, who banned smoking in public places – or ongoing debates over the “reality” of climate change. Otto describes how industry has been successful in casting ample doubt on the “reality” of climate change, which he regards as the newest form of science denialism, much younger, in fact, than the vaccine denialism of disgraced ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield and his intellectual forebears in Great Britain, including an early episode in the middle of the 19th Century. Much of his discussion on contemporary climate change denialism deals of course with political intrigue in the Bush and Obama administrations, and especially in the United States Congress, with Otto offering us a cautionary tale regarding how pervasive scientific ignorance exists within the halls of Congress as well as within the White House.
  
  Regardless of whether one agrees with Otto’s encyclopedic overview of science denialism in the United States, there should be agreement that Otto has clearly thought long and hard about what needs to be done, going as far as offering battle plans for politicians, journalists, scientists and the general public to help combat and eventually, defeat, the ongoing war on science in the United States, which has its parallels overseas, in Great Britain, the rest of Europe, and, to an extent, in South Korea and much of the Muslim world. He calls upon politicians, including local ones, to acquire credible science advisors. One important bit of advice that Otto gives to journalists is that they need to cease striving to be “objective” when dealing with vaccine denialism, evolution denialism and climate change denialism, especially since overwhelming scientific evidence supports those critical of these science denialist movements. He also urges scientists to become more politically involved, as a means of furthering greater public understanding of science and perhaps, more importantly, to ensure that the United States remains the democratic republic founded on its core values, including knowledge and appreciation of science. To his everlasting credit, Otto has written one of the most important – and necessary – books of our time, describing how we can win the ongoing war against science, and one that deserves a wide readership from a vast audience, not only those of us concerned with fostering greater scientific literacy here in the United States.
• 
  Alan Johnson

  This book is very good at presenting and corroborating most of its major arguments. I was less impressed with some of the details. Science writers like Mr. Otto often have an excellent grasp of what science is all about. They are, unfortunately, often less knowledgeable about history and political philosophy. Another example of this phenomenon is discussed in
  my review of Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc. But then it is probably impossible to acquire an expertise in all relevant fields, each of which would require something on the order of a lifetime to master.
  
  The main arguments of the book, which I heartily endorse, are as follows. First, science, properly speaking, is based on evidence and critical thinking. Feelings, opinions, popular memes, and so forth mean nothing to science. At the beginning of chapter 11, Mr. Otto quotes, with approval, the famous scientist Richard Feynman on this subject: "The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty." Some of the best discussions in The War on Science are elaborations of this theme.
  
  Otto properly criticizes contemporary left-wing postmodernism for wanting to replace objective facts with subjectivity and relativism. Academic postmodernists have gone so far as to argue that there are no objective facts, that every view in science is subjective, and that science should therefore be made a wing of the humanities. That this kind of tripe is taught in many American colleges and universities today constitutes a travesty of what education should be. I entirely agree with the author on his indictment of postmodernist thought.
  
  Otto also observes the essential similarity of postmodernist and Religious Right thinking: both reject objectivity in favor of subjectivism. For example, according to the "young earth" creationists, the devil placed fossils in the earth in order to deceive us. The Religious Right, like postmodernism, has no place for science unless they themselves can control it.
  
  The Religious Right, in turn, has made a devil's bargain with certain industrial interests and their public relations gurus. Those industrial interests are adamantly opposed to any scientific evidence supporting an argument that humans have caused climate change. The public relations spin doctors for these industrialists have adopted the tactics that the tobacco interests perfected in the twentieth century. The Religious Right is fine with this attack as long as they can also perpetrate their antiscience agenda regarding evolution and reproductive matters.
  
  It is not possible in this review to discuss all the arguments Mr. Otto makes regarding the foregoing and related challenges to science. Suffice it to say that his arguments are mostly excellent. Otto also elaborates how many scientists have allowed themselves to be used in a manner that is detrimental to the environment and public health, not to mention such military applications as the hydrogen bomb.
  
  Now I must address where the author departs, in my judgment, from objective facts in areas in which his knowledge is clearly incomplete. I have space to discuss only one example. At various points throughout the book, Mr. Otto praises the Puritans for their dedication to inductive and experimental science. He even goes so far as to quote a speech by President Ronald Reagan that extolled the "city upon a hill" trope initiated, in this country, by John Winthrop, the most important Puritan governor of the colony of Massachusetts Bay during the seventeenth century.
  
  Otto is partly correct. Winthrop's son, John Winthrop, Jr., was himself interested in scientific matters as were some other Puritan thinkers. But it is exceedingly strange that Otto does not address the other side of the Puritan coin. Winthrop's colony of Massachusetts Bay was a theocracy that prosecuted and persecuted people solely on account of their expression of religious views. The Massachusetts Bay government hanged four Quakers, whipped and imprisoned Baptists, and exiled Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and others. The details are elaborated and corroborated in Alan E. Johnson,
  The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (Philosophia, 2015), especially chapter 2 and appendix B. One of the themes of Otto's book is the contrast between antiauthoritarian science and authoritarian threats to science. He seems to imply that the Puritans were antiauthoritarian, but an understanding of their history, known to every American historian, shows them to be theologically narrow and politically ruthless in rooting out what they regarded as heresy or blasphemy.
  
  Nevertheless, the virtues of this book outweigh its defects. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in giving it a four-star rating. My only regret is that I could not, in view of its occasional historical inaccuracies, assign five stars to it.
  
  (minor edits on 9/9/2017)
• 
  Lynn

  My favorite (among many) quotes from this book:
  
  "We are living in a time of supranational corporations and a global economy based on feudalism and the false, unexamined assumption that the world is effectively unlimited."
• 
  John

  It's late at night and I'm tired. I have neither the time nor the available brain cells to write notes on this long book that would do it justice. Suffice it to say that it offers an enormously exhaustive primer on the ongoing war that's being waged against inconvenient science by vested interests of various kinds, most notably corporate and political, primarily in this country but with due attention given to others. Otto gives us extensive historical background, too, so we can see where the modern mess -- culminating, for the moment, in Trump withdrawing us from the Paris Accord -- has come from.
  
  I very rarely say that books are important, but I think that this one is. Very. It's also astonishingly readable: I found myself turning the pages almost as if I were reading a novel. There are moments of minor repetition, presumably because this is a revised and very much amplified edition of Otto's earlier book Fool Me Twice; but that's barely an irritation in the context of this hugely impressive enterprise.
  
  Wholeheartedly recommended.
• 
  Leigh Pomeroy

  Earlier this summer I recommended three excellent reads in "
  Tired of all Trump, all the time? Enlighten yourself with these books": Dark Money by Jane Mayer, Lab Girl by Hope Jahren and Tipping Point for Planet Earth by Anthony D. Barnosky & Elizabeth A. Hadly.
  
  Now I'm going to add a fourth: 
  The War on Science by
  Shawn Otto.
  
  My first impressions of the book were:
  
  1. It was originally released in paperback, not hardcover.
  
  2. It was not your usual 250-page popular science book but a 426-page hefty tome that could double as an adequate doorstop.
  
  But it is far from a doorstop. Rather, it is a must-read for anyone who cares about the planet and its future.
  
  Granted, it is at times a thick slog. It starts very slowly, including a long list of questions bunched into one long, nearly two-page paragraph. Right away I was thinking: Why wasn't this put into an easy-to-read list?
  
  But once Otto gets into the meat of things with an overview of the history of politics and science, the book sings with detail.
  
  Only once does it falter after that, giving (I think) much more emphasis on
  postmodernism than this mostly silly intellectual diversion deserves. But then Otto has a point: That science bashing on the intellectual left can be as dangerous as on the intellectual right or from fundamentalist religious movements.
  
  In The War on Science Otto covers a lot. In fact, I can't think of anything he doesn't touch upon. He even addresses issues that seem peripheral to his thesis but that resonate strongly with me and others I know in academia: for example, the current thrust by universities to "overempower" administrations at the expense of faculty and the learning environment, and to be job trainers rather than pure educators.
  
  That said, I can't think of any book today that better covers the grand scheme of the interaction of science and antiscience, all mixed in with politics, religion, economics, short-term thinking and pure corporate greed.
  
  In short, do NOT read this book at your own peril!
• 
  Ashley Kennedy

  Awesome book, I learned a ton. Here are just a few quick notes about the main points or most interesting tidbits that stuck out to me. Apologies for oversimplifications of complex issues.
  
  -Most journalists today not only usually lack a scientific background, but they are taught "there are two sides to every story" / "no such thing as objectivity" which lends itself to false equivalency. Meanwhile, most newspapers have cut costs by removing specialty sections like "science", making it harder for actual science reporters to find work.
  
  -The energy corporations that are most responsible for climate change are deliberately misleading the public by following the PR playbook used by tobacco companies fifty years ago.
  
  -Science flourishes in democratic, anti-authoritarian societies; it is inherently political, but not partisan.
  
  -This paraphrased quote from Thomas Jefferson should be the mantra of scientists everywhere: "Science is my passion, politics my duty."
  
  -What set the US apart & enabled scientific discovery for so long was 1) public education, 2) the university system, and 3) our tolerance and freedom that drew in talented immigrants.
  
  -Earlier in US history (think turn-of-the-20th-century), scientists were more dependent on private funding from philanthropists, which made them necessarily better communicators-- they had to impress the public to keep the funding coming. Then (think circa WWII) the government began funding more research, which enabled scientists to turn inward, ensconce themselves in their ivory towers, and forego science communication with the public.
  
  -At the same time, science became more specialized, so scientists found it increasingly hard to communicate even with other scientists. And churches were reaching more aggressively all the while. Sooo, now we have the major issue of many Americans (esp. baby boomers) thinking of science as something remote (maybe even sinister) that happens behind closed doors in mysterious labs by anonymous people in lab coats. We need scientists to return to the age of greater transparency, more scientists who are celebrities, more engagement with the public so people feel like they are in on the secret/part of the process.
  
  -Startlingly few of our leaders have science backgrounds-- this needs to change. We have leaders who are unable to distinguish between facts and opinions, who have no understanding of the empirical basis of science or the value of inductive as opposed to deductive reasoning, no appreciation for the pure objectivity of science.
  
  -People inherently believe in a "just world" (which leads to victim-blaming); the more apocalyptic our messaging about climate change, the more people's brains will simply reject it. The idea that innocent children will be hurt by climate change is so unjust that people can't fully process it.
  
  -The first evidence for global warming emerged in 1824 with Joseph Fourier's experiments (yup, almost 200 years ago. Sigh) and has only gotten increasingly strong since.
• 
  Conor Wilson

  This book wonderfully describes how we got to our current state of science denial in our culture. From religious fundamentalists rejecting evolution, to corporate interests spreading misinformation regarding climate change and a journalistic culture convinced that "there is no such thing as objectivity" which makes such science denial possible.
  
  Shawn Otto makes the compelling case that the war on science is not merely a war on knowledge, but also a war on democracy. He argues that the ability to objectively observe and test reality in order to gain knowledge is our greatest check against authoritarian regimes. I must say, given the long history of authoritarian regimes attacking scientific and other academic endeavors, I can't help but agree.
  
  Ultimately, I did find this story disheartening. The forces waging the war are numerous and devious. To fight them will require a concerted effort not just of scientist, but of all citizens who see the value of science. While I would like to believe this is possible, I can't help but have my doubts.
• 
  Mimi

  Otto explains the methodology behind attacks by vested corporate interests on scientific conclusions that might hurt their business, public good be damned. From asbestos manufacturers to tobacco to climate change, these business moguls have developed a multi-phase plan to attack scientific conclusions by vastly exaggerating "uncertainty' in the data and launching ad hominem attacks on scientists themselves. Scientists need to become more aware of the threat and more communicative in making their results public.
  
  Based on the number of people who marched with us in the rain on April 22, 2017 in the D.C. March for Science, it's clear to me that the alarm has been sounded and they have awakened. Let the Battle for Reason and Truth begin!
• 
  David Kent

  The War on Science is a must read book for scientists and anyone even remotely interested in science or policy or politics or decision-making or life. Yes, that means you.
  
  The book is actually much more than the title suggests. Shawn Otto (one of the founders of ScienceDebate.org) delves deep into the history of science, but also in the psychological, sociological, political, educational, and religious histories and their interactions with science. He points out that the early leaders of this nation were promoters of science. George Washington said "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of Science and Literature." Jefferson heavily promoted science during his presidency and noted as he was leaving office that "Science is my passion, politics my duty." Great Republicans presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and William McKinley all emphasized the importance of science and technology. The author notes that Republicans were once the party of progressive optimism and tolerance, of environmentalism and finance, of rationalism and national parks. Only recently have Republicans turned against science. [But Democrats have their anti-science as well, which he discusses]
  
  The reasons for this turn toward antiscience are discussed in great detail. Otto digs into the history of religious intolerance for science that contradicts scripture, most notably by the excommunication of Galileo (who, ironically, was devoutly religious), but also with many other examples ranging through history to today. He examines the interplay of antiscience and "freedom," including how fear of annihilation from Cold War/nuclear weapons led to the "live for today" attitude of the 1960s. But not just nihilism, this constant stress and attachment to the "military-industrial complex" caused a suspicion of science.
  
  Further, the book delves into the turn towards postmodernism, which denied the existence of objective truth, claiming that all "truth" is subjectively in the eye of the beholder and that your opinion (often, ignorance) is as good as decades of scientific fact. This postmodernist believe severely damages education, where no longer are students expected to learn from accumulated facts but how they "feel" about reality. The media promotes this subjectivism, combined with the need to create controversy to garner ratings, as well as promote "false balance." All of these erode citizen confidence in science for no reason other than to assuage their fears of the unknown.
  
  Otto also takes a closer look at the "three-front war on science" from identity politics, ideology, and industry. All three provide substantial and substantive background and analysis and should be read closely. The third, "The Industrial War on Science," is extensive and examines the long and fruitful strategies of industries (often working in tandem with religion and media) to deny established science and delay or eliminate any policy action. We saw this for decades as the tobacco industry denied smoking causes cancer, and today as fossil fuel and libertarian lobbyists deny man-made climate change, as well as many other examples. Otto documents in detail the tactics used by denier lobbyists and their hired spokespeople; even quoting from their own strategy materials. He shows also how companies like Exxon and the Koch companies shifted from paying directly to denier front groups to slipping the money in through "dark money" vehicles like Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.
  
  The final three chapters look at "winning the war" in the sense of how do scientists and others battle against the misinformation of identity politics, ideologies, and industrial disinformation campaigns. In short, it isn't easy. Otto discusses how to engage in conversations in ways people can relate to. He also proposes a series of 14 "battle plans" to communicate science and overcome denial. The plans begin with something as simple as "doing something;" getting out there and trying to communicate. They continue with specific actions like creating a science advisory organization, pushing for science debates, using science advisors more effectively, and reaching out to religious, educational, and political leaders to help them understand the importance of science and its role in policy making. Otto also suggests that scientists need to fight back against the harassment, disinformation, and personal attacks of denial organizations.
  
  All of this can get rather intense. The book is dense in both information and thought. Otto has done tremendous research in a wide range of science and sociological history to develop the incredible insights he displays in this book. I highly recommend that all scientists read it, but I also highly recommend everyone who has an interest in honest discussion and policy making to read it. Finally, every responsible American citizen should read it as it helps put into context our role as citizens in this democracy.
• 
  Collin Duncan

  I rarely find a book, fiction or otherwise, worth five stars. This book is worth a solid six.
  
  First off, let me preface by saying this isn't your usual book bemoaning the "war on science" blaming some partisan politics with tired rhetoric. This book is completely bipartisan and is cruel to anyone and everyone that denies basic science. Deny global warming? Hate GMOs? This book targets any and all. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, a Republican or something else...if you appreciate and respect the validity of science, then this book is for you. And if you don't respect the validity of science, then you are who this book is about. Perhaps you, too, should read it.
  
  That's to say this book is apolitical. It's very political, but it's political in the sense that Otto wants to see more done to support science and proper scientific education and he doesn't particularly care who does it as long as they get their shit together.
  
  Make no mistake: This is not a light book. Despite it's rather small stature, it is text heavy with a small font and crams lots of information into its form. It's incredibly dense and jams reams of information into its pages. It's meticulously documented, almost to a ridiculous extent, but that's a good thing....very little in here is conjecture and this book becomes more of a desk reference for all things scientific debate than anything else. It's a guide, a how-to manual and a whole lot of facts jammed into a single volume that could probably have been a good three volumes. That said, the author deftly keeps his writing style accessible and very little here was something I would deem difficult material for the layman to understand. This isn't a textbook and it isn't even popular science; it's a tirade against a culture that is rejecting science as a whole. I found it easy to read and digest and although it was heavy material it was very well broken up and made reading it easy in chunks.
  
  Everyone in America should read this book. Buy it now. Read it. I don't care if you regret it...this is one for your shelf.
• 
  Larina

  Rather than solely a science lesson, this book is rich in history. A very good study in how we got to where we are with some hopeful ideas on where to go next.
• 
  Melissa

  Yeah, I did drop this down to one star--because honestly there are so many fallacies, poorly made arguments, and questionable statements that I really can't recommend it. On top of that, it's freaking long.
  
  One of my biggest issues is an argument he comes back to throughout the book, that knowledge = power, and because science contributes to knowledge that's why science is political and has been attacked by societal institutions like industry and religion for the past several hundred years. But that's just not true. Power is the ability to create change, which requires a lot more than knowledge. Knowledge can be one meaningful step towards creating change. But there's so much more to it than that. Science is political because it's a process conducted by humans, who inevitably have to make choices about the allocation of resources and its impacts--that's politics.
  
  Otto also spends a mindnumbingly long chapter railing against postmodernism as one of the main reasons science has been undermined and under attack by the left but then was also coopted as an argument against science by the right. But there's no evidence to back this up at all--he presents no arguments about curriculum changes for example, that could be attributed to postmodernism undermining science.
  
  There's some interesting takeaways in the chapter on how industry is attacking science, but unfortunately that work has already been written better by others (Naomi Oreskes, Neela Banerjee.)
  
  There's also some really cringey moments (possibly in the postmodernism chapter, I'm not really sure how he tied it in) where he talks about how diverse classrooms are bad...he doesn't go full on eugenics or separate-but-equal or anything, but it's really apparent that he stops short of saying what he really wants to say, and it's fairly alarming.
  
  Anyway, long story short--don't read this.
• 
  Eric Gilliland

  A must read for anyone who wants to understand the current political climate. The hostility aimed at scientists gets worse each year as our society continues to slip. Otto provides a history of the tensions between science and civilization and its three main adversaries of the moment: religious zealots, corporate PR machines determined to discredit global warming, and some post-modern academics who dismiss science as "just another way" of looking at the world. As Otto points, science differs from other fields because it relies on overwhelming evidence to support itself, using experiments to confirm their conclusions. The amount of anti-intellectual nonsense out there is overwhelming, people willingly working against the future. At the same time, Otto calls out his fellow scientists to engage better with the public. My only criticism is that the book gets repetitive at times, but still though provoking.
• 
  Paperclippe

  Boy am I done with entitled white male bullshit. Such a shame since it started so strong.
• 
  Max Nova

  "The War on Science" does a good job of contextualizing the current science/politics debate but is unevenly written and methinks it smacks a bit too much of half-baked undergraduate political ranting. Otto's book gave me a better understanding of recent anti-science political history and helped me frame the current issues, but his grandiose Malthusian rhetoric and interminable list of political recommendations at the end of the book made me doubt his reliability. There are some good ideas in here, but it takes some work to sift them out from the fluff.
  
  Otto's thesis goes something like this:
  
  * Scientists have lost touch with the public since Vannevar Bush's massive program of federal science funding made science a fear-driven national security issue and decoupled it from popular support. This has led to a serious decline in science outreach.
  * As a result, the average voter has little understanding or appreciation of science. The specialization and complexity of modern science don't make this any easier.
  * The post-modern academic left set the stage for the current anti-science movement by arguing that everything is a matter of perspective and there is no objective truth. As a society, we no longer have a standard for the "common authority of evidence".
  * Modern journalists do a massive disservice to science by presenting "both sides" of an issue with equal weight because they don't believe in objective facts.
  * The evangelical right uses this as a philosophical basis for resisting scientific advances that oppose their beliefs (evolution, reproductive controls, etc).
  * Big corporations manipulate the post-modern media (à la Bernays) to build popular support among the evangelical right for anti-science, pro-business objectives.
  
  I was surprised that Otto tackled the academic left head-on. During my time in college, anti-science was discussed as an exclusively right-wing issue, so it was refreshing to see Otto discuss leftist anti-science bugbears (fluoridation, vaccination, and GMOs). But Otto reveals his leftist Malthusian tendencies by favorably citing Paul Ehrlich (of "The Population Bomb" notoriety) and by evidence-free rhetoric such as:
  

  [Science] has enabled us to increase our population and our environmental impact beyond the capacity of our one small planet to support us... Population plus individualism plus technology may be our ultimate undoing.

  Otto's epistemology is unclear as well. He dismisses Kuhn - "Kuhn’s error was one of overextension — to intertwine the politics of science and the discovery of truth and call them one" and seems to have a rather Popperian philosophy on science - "If there’s no possible way to prove the hypothesis is false, then we aren’t really doing science." Otto also claims that climate science is the most important scientific issue of our time, despite its lack of falsifiable claims. He ignores any issues about the "theory-ladenness" of Popperian observation and ignores the fact that modern philosophers of science have thoroughly refuted Popper's ideas. Otto leaves us with no reliable way to separate science from non-science, which is a bit of a problem considering that his whole book is based on how important "science" is.
  
  The relationship between science, religion, and government is the source of Otto's most interesting questions. Regarding the increasingly complicated and arcane nature of highly-specialized science, he asks:
  

  scientific knowledge now plays a major role in most public policy challenges, and is the main arbiter and protector of individual freedom and social justice. A question arises: how best to bridge the gap between the voter and science so that democracy can be preserved?

  Otto's answer seems to be "more outreach" but I am skeptical that the general public has the interest or patience for it. He repeatedly claims that science is "anti-authoritarian" in its search for truth, but this runs directly contrary to Yuval Harari's claim that "Science is interested above all in power... science and religion prefer order and power over truth" in his
  Homo Deus. I found Harari more convincing than Otto, but it still feels like my understanding of these dynamics is fundamentally incomplete. Time for some more reading...
  
  Full review and highlights at
  http://books.max-nova.com/war-on-science/
• 
  AudioBookReviewer

  My original
  The War on Science audiobook review and many others can be found at
  Audiobook Reviewer.
  
  In an emergency, medics are taught to look for those that are not speaking among those who are screaming for help. In a similar light, we may be missing those most important scientific voices because they can’t be heard above the din of media attention some unscientific work gets. In the audiobook, The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It, by Shawn Otto, it’s clear that the issue is complex and he doesn’t shy away from the whole story. In this 20- hour volume, which resembles an eloquent offering from the Great Courses line-up, we get the full story from beginning to end, that we as a country, are often in the dark.
  
  The volume couldn’t be timelier as the new administration, whether you are for or against, puts stops on the dissemination of information from the USDA, the CDC, and EPA. Before tackling the current issues, it makes sense to look back at the rise and decline of our leader's desire for scientific evidence.
  
  Who would want to listen to twenty hours of content? Scientists. policymakers, and those with a vested interest in science and government that want the free and transparent distribution of information. The writing is at a very high and sometimes inaccessible level for many and the sheer depth of research would normally make it difficult to digest. However, the logic is sound, the arguments clear, and well documented. The expectation for many would be to listen from beginning to end, but with multiple parts, chronological movement from a presidential policy of one administration to another, it becomes difficult to follow if in that way. It is really, I believe, a great catalyst for upper-level undergraduate or graduate classroom discussion. The book provides a great return on investment for the single credit Audible charges.
  
  About the Narrator
  
  Peter Berkrot is a veteran narrator with a few hundred titles on Audible.com alone. I first listened to him with The Design of Everyday Things, a classic from Donald A. Norman and his voice works especially well for non-fiction. With his readings of the 30-hour Untold History of the United States and other classics, it’s not just a veteran narrator, but a key fit.
  
  Audiobook was provided for review by the publisher.
• 
  Javier

  I have been wondering for a long time why it has become so popular to reject scientific findings or the benefits we reap from them. We are living in a country where significant amounts of people deny evolution, the age of the universe, the state of our planet's climate, the ethics of medical science, etc. And many of these issues seem to be tied to partisan beliefs as well. Otto has laid out an immense amount of research that has helped me understand much better the current climate of science denial (pun intended). The book explains many psychological processes that influence people's biases when confronted with evidence and exposes tremendous efforts that have been taken to confuse the general public and cast doubt where none should be. This is an incredibly rich and enlightening book that I think will become more and more significant over time.
• 
  Chris Boutté

  This was a really good book about exactly what the title says. Otto brings up some great discussions about postmodernism's war on science as well as the usual suspects such as the ultra-conservative and religious. I think what I respected the most about this book is that it starts out with a history of scientific progress and explains how trust in science started to deteriorate. I think it's easy for us to look at science deniers and wag our fingers at them, but we also need to recognize that the government and bad actors in the scientific community have given deniers the ammunition they need. Fortunately, Otto brings quite a few solutions to the table in the final chapters of this book for teachers, parents, politicians, journalists, and more.
• 
  Cleokatra

  Good book overall and well worth reading. Some of the author's suggestions for overcoming the "war" are a little unrealistic. For instance, the idea that environmental scientists would ally with Green Peace, which many of us view as an ecoterrorism group, is probably not going to happen unless there is a major shift in the attitudes of Green Peace toward evidence-based science.
• 
  David

  This is such an important topic right now. This is a great read for anyone following American and global politics and trying to make sense of how things can be the way they are when it seems like truth is becoming irrelevant.
• 
  James

  Fantastic and eye-opening. As a scientist, I realize that I should always take a stand on issues that are informed by science to make a small contriubtion to defend science against attacks by those with money and, consequently, power.
• 
  Brian

  Anyone following the politics of science and technology in the US would see that public policy and democratic institutions are questioning science, but also seeking its legitimacy. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be the "War over Science". Otto's analysis shows that the war *on* science is being waged on three fronts. First by post-modernists liberals who see truth as subjective and morality is relative. Second by religious conservatives who see truth as objective and faith-based, and morality is absolute. Third is by industrial corporate interests who seek to manipulate the ideological conflict to their economic advantage.
  
  So far, so good. I have no problem with the explanation of how science is manipulated for political gain and discounted when it challenges a political ideology. Building the case takes far too long and rehashes debates that go back centuries. At least to Galileo and arguably to Aristotle or even the writing of the Old Testament. While the context needs to be set, how many times do we need to be reminded of the history of the Enlightenment to get to the present day? The shift of the Protestants from defenders of the Enlightenment to the enemies of science is superficial and incomplete, as is the shift of Catholics from running the inquisition to proposing the Big Bang hypothesis.
  
  The bigger problem is that the author cherry-picks the data and is selective in his case studies. In my field, agriculture, the author makes several unsubstantiated or at least disputable claims. These are mostly related to the adoption of genetically modified crops. To take one prominent example, he makes a claim that there is no evidence that glyphosate tolerant crops increased herbicide use. That is empirically false. The other, more disturbing thing is that he overlooks Monsanto's long history of falsifying scientific evidence, suppressing data, and intimidating researchers who challenged the safety of their products. Monsanto lost the glyphosate cases, not because their products were unsafe, but because they knowingly and willfully misrepresented their safety. Is this really the kind of "science" we want to support?
  
  Even if one accepts the author's unsubstantiated or selectively referenced assertions of the safety of genetic engineering, he overlooks the economic and ecological consequences. Bacon's inductive model became the dominant paradigm over Descartes; deductive model for a reason, as the author reminds us. However, that leaves out a vast array of knowledge not fully explained by either model. It is easy to dismiss those who seek to develop holistic models as cranks and crackpots, but that does not refute their critique of reductionism. Ecology and systems theory are not necessarily wrapped up in the Post-Modern / New-Age mantle, and it is unfair to dismiss it as such.
  
  Finally, the book is already dated because it was published in 2016. Trump is barely mentioned, and when he is, he is not viewed as a serious threat to scientific inquiry or the truth. I have no doubt that those events and the on-going partisan polarization has changed the way that science is dealt with in the United States after the book was published. The recommended path forward faces a more partisan and divisive challenge over science and the truth than when it was published and a different strategy from what the author proposed needs to be developed.
• 
  Joeri

  Living (allegedly) in post-truth times where science is seen as but another perspective, with no more objective value than less evidence-based opinions and views, this book offers a timely and necessary critique to our current discourse where alternative facts seem to gain more traction.
  
  Otto makes a compelling case for science, and shows how it should inform our politics and policies. He gives nice historic examples of when and how science was valued and deemed of importance in different times and cultures, but the overview doesn't feel exhaustive. But still, the arguments he draws for them are convincing and show how science might propel us forwards, while still keeping in mind that it does not come without dangers. This makes is argument nuanced.
  
  In describing what caused the war on science, he metions an identity war on science, an ideological one and an industrial one. Of this I found the alleged identity war on science the least convincing. In his view, postmodernism contributed to making science and objective knowledge suspect, as it became to be seen as being an instrument of power and only one way to interpret the world. He's also too negative about the humanities when he sees them as partially complicit in this.
  Although I understand where he is going with this argument, it is not entirely adequate nor fair to blame postmodernism for living in post-truth times. Firstly because with this argument I think he overestimates the influence postmodernism had on public discourse (for he states that educators and journalists are postmodernly educated, thus spreading it througout society). Secondly because some postmodernists have become important pleaders for science, albeit the scientific wordview is not about problems. Otto fears what our anti-scientific attitude might mean for our willingness to tackle climatechange. He is right to fear this, but it are postmodernists like Bruno Latour - one of the thinkers he attacks - that want things like climate change to become a matter of concern.
  
  Otto convincingly shows how the media and journalists create a false balance in scientific debates: giving each narrative the same weight, in order to inspire debate and give a platform to all views. He blames this wrongly, I think, again on postmodernism. I believe the reason to be the money-driven motivation of journalism, and unfortunately, heated debates, even if the arguments presented in them are not adequate, sell. But he's right in saying that this needlessly spreads misinformation and uncertainty to the public.
  
  Considering the industrial, but also ideological war on science I entirely agree with his argument and share in his fear that lobbygrouds who profit from spreading uncertainties and doubt, especially about climate change, pose a real threat.
  
  I also agree with Otto that we need more scientific literate politicians and voters in order to adress some of our most urgent, contemporary problems. But blaming postmodernists and to some extent the humanities won't help, because I believe we will need all of them in order to really adress our current challenges.
• 
  Bob Lundquist

  Science has a long and checkered history with people. It started out as a way to discover and build on the ancients’ work to explain how nature works. The discoveries of science have run the gamut from being ignored to vastly improving peoples’ lives. It these discoveries are not consistent with current beliefs; conflict arises in the form of science vs. religion battles and belittling science’s results. Both sides of the political spectrum have had issues with science from electromagnetic waves to cell phones to vaccinations and evolution. As a result, we have a love-hate relationship with the effects of science. A monumentally negative changed perspective on journalistic objectivity is a large part of this as journalists do not ask the right questions and do not challenge answers given by scientists, politicians, or their opponents.
  
  The main point of the book is that “science” has not helped people as much as it could due to continued ignorance of its achievements. One gets the impression that “science” is the one and only thing that can help humanity. “Science” because that word is used too much to describe what it really technology and engineering. It would be more correct to call it the products of science that then are implemented with engineering. This obsession with science obscures the bigger issue of how wisdom is ignored to have “science” do its thing to help people. The COVID fiasco is testament to letting scientists run the show. Or at least politicians cow towing to purveyors of science. It would be interesting to see how the author views this issue (the book came out in 2016).
  
  I found this book to be more balanced than I thought it would be. Its largest bias is a firm belief in the bad effects of human-caused global climate change. There is no consideration of the good effects. There is no consideration of how causation can be confused with correlation. There is only a small consideration of how science has produced the horrific effects of nuclear weapon testing, eugenics, and the positive effects of nuclear power generation. However, this long book is a good summary of how science relates to people at large and how it can be perverted due to opinion or orneriness. If you are interested in “science vs. society”, read this book.
  
• 
  Fred Forbes

  If you are members of the group that thinks the world is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs and man co-existed, that there is no objective reality since everything is relative or subjective, that creationism is true and that climate change is a hoax, time for you to move on. As the cops say around an accident or crime scene, nothing for you to see here.
  
  This has got to be one of the most depressing things I have ever read. Granted, I may be a bit too "Spockian" for my own good at times with my dependence on logic, observation and the scientific method but the level of gullibility and ignorance expressed by much of our population is truly horrifying.
  
  How did it get that way? Who is responsible? Why is it happening? How do we fix it? These are the compelling questions this book asks and answers and for anyone interested in the topic will find a wealth of information. Tracking history, religion, science, economics and politics is a big task but the author is up to it. My main concern is that the proposed solutions are doomed to fail. It just seems to me that the folks the solutions target are too "combative, fat, dumb and happy" to want to change much, despite the high stakes. There is also some interesting psychological research as to why folks married to the concept of "If I believe it, it is true" are so tough to change. Sort of like the guy whose wife catches him in bed with a neighbor - "Who you gonna believe? Me, or your own lyin' eyes?!"
  
  One tidbit I had not been aware of - in August 1987 the FCC on a 4-0 vote abolished the fairness doctrine which required that the broadcast of controversial subjects of public interest be honest, equitable and balanced. Recognizing the danger, Congress tried to pass a law codifying that precept but President Reagan vetoed it leading to "angry, opinionated baby-boomer talk jocks like Rush Limbaugh.
  
  So, for those interested in an important topic this is a serious effort. Well done!