Merchants of Doubt

1. Scientific evidence was systematically denied to protect corporate interests

Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.

Organized denial campaigns. Throughout the late 20th century, corporations and ideological groups systematically worked to create doubt about scientific evidence that threatened their interests. This tactic was pioneered by the tobacco industry and later adopted for issues like acid rain, ozone depletion, and climate change.

Tactics used:

• Funding contrarian scientists
• Creating fake grassroots organizations
• Exploiting journalistic balance norms
• Attacking the credibility of researchers
• Misrepresenting scientific uncertainty

Motivations: The primary goal was to prevent or delay regulation that could impact profits or challenge free-market ideology. By manufacturing controversy, these groups aimed to confuse the public and policymakers about the strength of scientific evidence.

2. Tobacco industry pioneered strategies to manufacture doubt about science

The tobacco industry was throwing its money at virtually anyone who would do research on the questions it was interested in.

Tobacco's playbook. The tobacco industry developed a sophisticated strategy to combat growing evidence of smoking's health risks. This approach became a template for future science denial campaigns.

Key elements:

• Funding alternative research to distract from evidence of harm
• Attacking studies linking smoking to cancer as "junk science"
• Insisting the evidence was inconclusive and more research was needed
• Framing the debate as about personal freedom rather than public health
• Using public relations firms to spread industry talking points

Long-term impact: These tactics delayed tobacco regulation for decades despite clear scientific evidence. The strategies refined by the tobacco industry provided a roadmap for other industries facing regulatory threats based on scientific findings.

3. Acid rain and ozone depletion faced similar campaigns of denial

The skeptics' arguments did the trick: they convinced people who didn't know otherwise that there was still a lot of doubt about the whole matter.

Environmental threats denied. As scientific evidence emerged about acid rain and ozone depletion, industries facing potential regulation deployed tactics similar to the tobacco industry to sow doubt.

Acid rain denial:

• Claimed natural causes like volcanoes were responsible
• Argued economic costs of action outweighed uncertain benefits
• Attacked EPA science as politically motivated

Ozone depletion denial:

• Promoted alternative theories blaming solar cycles
• Claimed banning CFCs would devastate the economy
• Portrayed ozone "hole" as a natural phenomenon

Delaying action: These campaigns successfully delayed policy responses for years, allowing continued environmental damage. The Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances was ultimately successful, but acid rain regulations faced ongoing opposition.

4. Climate change denial emerged as a coordinated effort

The goal wasn't to correct scientific mistakes and place regulation on a better footing. It was to undermine regulation by challenging the scientific foundation on which it would be built.

Climate denial network. As evidence of human-caused climate change solidified in the 1980s and 1990s, a coordinated denial campaign emerged, often involving the same individuals and organizations from previous science battles.

Key players and tactics:

• Cold War physicists like Frederick Seitz and S. Fred Singer
• Conservative think tanks like the George C. Marshall Institute
• Emphasizing uncertainty and promoting alternative theories
• Attacking climate scientists' integrity and motivations
• Framing climate action as a threat to economic freedom

Effectiveness: This campaign successfully delayed meaningful climate action for decades, despite mounting scientific evidence. It exploited media norms of "balance" to give fringe views equal weight with the scientific consensus.

5. Secondhand smoke debate revealed tactics to undermine EPA

Bad Science was a compendium of attacks on science, published in places like the Washington Times, and written by staff of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Targeting the EPA. When the EPA classified secondhand smoke as a carcinogen, the tobacco industry and its allies launched a campaign to discredit the agency's scientific process.

Tactics employed:

• Funding think tanks to produce critical reports
• Promoting the concept of "junk science" to dismiss EPA findings
• Claiming EPA had a hidden political agenda
• Exploiting statistical debates about confidence levels
• Framing the issue as government overreach

Broader implications: This campaign went beyond defending tobacco to attack the legitimacy of regulatory science more broadly. It aimed to undermine public trust in scientific institutions and the regulatory process.

6. DDT ban revisionism demonstrates persistence of denial strategies

Carson's argument was that any war on nature was one that we were bound to lose.

Rewriting history. Decades after DDT was banned in the US, a revisionist narrative emerged claiming the ban caused millions of deaths from malaria. This demonstrates how science denial tactics persist and evolve over time.

Key claims and rebuttals:

• Claim: DDT ban caused millions of malaria deaths
• Reality: DDT use declined due to mosquito resistance, not the US ban
• Claim: No evidence DDT harmed wildlife or humans
• Reality: Substantial evidence of ecological damage and human health risks

Motivations: This campaign aimed to discredit the environmental movement and argue against regulation more broadly, rather than overturn the long-established DDT ban.

7. A network of think tanks and media outlets propagate science denial

For tobacco is not the end of our story. It is just the beginning.

Denial infrastructure. A network of conservative think tanks, industry-funded organizations, and sympathetic media outlets has developed to promote and amplify science denial messages.

Key players:

• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Heartland Institute
• Cato Institute
• George C. Marshall Institute
• Wall Street Journal editorial page

Funding sources:

• Tobacco industry
• Fossil fuel companies
• Conservative foundations

This network allows coordinated messaging across multiple issues, from tobacco to climate change. It provides a veneer of credibility to fringe scientific views and talking points.

8. Cold War physicists played key roles in science denial movements

These men had no particular expertise in environmental or health questions, but they did have power and influence.

Scientific credentials misused. Several prominent physicists who had been involved in Cold War weapons programs became leading voices in science denial campaigns.

Notable figures:

• Frederick Seitz
• S. Fred Singer
• William Nierenberg
• Robert Jastrow

Motivations and impact:

• Anti-communist ideology and free-market views
• Leveraged scientific prestige to influence policy debates
• Provided credibility to industry-friendly positions
• Often opined on issues far outside their expertise

These scientists' involvement gave science denial campaigns intellectual heft and media attention they might not have otherwise received.

9. Media "balance" inadvertently promoted fringe views on settled science

While the idea of equal time for opposing opinions makes sense in a two-party political system, it does not work for science, because science is not about opinion. It is about evidence.

False equivalence. Journalistic norms of "balance" led many media outlets to give equal weight to fringe scientific views and the established scientific consensus.

Consequences:

• Public confusion about the state of scientific knowledge
• Amplification of minority views not supported by evidence
• Delay in public understanding and policy action on key issues

Exploitation: Science denial campaigns actively exploited this tendency, working to place their views in mainstream media to create the appearance of ongoing scientific debate.

10. Denial campaigns exploit scientific uncertainty to delay action

A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.

Uncertainty as a weapon. Science denial campaigns often focus on remaining uncertainties in scientific understanding to argue against taking action.

Tactics:

• Demanding impossible levels of certainty before action
• Emphasizing unknowns while downplaying established facts
• Funding research on alternative explanations
• Arguing economic costs outweigh uncertain benefits

Policy implications: This approach can be effective in delaying regulation even when the weight of evidence clearly points to the need for action. It exploits politicians' and the public's discomfort with scientific uncertainty.

11. Science denial threatens public health and environmental protection

If you could convince people that an example of successful government regulation wasn't, in fact, successful—that it was actually a mistake—you could strengthen the argument against regulation in general.

Broader agenda. Science denial campaigns often serve a larger ideological goal of opposing government regulation and promoting free-market fundamentalism.

Consequences:

• Delayed action on public health threats like tobacco
• Continued environmental degradation from acid rain and climate change
• Erosion of public trust in scientific institutions
• Politicization of science and science-based policy

Long-term risks: By undermining the role of science in policymaking, these campaigns threaten society's ability to address complex challenges that require evidence-based solutions.

Last updated: September 23, 2024