What do you think?
Rate this book
The Republican War on Science
Science has never been more crucial to deciding the political issues facing the country. Yet science and scientists have less influence with the federal government than at any time since the Eisenhower administration. In the White House and Congress today, findings are reported in a politicized manner; spun or distorted to fit the speaker's agenda; or, when they're too inconvenient, ignored entirely. On a broad array of issues-stem cell research, climate change, missile defense, abstinence education, product safety, environmental regulation, and many others-the Bush administration's positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Federal science agencies, once fiercely independent under both Republican and Democratic presidents, are increasingly staffed by political appointees and fringe theorists who know industry lobbyists and evangelical activists far better than they know the science. This is not unique to the Bush administration, but it is largely a Republican phenomenon, born of a conservative dislike of environmental, health, and safety regulation, and at the extremes, of evolution and legalized abortion. In The Republican War on Science , Chris Mooney ties together the disparate strands of the attack on science into a compelling and frightening account of our government's increasing unwillingness to distinguish between legitimate research and ideologically driven pseudoscience.
378 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 30, 2005
68 people are currently reading
1976 people want to read
About the author
Chris C. Mooney
8 books105 followersChris Mooney is an energy and environment reporter for the Washington Post.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
June 6, 2015
This book is a brilliant piece of investigative journalism: it is a disturbing account of the active numbing and dumbing of the USA cultural environment perpetrated by the neo-conservatives, and of their wholesale attack on the value of science and of the post-enlightenment secular culture, of which the USA used to be a very important example.
The new Right's anti-science, anti-intellectual attitude, and its disdain for “liberal” higher education can be clearly detected in several pronouncements by important exponents of this new unfortunate trend:
- Bush strategist Karl Rove's smirking definition of a Democrat as “somebody with a doctorate” is a clear example
- California Republican Doolittle: "I am not going to get involved in a mumbo jumbo of peer-reviewed (scientific) document” is another remarkable statement
- DeLay (Republican whip): "school shootings are caused by the fact that we teach children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud" is a clear example of the attitude of the new Right to scientific inquiry
The neo-conservatives links to big industry and to extremist religious views is demonstrated clearly by the author, with the help of several and fully documented examples: just as an example, in 2004 the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the so-called “cheeseburger bill” legislation exempting food companies from lawsuits charging that their products cause obesity. This in a country where the obesity epidemic is achieving epic proportions.
The links to “big tobacco” is another example.
The author also demonstrates that alteration and suppression of disagreeable scientific findings have become commonplace within the new Right. To support this claims, he makes many and well documented examples such as:
- many cases of individual scientists being attacked and discredited in response to their scientific findings being in disagreement with the ideological tenets of the new Right
- unbelievable but true examples of Soviet-style censorship by the Bush administration: in 2004, it adopted a policy regulating and vetting which USA health experts would participate in World Health Organization scientific deliberations. This case of explicitly vetting which scientists can attend international meetings and an explicit warning that they must represent the US administration views and positions, over any consideration of scientific truth, is a very worrying sign, and contrary to the very important principle that politicians should not interfere with the scientific process, and be ethically bound to use the information that their science advisers give them in an honest way
Another method widely used by the New Right is the exaggeration (and even outright manufacture) of uncertainty: this approach clearly betrays the ignorance, on part of these individuals, of even the most basic features of the scientific method: of course in science nothing is ever absolutely certain, and there are only degrees of confidence. But this is not an excuse for not doing anything: asking for “absolute certainty” in science is disingenuous if not outright stupid.
Another clear example of the utter ignorance of the new Right is in their conflating of science with atheism: science is NOT at war with religion, science has nothing to do with metaphysical concerns. I am not an atheist, but I never found a direct conflict between science and my type of religious feelings. But of course science is in disagreement with idiotic claims such as those expressed by the creationism movements (like that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago).
Examples of the disturbing features of this pre-enlightenment, medieval, anti-science cultural environment being promoted by the new Right can be visible even in the legislation that for example was promoted in Kansas in 1999, when state board education members voted to strip evolution and even the Big Bang from state educational standards. The Taleban would have been proud.
Another example is the Wedge Document created by the Discovery Institute in 1999, which was aiming at undercutting the value of science, which should ultimately be a servant to the aim of “replacing materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”. These are statements that could well have been pronounced in the 13th century.
As the author writes, the new Right betrays the “hopes to radically re-define the very nature of scientific inquiry, smuggling assumptions about the supernatural into the very fabric of research and turning science into something much closer to pre-Enlightnement philosophy”.
This agenda of reconstituting a religiously imbued science represents an assault on modern science itself.
What is bizarre is that even Catholics in the new Right (such as senator Rick Santorum) expressed clear anti-evolution positions, even though the head of the Catholic Church itself – the late Pope John Paul II – explicitly and clearly accepted evolution.
This book is, in summary, a very well researched piece of investigative journalism, where every single claim and statement is amply documented and supported by detailed examples.
The extreme (but perfectly understandable) attention of the author to proof and detail, almost like he was explaining his positions in a courtroom, unfortunately renders the reading of the book an occasionally quite tedious exercise. This is why I am giving it 4 stars, rather than the 5 stars that this book would otherwise deserve purely on the basis of its investigative journalism merits.
August 6, 2008
The material in The Republican War on Science might have been better served had the book been written by two authors; one focusing on politics and the other on science. Mooney's forte appears to be political journalism, which leaves the book's science somewhat lacking in depth, and renders the work as a whole a bit disjointed. (Also, I often found his sentence structure, particularly when quoting from interviews, to be rather awkward. Instead of writing "Dr. John Smith, a professor of physics at UCLA, says 'this and that," he would write 'this and that,' says UCLA physics professor, Nobel Laureate and former chairperson of the Acronym Committee, Dr. John Smith." The backwards construction and the modifier overload are tiresome.) Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile overview of the crimes against reason that the Republican party has been committing over the past few decades, particularly under the Reagan and W. Bush administrations. (Mooney admits that the Democrats haven't been blameless, citing their groundless objections to genetically modified foods, but he maintains that the Republicans have been incomparably worse.)
Mooney observes that science needn't be the final word in deciding political questions, but that politicians should be ethically bound to use the information that their science advisors give them in an honest way. He illustrates this form of integrity with Kennedy's position on the reason for the Moon program: Kennedy's science advisors had told him that there was (at the time) no way to justify the expense of a manned lunar landing from the point of view of science. As a result, Kennedy never tried to sell the Apollo program on the grounds of scientific advancement; he promoted it instead on a platform of national pride. By contrast, when Reagan's Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, reported that there was no scientific link between abortion and breast cancer (which an advisor of Reagan's had hoped could be used as an argument against abortion), Reagan's response was to suppress the report. (Reagan also suppressed Dr. Koop's effort to raise public awareness of the nascent AIDS pandemic, and he ignored the criticisms leveled by his science advisors against his missile defense program, as its supporters continue to do to this day.)
Mooney writes that alteration and suppression of disagreeable findings have become commonplace weapons for the Republican party. He also cites many cases of individual scientists being impugned and discredited in response to their having written reports or articles at odds with Republican positions, and he points out that it's become routine for conservative pundits to label any scientific findings with which they disagree as "junk science," and to bequeath the meaningless title of "sound science" on any finding that jibes with their political goals (or religious beliefs). Mooney also points to many instances of Republicans either disbanding advisory committees whose recommendations ran counter to their politics or stacking committees with sympathetic ideologues. The Office of Technology Assessment for example, was a respected and effective advisor to Congress that was shut down by a Republican Congress in 1995. Among other tactics employed by Republicans are attacks on the scientific method itself, exemplified by the foolish Creationist claim that Evolution is "just a theory." (In the jargon of science, "theory" refers to a framework of ideas that explain observations and make falsifiable predictions; it does not refer, as Creationists repeatedly insinuate, to a tentative guess.)
Yet another Republican tactic is the exaggeration (and even outright manufacture) of uncertainty in, for example, the question of whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, the addictiveness of tobacco or the severity of ozone depletion. In science nothing is ever absolutely certain; there are only degrees of confidence. It's therefore rare for scientists to agree unanimously on current issues; a consensus is the most that can usually be achieved. The perpetual demand for "more proof" and "further studies," and the concordant reliance on outliers -- that is, the small minority of scientists who oppose the consensus on some issue -- is in itself an abuse of the scientific process, and a distortion of information. Outliers are vitally important within the scientific community, where they have the opportunity to challenge the mainstream by making arguments and reporting research in peer-reviewed journals. Outside of the scientific community however, lay people (especially politicians) need to trust the consensus, not cherry-pick the views of the dissenters simply because they like what those outliers have to say. (This isn't elitism; it's an understanding that historically, the consensus has almost always been correct and the outliers incorrect. On the rare occasions that the evidence turns out to support the unorthodox position, the community acknowledges its error and heaps praise on the maverick. The scientific consensus isn't the arbitrary whim of an anointed few; it's simply the most reliable information available at any given time, on any particular scientific question.)
Mooney also discusses many specific instances of Republicans distorting scientific information. Perhaps the most well known example of this in recent years was W. Bush's claim that there were "more than sixty" embryonic stem cell lines in existence, thus justifying his ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In fact it turned out that there were only about twenty stem cell lines, many of which weren't even viable for research. Of the remaining lines, a lack of genetic diversity severely limited their usefulness. What's more, restricting biologists to studying stem cell lines created before some particular date means that they'll never be able to avail themselves of any techniques for creating them that might be developed in the future.
Mooney observes that science needn't be the final word in deciding political questions, but that politicians should be ethically bound to use the information that their science advisors give them in an honest way. He illustrates this form of integrity with Kennedy's position on the reason for the Moon program: Kennedy's science advisors had told him that there was (at the time) no way to justify the expense of a manned lunar landing from the point of view of science. As a result, Kennedy never tried to sell the Apollo program on the grounds of scientific advancement; he promoted it instead on a platform of national pride. By contrast, when Reagan's Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, reported that there was no scientific link between abortion and breast cancer (which an advisor of Reagan's had hoped could be used as an argument against abortion), Reagan's response was to suppress the report. (Reagan also suppressed Dr. Koop's effort to raise public awareness of the nascent AIDS pandemic, and he ignored the criticisms leveled by his science advisors against his missile defense program, as its supporters continue to do to this day.)
Mooney writes that alteration and suppression of disagreeable findings have become commonplace weapons for the Republican party. He also cites many cases of individual scientists being impugned and discredited in response to their having written reports or articles at odds with Republican positions, and he points out that it's become routine for conservative pundits to label any scientific findings with which they disagree as "junk science," and to bequeath the meaningless title of "sound science" on any finding that jibes with their political goals (or religious beliefs). Mooney also points to many instances of Republicans either disbanding advisory committees whose recommendations ran counter to their politics or stacking committees with sympathetic ideologues. The Office of Technology Assessment for example, was a respected and effective advisor to Congress that was shut down by a Republican Congress in 1995. Among other tactics employed by Republicans are attacks on the scientific method itself, exemplified by the foolish Creationist claim that Evolution is "just a theory." (In the jargon of science, "theory" refers to a framework of ideas that explain observations and make falsifiable predictions; it does not refer, as Creationists repeatedly insinuate, to a tentative guess.)
Yet another Republican tactic is the exaggeration (and even outright manufacture) of uncertainty in, for example, the question of whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, the addictiveness of tobacco or the severity of ozone depletion. In science nothing is ever absolutely certain; there are only degrees of confidence. It's therefore rare for scientists to agree unanimously on current issues; a consensus is the most that can usually be achieved. The perpetual demand for "more proof" and "further studies," and the concordant reliance on outliers -- that is, the small minority of scientists who oppose the consensus on some issue -- is in itself an abuse of the scientific process, and a distortion of information. Outliers are vitally important within the scientific community, where they have the opportunity to challenge the mainstream by making arguments and reporting research in peer-reviewed journals. Outside of the scientific community however, lay people (especially politicians) need to trust the consensus, not cherry-pick the views of the dissenters simply because they like what those outliers have to say. (This isn't elitism; it's an understanding that historically, the consensus has almost always been correct and the outliers incorrect. On the rare occasions that the evidence turns out to support the unorthodox position, the community acknowledges its error and heaps praise on the maverick. The scientific consensus isn't the arbitrary whim of an anointed few; it's simply the most reliable information available at any given time, on any particular scientific question.)
Mooney also discusses many specific instances of Republicans distorting scientific information. Perhaps the most well known example of this in recent years was W. Bush's claim that there were "more than sixty" embryonic stem cell lines in existence, thus justifying his ban on federal funding for stem cell research. In fact it turned out that there were only about twenty stem cell lines, many of which weren't even viable for research. Of the remaining lines, a lack of genetic diversity severely limited their usefulness. What's more, restricting biologists to studying stem cell lines created before some particular date means that they'll never be able to avail themselves of any techniques for creating them that might be developed in the future.
January 25, 2009
A disturbing account of the active dumbing of this nation. If reading this does not anger you about the future of our nation and our children, I feel sorry for you.
August 5, 2013
This was so disturbing that I often had to stop reading so that I could catch my breath. Mooney pinpoints exactly what it is about the Christian/Republican Right's habits that infuriate me. They take science - which has managed to give us the best idea we have ever had of where we come from - and pollute the whole process, the whole point, the whole reason why it works. They take a foregone conclusion (abortion is evil, God created the earth in 7 days, etc.) and then cast about for any study/ANYminuscule data point that will back up their conclusion. They exploit any uncertainties in scientific theories (which are usually forthrightly acknowledged) and blow them way out of proportion. For those of us who leave in reality, a certain percentage of uncertainty is a part of life. As Mooney says, they should stick to moral arguments (that's what religion is for, right?) and not try to dress up religious precepts with false data so that it sounds like a new Theory of How Everything Works. They are trying to ruin the best hope we have for figuring out how this all fits together and how to help people live healthy, productive lives. You cannot convince me that praying is going to do that, though you try and set up studies to that effect. Not Empirically Demonstrable. Welcome to the Enlightenment.
August 17, 2007
It's mostly focused on how they bend science in favor of corporate interests. Like Gore's "Assault on Reason," it misses the more interesting story--that conservatism is actually a wholesale critique of the enlightenment, and conservative policies reflect that.
October 20, 2018
I agree with the premise that there are a group of Republicans who falsely use "science" (instead of science) to justify their beliefs and decisions, rather than simply admitting they're ideological.
They manufacture controversy where there is scientific consensus, such as: human activity is warming the planet, sugar makes people fat, abortion is safer than childbirth, abstinence-only education is ineffective, and so on. It is really difficult to find scientific consensus -- scientists spend their whole careers trying to prove themselves and others wrong -- so when consensus exists, ignoring it is just stupid.
The book started out talking about stem cell lines in a way that assumed I completely understood what was going on, and would be rightly outraged. I had no idea about George W. Bush's claim or the science behind what the author was saying, and it was really off-putting. A bad start, for me.
The content is very repetitive, and so partisan that it's ridiculous. Obviously a book titled "Republican war" is going to be partisan, but the constant derision became tiring very quickly (e.g. calling members of Congress "know-nothings"). It also made me wonder what the point of the book is -- it's only preaching to the converted, for want of a better phrase. Less-emotional language would have been useful.
I was really bothered by the author pointing out donations made to individuals, think tanks, lobbyists and the Republican Party by corporations like they were smoking guns, e.g. "Multinational Business Services received $20,000 in lobbying fees from Syngenta". There's no context for these statements. Is that a lot? Did others also receive money from them? Without this information, it comes across like cherry-picking facts to fit the argument, which is something the author repeatedly criticises.
And, of course, it's very depressing that this issue in the Republican Party has actually gotten worse since the book was written.
My favourite quote (because of its accuracy, rather than because I enjoy what it's saying):
Policymaking by ideology requires that reality be set aside; it can be maintained only by moving towards ever more authoritarian forms of governance.
They manufacture controversy where there is scientific consensus, such as: human activity is warming the planet, sugar makes people fat, abortion is safer than childbirth, abstinence-only education is ineffective, and so on. It is really difficult to find scientific consensus -- scientists spend their whole careers trying to prove themselves and others wrong -- so when consensus exists, ignoring it is just stupid.
The book started out talking about stem cell lines in a way that assumed I completely understood what was going on, and would be rightly outraged. I had no idea about George W. Bush's claim or the science behind what the author was saying, and it was really off-putting. A bad start, for me.
The content is very repetitive, and so partisan that it's ridiculous. Obviously a book titled "Republican war" is going to be partisan, but the constant derision became tiring very quickly (e.g. calling members of Congress "know-nothings"). It also made me wonder what the point of the book is -- it's only preaching to the converted, for want of a better phrase. Less-emotional language would have been useful.
I was really bothered by the author pointing out donations made to individuals, think tanks, lobbyists and the Republican Party by corporations like they were smoking guns, e.g. "Multinational Business Services received $20,000 in lobbying fees from Syngenta". There's no context for these statements. Is that a lot? Did others also receive money from them? Without this information, it comes across like cherry-picking facts to fit the argument, which is something the author repeatedly criticises.
And, of course, it's very depressing that this issue in the Republican Party has actually gotten worse since the book was written.
My favourite quote (because of its accuracy, rather than because I enjoy what it's saying):
Policymaking by ideology requires that reality be set aside; it can be maintained only by moving towards ever more authoritarian forms of governance.
June 12, 2007
In February of 2004, this series featured Judith Levine, the author of “Harmful to Minors,” a powerful book about the perils of “protecting” children from sex. In that book, Levine revealed the methods used, and the damage caused by people who take information, twist it to suit particular ends, and in so doing, do damage in real time, and into the future, for a generation of kids growing up ignorant of a vital, primal part of their lives. In her view, truth was immaterial for those obfuscating the facts about human sexuality--control, power and profit were their talismans.
In very much the same way, and in a book that rivals Levine’s in both importance and necessity, and with little hyperbole--for the reality is shocking enough--Chris Mooney has carefully, patiently and in a clear, concise manner, spelled out the dangers inherent in the hijacking of science by the Republican right for political ends, and the unholy alliance between conservative politicians and industry lobbyists.
For most people, even hearing the word “science” conjures up thoughts of high-school classrooms, where seemingly arcane knowledge is imparted, only to quickly exit the mind as soon as the period bell rings. Many will approach this book with some fear of not understanding the subject. But Chris Mooney’s approach--his careful, organized investigative reporting--makes the issues plain as day, and relatively simple to understand. There’s an elegance in the book’s form that stems from his writing style--with no pretension, things pared to their essence, perhaps because the author understands that any distraction from the main object--pointing out how science has been abused over the last 30 years--would be ironically like the methods being used by those he criticizes in “The Republican War on Science.”
From acid rain to obesity, from second-hand smoke to stem cells, global warming to creationism, Chris Mooney expertly spells out the damage done to public discourse, and the concurrent damage done to the planet and the political process. This is an essential book, one that hopefully will be part of making changes that simply cannot wait.
In very much the same way, and in a book that rivals Levine’s in both importance and necessity, and with little hyperbole--for the reality is shocking enough--Chris Mooney has carefully, patiently and in a clear, concise manner, spelled out the dangers inherent in the hijacking of science by the Republican right for political ends, and the unholy alliance between conservative politicians and industry lobbyists.
For most people, even hearing the word “science” conjures up thoughts of high-school classrooms, where seemingly arcane knowledge is imparted, only to quickly exit the mind as soon as the period bell rings. Many will approach this book with some fear of not understanding the subject. But Chris Mooney’s approach--his careful, organized investigative reporting--makes the issues plain as day, and relatively simple to understand. There’s an elegance in the book’s form that stems from his writing style--with no pretension, things pared to their essence, perhaps because the author understands that any distraction from the main object--pointing out how science has been abused over the last 30 years--would be ironically like the methods being used by those he criticizes in “The Republican War on Science.”
From acid rain to obesity, from second-hand smoke to stem cells, global warming to creationism, Chris Mooney expertly spells out the damage done to public discourse, and the concurrent damage done to the planet and the political process. This is an essential book, one that hopefully will be part of making changes that simply cannot wait.
February 19, 2008
I actually read this book twice! Chris Mooney is a journalist specializing in the meeting place of science and legislation. His focus on politics put my current field of interest into better focus. Mooney examines the decisions of the republican executive branch "from FDR to Nixon." Topics covered are extensive, relevant, and powerful. Among such are creation science, global warming, contraception and stem cell research. You have to read this book. It's more shocking than any drama! I couldn't put it down.
It should be said that Mooney does focus primarily on the abuses perpetrated by the republican party. The author does address this toward the beginning of the work. (and thats what it is, a work. Art in journalism.)One could argue that he is making a case for the Democrats. This could be no farther from the truth. The Democratic abuses exist, but differ from those he believes need to be outlined in his book. This book brought some accountability to journalism, for me.
It should be said that Mooney does focus primarily on the abuses perpetrated by the republican party. The author does address this toward the beginning of the work. (and thats what it is, a work. Art in journalism.)One could argue that he is making a case for the Democrats. This could be no farther from the truth. The Democratic abuses exist, but differ from those he believes need to be outlined in his book. This book brought some accountability to journalism, for me.
March 17, 2009
This infuriated me. I actually had to pace myself. Of course intelligent design, global warming denial, and the misportrayal of stem cell research were of focus. The ignorant abuse of research to support anti-abortion agendas was extremely shocking to me. I loathe the misrepresentation of research findings.
Uncool, America.
I must mention that Mooney is a gifted communicator and this book is extremely relevant. Definitely read it, but pace yourself...
Uncool, America.
I must mention that Mooney is a gifted communicator and this book is extremely relevant. Definitely read it, but pace yourself...
June 17, 2007
I really enjoyed this book. It definitely made me think a lot. I could probably write a paper about it. The basic idea of the book is how conservative politicians will manipulate science or lie about science or create false science to fit in their political goals.
For me the most fascinating parts of it were the reasons why conservatives/republicans would make up fake science. For a lot of the issues, it was "big industry" that would fight a claim. Examples include issues like Climate Change and the Ozone Hole. So, these big companies have a lot to lose if it turns out their product has these negative impacts -- so they invest money in fake science to fight it. Interesting, sure. But to me, the more interesting issues are those where there is no "big industry" perpetuating the false science. So these issues include things like abortion, birth control, intelligent design, condom effectiveness, the morning after pill, etc. The people/politicians making up fake science to fight or create these issues are doing so just because of their personal moral beliefs. So I wonder where the money comes from. I also, in my head, was trying to figure out which is worse: lying about something for the sake of money or for the sake of your personal belief system? As Dylan pointed out to me, it's still lying regardless of your purpose. So yeah, this book just made me think a lot about society and how morality can affect it. I'm just left wondering what the purpose is of those who fight to have Intelligent Design taught in schools or those who fight abortion by making up some study about its detrimental effects. Probably as soon as you saw the issues listed, you knew it was a conservative Christian issue. So, what's in it for them?
In conclusion (although I could say more), I do see the reason why you need more than just scientific evidence in order to make decisions. You need to consider things like "just because we can, should we?" I think that both science and personal religious beliefs can exist inside a person's own mind. But the line should be drawn somewhere before you start making up science to match your religious/conservative/moral beliefs. And end.
For me the most fascinating parts of it were the reasons why conservatives/republicans would make up fake science. For a lot of the issues, it was "big industry" that would fight a claim. Examples include issues like Climate Change and the Ozone Hole. So, these big companies have a lot to lose if it turns out their product has these negative impacts -- so they invest money in fake science to fight it. Interesting, sure. But to me, the more interesting issues are those where there is no "big industry" perpetuating the false science. So these issues include things like abortion, birth control, intelligent design, condom effectiveness, the morning after pill, etc. The people/politicians making up fake science to fight or create these issues are doing so just because of their personal moral beliefs. So I wonder where the money comes from. I also, in my head, was trying to figure out which is worse: lying about something for the sake of money or for the sake of your personal belief system? As Dylan pointed out to me, it's still lying regardless of your purpose. So yeah, this book just made me think a lot about society and how morality can affect it. I'm just left wondering what the purpose is of those who fight to have Intelligent Design taught in schools or those who fight abortion by making up some study about its detrimental effects. Probably as soon as you saw the issues listed, you knew it was a conservative Christian issue. So, what's in it for them?
In conclusion (although I could say more), I do see the reason why you need more than just scientific evidence in order to make decisions. You need to consider things like "just because we can, should we?" I think that both science and personal religious beliefs can exist inside a person's own mind. But the line should be drawn somewhere before you start making up science to match your religious/conservative/moral beliefs. And end.
October 6, 2013
I put off reading this book for years because Mooney lost a lot of intellectual credibility in the accommodationism and "framing" wars that were raging in the atheist movement when The Republican War on Science was at the height of its fashionability, but since those seem to be well and truly over over now—and if Mooney has made an ass of himself regarding the current, apparently much more contentious issue of whether or not women are people, I haven't seen it—I thought it was time to give it a go.
I may have waited too long, because this book is very much a product of its time; while a non-trivial part of it is about the apparent origin of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party (which he traces back to Barry Goldwater rather than anything inherent in conservatism, as if the one and only thing unifying self-identified conservatives across time and space isn't fundamental opposition to the Enlightenment) and their previous (post-War) attempts to destroy everything good in the world, the main thrust of the book is aimed specifically at the Bush administration.
Little of the ground covered will be surprising to anyone who followed American politics even semi-casually in that era—climate change, stem cells, creationism, sex education, &c.—and all of the expected names pass the revue. Because Mooney is, as he states from the beginning, a journalist rather than a scientist and unwilling or unable to engage on the science itself in all but the most trivial matters, the argument sometimes devolves into unconvincing he-said, she-said or, worse, bald-faced ad hominem, but the basic case he's trying to make is uncontroversial and hard to mess up.
The Republican War on Science was a trend-following book rather than a trend-setting one, but it's good to have this kind of compendium. It just needs an update; the bad old days of Bush are happily behind us, but so are the days in which the GOP behaved with any internal logic, however cynically abusive of the scientific process.
I may have waited too long, because this book is very much a product of its time; while a non-trivial part of it is about the apparent origin of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party (which he traces back to Barry Goldwater rather than anything inherent in conservatism, as if the one and only thing unifying self-identified conservatives across time and space isn't fundamental opposition to the Enlightenment) and their previous (post-War) attempts to destroy everything good in the world, the main thrust of the book is aimed specifically at the Bush administration.
Little of the ground covered will be surprising to anyone who followed American politics even semi-casually in that era—climate change, stem cells, creationism, sex education, &c.—and all of the expected names pass the revue. Because Mooney is, as he states from the beginning, a journalist rather than a scientist and unwilling or unable to engage on the science itself in all but the most trivial matters, the argument sometimes devolves into unconvincing he-said, she-said or, worse, bald-faced ad hominem, but the basic case he's trying to make is uncontroversial and hard to mess up.
The Republican War on Science was a trend-following book rather than a trend-setting one, but it's good to have this kind of compendium. It just needs an update; the bad old days of Bush are happily behind us, but so are the days in which the GOP behaved with any internal logic, however cynically abusive of the scientific process.
April 8, 2015
This book may ignite a rage to storm the very gates of heaven. (Except that if you like it you probably don't believe in heaven, being a pinko liberal.) I exaggerate, perhaps, but there is sufficient material to disturb anyone who cares about America and the broader English-speaking world's position as leading scientific societies. Mooney documents an outrageous and systematic campaign to discredit, in effect, science itself wherever it delivers politically or religiously inconvenient findings. For anyone who cares about science's place in society this is required reading. Mooney's findings have been amply echoed elsewhere in popular and professional journals in recent years, so the phenomenon can reasonably be said to be real, but the sheer unshamefacedness of the campaign requires this popularising approach to really bring across.
The phenomenon is not entirely new, of course, and Mooney documents some of the history. However, the intensity and scope of persecution of science is rather unprecedented. Mooney documents the creationist campaign, which is nothing new except in the degree of political support accorded, together with further religiously-motivated interference in stem-cell research and contraception/prophylaxis in respect of AIDS. Further, there are chapters on environmental science documenting interference in assessments of the impact of fishing, logging, mining and especially of the impact and reality of anthropogenic warming. The origins and use of politically-loaded terms such as "junk science" merit careful attention.
The phenomenon is not entirely new, of course, and Mooney documents some of the history. However, the intensity and scope of persecution of science is rather unprecedented. Mooney documents the creationist campaign, which is nothing new except in the degree of political support accorded, together with further religiously-motivated interference in stem-cell research and contraception/prophylaxis in respect of AIDS. Further, there are chapters on environmental science documenting interference in assessments of the impact of fishing, logging, mining and especially of the impact and reality of anthropogenic warming. The origins and use of politically-loaded terms such as "junk science" merit careful attention.
September 15, 2007
Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" is a fascinating chronicle of the way Republicans (& some conservative Democrats) have manipulated scientific results and statistics to further their own political agendas. Not much can be said about the book that isn't made clear by its title, and it probably is slightly partisan. But the fact is that it would be impossible to write a non-partisan book like this because the record of the Republican Party under George W. Bush is one of complete contempt for science and intellect. The book covers the way Republicans have twisted science to curiously support their agendas of Abstinence Education, their until-recent refusal to accept Global Warming or environment trends and their opposition to stem cell research. It is an englightening look at the relationship between government and scientific progress, and how that relationship changes with the political winds. Mooney's research is excellent, and his writing is potent if at times sterile. An excellent book for anyone trying to form an opinion on the Bush administration. One has to wonder: If they are this backward-thinking on scientific issues, what kind of thinking were they using to get us into that mess in Iraq, and were pyschics and faith healers involved?
NC
NC
October 3, 2013
A look at some of the controversies and disagreements that arise when politics and science intersect. Mooney discusses the rise of skepticism of science and scientific research through various presidential terms. Topics range from climate change to DDT. Mooney gets into the weeds of where and how various politicians and entities clash.
To be honest I was really bored with the book. Although I would be firmly on the author's side in his stances, the writing seemed very tedious. It also seems not researched and cherry-picked, until you realize there are end-notes at the end of the book. It read a lot like railing against the Republican party and conservatives for their blockading of scientific research, institutions, and sometimes even individuals. I realize there is truth to what he was saying, but I felt it could have been written in a less partisan manner.
Picked it up as a bargain book. Would suggest looking at the library first.
To be honest I was really bored with the book. Although I would be firmly on the author's side in his stances, the writing seemed very tedious. It also seems not researched and cherry-picked, until you realize there are end-notes at the end of the book. It read a lot like railing against the Republican party and conservatives for their blockading of scientific research, institutions, and sometimes even individuals. I realize there is truth to what he was saying, but I felt it could have been written in a less partisan manner.
Picked it up as a bargain book. Would suggest looking at the library first.
February 23, 2011
Fantastic book. Classic investigative journalism. Chris is somewhat obsessed with evidence and that shows in this book. First, he shows how the Republican leadership has actively participated in or tacitly approved a systematic campaign to undermine the credibility and authority of scientific institutions in our society. You can tell that he's offended by this systematic attack on what we believe to be true based on evidence. But secondly, you can see that he takes this attention to evidence to heart in his own work. The book is meticulously researched and documented.
Bravo!
His podcasts on http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ are amazing and wonderful as well.
Bravo!
His podcasts on http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ are amazing and wonderful as well.
August 17, 2021
I picked this book up at a random bookstore while in California, not really looking for or expecting much from my search. Over the course of the book, you learn a substantial amount about the players of the insider conservative political circles from 1960s to the early aughts. Although too myopic at times and too broad stroke at others it gave a great foundation into understanding the current anti-vax and anti-science movement coming to a crescendo today during Trump’s and Biden’s presidencies.
March 22, 2007
A great review of the "intelligent design" debacle, the fight against stem cell research, the absurdity of emergency contraception not being approved for over the counter status and a number of other infuriating ways Republicans have undermined science and policy related to it. Highly recommended for anyone who cares about science and politics.
March 19, 2019
I want to reread this book over and over again. The author deftly tells the story of the historical connections and hidden agendas that explain the political agenda of science denial by the current Republican party. I only wish the Republican base would also read it too to realize how bamboozled they are . . .
August 19, 2019
Highly detailed, incisive and readable
This book is about politicizing science in an effort to gain control for economic and/or religious reasons. As independent journalist Chris Mooney painstakingly documents, what Republicans want is the power to declare what is true and right regardless of what really is true and right, and they don’t care about niceties such as scientific research, the scientific method, peer review or anything other than their spurious agenda. In order to get what they want they will lie, obfuscate, confuse, deny, and pay others to do the same.
Here are some of the key issues that Mooney explores:
President Reagan’s unworkable Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as “stars wars,” in which the technological infeasibility of an umbrella missile defense was ignored.
“Creation science,” which became a Republican Party staple during the Reagan administration and a kind of litmus test of party purity during the George W. Bush administration under its new name, “Intelligent Design” or as I never tire of calling it, “Unintelligent Design.”
Newt Gingrich’s dismantling of the Congressional Office of Technological Assessment in favor of hand-picked scientific “experts.”
The adoption of the phony and ironically named “sound science” mantra and some of the other tobacco industry terminology to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific opinion about a number of issues including whether abortion raises the instance of breast cancer (it doesn’t) to whether certain chemicals were depleting the ozone layer (chlorofluorocarbons were). Mooney’s chapter on this issue is appropriately entitled “Junking Sound Science.”
Global warming, the denial of which has become another Republican Party shibboleth. Republican Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe went so far as to say “…could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it?” (quoted on page 84).
The unrelenting attempt to weaken or destroy the Environmental Protection Agency.
Discrediting expert opinion and a report from the World Health Organization linking poor diet, especially one high in refined sugars to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.
Mercury from coal plants that gets into the environment, especially into fish high the food chain that are consumed by humans.
The continuing attack on the Endangered Species Act.
The unfunding of embryotic stem cell research by the George W. Bush administration.
The attempted suppression of the truth about the ineffectiveness of abstinence as a way to fight venereal diseases while discounting the effectiveness of condom use.
Part Four of the book is entitled “The Antiscience President” and that would be the aforementioned George W. Bush who has favored instead of science a kind of faith-based approach to public issues. I hasten to point out that faith-based is ignorance-based and if it became standard governmental policy in the U.S. we would become a second-rate nation.
There is little that is more dangerous to the health of this country or any other than willful ignorance about matters of national concern, but that is exactly what many leaders of the Republican Party practice, especially people like George W. Bush, Inhofe, and Gingrich. They have all the scientific sophistication of a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh. People like this are more of a national security threat to the United States than all the terrorists in the world because the suppression of science will lead to our becoming a massive idiocracy easily defeated economically and otherwise by the more advanced nations in the world.
A final question must be asked: why is science so threatening to Republicans? And the answer is, it all comes down to money and/or a fundamentalist religious world view. In the case of the denial of global warming, it’s because the people who are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere don’t want to pay the environmental cost of their operations. In the case of creationism, the fundamentalists need to deny the truth of biological evolution because it is in conflict with their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Mooney wrote this book during the dark days of the George W. Bush administration and his tone is one of alarm, and rightly so in my opinion. Today with a Democratic administration in the White House things have improved for a knowledge-based governance. But just as the barbarians were always at the gate, so too the Republican minions of ignorance and stupidity, denial and obfuscation are not only waiting in the wings to get back into the White House but have a stifling grip on Congress. We need to elect officials who understand and appreciate the need for science and government to work together for the greater good of the nation and not just for science-denying special interests.
The main strength of this book is in the thoroughness with which Mooney delineates the stupidities of the Republican attack on science and the fine documentation he provides. He lists hundreds of interviews he conducted with whom and when (and notes which people, like Gingrich, declined to be interviewed). There are 62 pages of endnotes and an index.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
This book is about politicizing science in an effort to gain control for economic and/or religious reasons. As independent journalist Chris Mooney painstakingly documents, what Republicans want is the power to declare what is true and right regardless of what really is true and right, and they don’t care about niceties such as scientific research, the scientific method, peer review or anything other than their spurious agenda. In order to get what they want they will lie, obfuscate, confuse, deny, and pay others to do the same.
Here are some of the key issues that Mooney explores:
President Reagan’s unworkable Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as “stars wars,” in which the technological infeasibility of an umbrella missile defense was ignored.
“Creation science,” which became a Republican Party staple during the Reagan administration and a kind of litmus test of party purity during the George W. Bush administration under its new name, “Intelligent Design” or as I never tire of calling it, “Unintelligent Design.”
Newt Gingrich’s dismantling of the Congressional Office of Technological Assessment in favor of hand-picked scientific “experts.”
The adoption of the phony and ironically named “sound science” mantra and some of the other tobacco industry terminology to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific opinion about a number of issues including whether abortion raises the instance of breast cancer (it doesn’t) to whether certain chemicals were depleting the ozone layer (chlorofluorocarbons were). Mooney’s chapter on this issue is appropriately entitled “Junking Sound Science.”
Global warming, the denial of which has become another Republican Party shibboleth. Republican Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe went so far as to say “…could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it?” (quoted on page 84).
The unrelenting attempt to weaken or destroy the Environmental Protection Agency.
Discrediting expert opinion and a report from the World Health Organization linking poor diet, especially one high in refined sugars to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.
Mercury from coal plants that gets into the environment, especially into fish high the food chain that are consumed by humans.
The continuing attack on the Endangered Species Act.
The unfunding of embryotic stem cell research by the George W. Bush administration.
The attempted suppression of the truth about the ineffectiveness of abstinence as a way to fight venereal diseases while discounting the effectiveness of condom use.
Part Four of the book is entitled “The Antiscience President” and that would be the aforementioned George W. Bush who has favored instead of science a kind of faith-based approach to public issues. I hasten to point out that faith-based is ignorance-based and if it became standard governmental policy in the U.S. we would become a second-rate nation.
There is little that is more dangerous to the health of this country or any other than willful ignorance about matters of national concern, but that is exactly what many leaders of the Republican Party practice, especially people like George W. Bush, Inhofe, and Gingrich. They have all the scientific sophistication of a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh. People like this are more of a national security threat to the United States than all the terrorists in the world because the suppression of science will lead to our becoming a massive idiocracy easily defeated economically and otherwise by the more advanced nations in the world.
A final question must be asked: why is science so threatening to Republicans? And the answer is, it all comes down to money and/or a fundamentalist religious world view. In the case of the denial of global warming, it’s because the people who are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere don’t want to pay the environmental cost of their operations. In the case of creationism, the fundamentalists need to deny the truth of biological evolution because it is in conflict with their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Mooney wrote this book during the dark days of the George W. Bush administration and his tone is one of alarm, and rightly so in my opinion. Today with a Democratic administration in the White House things have improved for a knowledge-based governance. But just as the barbarians were always at the gate, so too the Republican minions of ignorance and stupidity, denial and obfuscation are not only waiting in the wings to get back into the White House but have a stifling grip on Congress. We need to elect officials who understand and appreciate the need for science and government to work together for the greater good of the nation and not just for science-denying special interests.
The main strength of this book is in the thoroughness with which Mooney delineates the stupidities of the Republican attack on science and the fine documentation he provides. He lists hundreds of interviews he conducted with whom and when (and notes which people, like Gingrich, declined to be interviewed). There are 62 pages of endnotes and an index.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
June 26, 2007
I would have preferred a book written by a scientist, but having a journalist write the book would help someone less familiar with the arguments. Good read for someone who's not a wonk.
May 14, 2008
Excellent. Used it to teach my class and it was a big hit. Packed with historical context and recent examples.
August 17, 2012
This book is pretty frightening and sad at the same time. You have to wonder about people that Mooney writes about - a lot.
March 18, 2017
Well done, but some of the info is dated now, as it was published in 2005. There is so much more to add now!
February 14, 2022
What a terrible awful partisan hack book. Illogical, unreasonable, one sided. Silly.
November 23, 2025
Chris Mooney’s book, The Republican War on Science, isn't a theory; it’s an exposé of the political strategy that defines modern conservative governance. As a staunch Democrat who grew up in the kind of community these policies actively harm, a rural, conservative town in Nevada, this book felt less like a political analysis and more like a forensic report on my own childhood. It connected the dots between high-level political decisions and devastating local consequences, making it clear that this “war” isn’t a secret or a byproduct- it’s the point.
The core thesis is simple and terrifying: when scientific evidence conflicts with the ideological or religious platform of the Republican establishment, the science is ignored, distorted, or simply dismantled.
The most jarring connection for me was in the realm of public health and reproductive freedom. Growing up in Fallon, NV, I saw the real-time fallout of political ignorance. In my high school graduating class, we recorded the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and a serious STD outbreak, chlamydia, around 2010, in the school’s history. Why? Because we were victims of abstinence-only education.
We weren't given tools for safe, healthy sex; we were given moralizing pamphlets. The policy that failed us wasn't based on medical consensus, statistical evidence, or effective prevention; it was based purely on ideological conviction and a refusal to acknowledge reality.
Mooney shows that this abuse of science, putting religious doctrine ahead of public health, is not unique to a single school board; it’s a calculated, systematic approach that reaches the highest levels of the federal government. My own existence is a direct consequence of this ideological warfare. Due to the military abortion ban enacted in 1988 (which was in place until 1993, and then reinstated in a highly restrictive form in 1996), my mother, who was under the sphere of military medical influence at the time, was denied a choice. She was forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. This shows the true cost of using medical facilities not as places of evidence-based care, but as instruments of political and religious control.
Mooney lays out how this strategy extends far beyond sexual health, reaching into areas that impact every American's life:
Climate Change Denial: The book documents the deliberate effort to fund counter-research, muzzle federal scientists, and block any policy that would regulate industry in response to the climate crisis. This isn't confusion; it’s a calculated defense of the fossil fuel industry, openly prioritizing short-term profit over the planet’s long-term habitability.
The Muzzling of Agencies: Whether it's the EPA, the NIH, or scientific advisory panels, the pattern is the same: appointing political hacks and industry lobbyists to dismantle the agencies from within, ensuring that research that might lead to uncomfortable regulations never sees the light of day.
This is the element that really hits home: they are not being shy about it. They openly declare that government is the problem and that scientific regulation is "job-killing." They sell this ideological purity as common sense, even when the data on clean air, clean water, or basic sexual health proves the policy is actively causing harm. The harm is the accepted cost of upholding the political ideology.
If you, like me, are tired of seeing policy decisions driven by dogma rather than data, The Republican War on Science is required reading. It provides the intellectual ammunition needed to recognize and resist a political force that is willing to sacrifice public well-being, from the health of teenagers in rural Nevada to the stability of the global climate, all for the sake of political power and ideological purity.
The core thesis is simple and terrifying: when scientific evidence conflicts with the ideological or religious platform of the Republican establishment, the science is ignored, distorted, or simply dismantled.
The most jarring connection for me was in the realm of public health and reproductive freedom. Growing up in Fallon, NV, I saw the real-time fallout of political ignorance. In my high school graduating class, we recorded the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and a serious STD outbreak, chlamydia, around 2010, in the school’s history. Why? Because we were victims of abstinence-only education.
We weren't given tools for safe, healthy sex; we were given moralizing pamphlets. The policy that failed us wasn't based on medical consensus, statistical evidence, or effective prevention; it was based purely on ideological conviction and a refusal to acknowledge reality.
Mooney shows that this abuse of science, putting religious doctrine ahead of public health, is not unique to a single school board; it’s a calculated, systematic approach that reaches the highest levels of the federal government. My own existence is a direct consequence of this ideological warfare. Due to the military abortion ban enacted in 1988 (which was in place until 1993, and then reinstated in a highly restrictive form in 1996), my mother, who was under the sphere of military medical influence at the time, was denied a choice. She was forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. This shows the true cost of using medical facilities not as places of evidence-based care, but as instruments of political and religious control.
Mooney lays out how this strategy extends far beyond sexual health, reaching into areas that impact every American's life:
Climate Change Denial: The book documents the deliberate effort to fund counter-research, muzzle federal scientists, and block any policy that would regulate industry in response to the climate crisis. This isn't confusion; it’s a calculated defense of the fossil fuel industry, openly prioritizing short-term profit over the planet’s long-term habitability.
The Muzzling of Agencies: Whether it's the EPA, the NIH, or scientific advisory panels, the pattern is the same: appointing political hacks and industry lobbyists to dismantle the agencies from within, ensuring that research that might lead to uncomfortable regulations never sees the light of day.
This is the element that really hits home: they are not being shy about it. They openly declare that government is the problem and that scientific regulation is "job-killing." They sell this ideological purity as common sense, even when the data on clean air, clean water, or basic sexual health proves the policy is actively causing harm. The harm is the accepted cost of upholding the political ideology.
If you, like me, are tired of seeing policy decisions driven by dogma rather than data, The Republican War on Science is required reading. It provides the intellectual ammunition needed to recognize and resist a political force that is willing to sacrifice public well-being, from the health of teenagers in rural Nevada to the stability of the global climate, all for the sake of political power and ideological purity.
March 29, 2019
The Bush administration has made no secret of its disdain for science, especially science that pertains to global warming, stem-cell research and endangered animals and plants. The chilling effect this has on science, public health and on the public good is documented in Chris Mooney’s book,
The Republican War on Science
(Basic Books; 2005), which was recently released in paperback.
As Mooney argues in this well-written book, disregard for scientists and the scientific method has been carefully nurtured by the modern conservative movement, which is a movement anchored in an overall distrust of big government and educational “elites”. And of course, most science is funded by government, and a lot of scientific investigation occurs in governmental agencies and universities. But from Barry Goldwater’s anti-intellectualism, Ronald Reagan’s acceptance of creationism and Newt Gingrich’s ridiculous support of science “skeptics,” on through the current administration, republicans have demonstrated a strong tendency to believe politically-inspired fringe theories over the rational findings of science and scientists.
Further (and not surprisingly), there is always the administration’s desire to cater to their political constituency. In the case of the current administration, that constituency consists primarily of industry, which is often pitted against science; along with the religious wingnuts, who are rabidly opposed to science any time it conflicts with their narrow world view.
In the past five years, the Bush administration has not only blatantly rejected the scientific consensus on global warming and suppressed an EPA report that supported that consensus; it has also filled numerous advisory committees with industry representatives and members of the religious right; begun deploying a missile defense system without evidence that it can work; banned funding for embryonic stem cell research except on a supposed 60 cell lines they claimed were already in existence — most of which turned out not to exist; forced the National Cancer Institute to state that abortion may cause breast cancer, a claim refuted by many valid studies; ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to remove information about condom use and efficacy from its Web site; and supported George W. Bush’s desire for teaching creationism in our science classrooms.
In this volume, Mooney shows how, in the past five years, many formerly apolitical scientists and doctors have come to accept that there is a pattern of scientific abuse under Bush, and a disregard for the very methods of science itself. Even though conservatives may be angry about this, liberals, moderates and working scientists will find few surprises in this book. However, this book is the first to document the entire story in one place.
After reading this meticulously researched and well-argued book, it is clear that we must ask ourselves whether we can rely on the federal government to use our science to protect us. When science isn’t being used properly to protect us from something as obvious as global warming or other environmental risks, we have to ask whether our decision-makers are incompetent, ignorant or just plain delusional. And that goes to the very core of what a government is all about.
NOTE: Originally published at scienceblogs on 15 February 2007. Now curated on Medium.
As Mooney argues in this well-written book, disregard for scientists and the scientific method has been carefully nurtured by the modern conservative movement, which is a movement anchored in an overall distrust of big government and educational “elites”. And of course, most science is funded by government, and a lot of scientific investigation occurs in governmental agencies and universities. But from Barry Goldwater’s anti-intellectualism, Ronald Reagan’s acceptance of creationism and Newt Gingrich’s ridiculous support of science “skeptics,” on through the current administration, republicans have demonstrated a strong tendency to believe politically-inspired fringe theories over the rational findings of science and scientists.
Further (and not surprisingly), there is always the administration’s desire to cater to their political constituency. In the case of the current administration, that constituency consists primarily of industry, which is often pitted against science; along with the religious wingnuts, who are rabidly opposed to science any time it conflicts with their narrow world view.
In the past five years, the Bush administration has not only blatantly rejected the scientific consensus on global warming and suppressed an EPA report that supported that consensus; it has also filled numerous advisory committees with industry representatives and members of the religious right; begun deploying a missile defense system without evidence that it can work; banned funding for embryonic stem cell research except on a supposed 60 cell lines they claimed were already in existence — most of which turned out not to exist; forced the National Cancer Institute to state that abortion may cause breast cancer, a claim refuted by many valid studies; ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to remove information about condom use and efficacy from its Web site; and supported George W. Bush’s desire for teaching creationism in our science classrooms.
In this volume, Mooney shows how, in the past five years, many formerly apolitical scientists and doctors have come to accept that there is a pattern of scientific abuse under Bush, and a disregard for the very methods of science itself. Even though conservatives may be angry about this, liberals, moderates and working scientists will find few surprises in this book. However, this book is the first to document the entire story in one place.
After reading this meticulously researched and well-argued book, it is clear that we must ask ourselves whether we can rely on the federal government to use our science to protect us. When science isn’t being used properly to protect us from something as obvious as global warming or other environmental risks, we have to ask whether our decision-makers are incompetent, ignorant or just plain delusional. And that goes to the very core of what a government is all about.
NOTE: Originally published at scienceblogs on 15 February 2007. Now curated on Medium.
January 8, 2024
The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney.
2/5 rating.
Book #121 of 2019. Read October 16, 2019.
I was deeply disappointed by this book. As a person who sees the blatant disregard so often for science by Republicans in our government, I was expecting to read a well-thought-through way to counteract this and get back to a more scientific look at how to help the people in our world. Instead, this was 260 pages of the abuses of science by the right. I read it saying, "yep, but how do we fix this?"
The book is written quite scathingly (which I will admit might sometimes be deserved for these transgressions), and overall was just a waste of time when I could have been reading something that actually helps someone. My takeaway: Science rocks, but don't politicize it, sometimes, the truth hurts...and you don't need to read this book.
Quotes:
"A 1998 analysis of over one hundred review articles on the health risks of secondhand smoke, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the odds of an article reaching a 'not harmful' conclusion were '88.4 times higher' if its authors had tobacco industry affiliations. In many cases, the study noted, the authors had not disclosed their funding sources."
"With its lawyers often funding and directing research, Big Tobacco pumped considerable resources into sowing public doubts about scientific studies showing risks from active smoking. The technique, which has been dubbed 'manufacturing uncertainty,' finds perhaps its best articulation in this oft-quoted passage from a circa 1969 Brown & Williamson document: 'Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.'"
"Passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1973 and signed by Richard Nixon, the Endangered Species Act was deliberately written to be tougher than two previous laws that had failed to curb extinctions. The new legislation embodied an activist desire to prevent the loss of any more species. As a report of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries put it at the time: 'Who knows, or can say, what potential cures for cancer or other scourges, present or future, may lie locked up in the structure of plants which may yet be discovered, much less analyzed?...Sheer self-interest impels us to be cautious.'"
"As an account of the origin of life, ID doesn't have any meat to it. It doesn't provide any details that scientists might confirm or refute through future experimentation. And most crucially of all, it doesn't explain anything or predict anything, a key requirement for successful scientific theories. As three of Meyer's scientific critics have noted, '"An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model.'"
"As a report from the National Academy of Sciences put it in 1995, 'well-implemented needle exchange programs can be effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not increase the use of illegal drugs.'"
2/5 rating.
Book #121 of 2019. Read October 16, 2019.
I was deeply disappointed by this book. As a person who sees the blatant disregard so often for science by Republicans in our government, I was expecting to read a well-thought-through way to counteract this and get back to a more scientific look at how to help the people in our world. Instead, this was 260 pages of the abuses of science by the right. I read it saying, "yep, but how do we fix this?"
The book is written quite scathingly (which I will admit might sometimes be deserved for these transgressions), and overall was just a waste of time when I could have been reading something that actually helps someone. My takeaway: Science rocks, but don't politicize it, sometimes, the truth hurts...and you don't need to read this book.
Quotes:
"A 1998 analysis of over one hundred review articles on the health risks of secondhand smoke, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the odds of an article reaching a 'not harmful' conclusion were '88.4 times higher' if its authors had tobacco industry affiliations. In many cases, the study noted, the authors had not disclosed their funding sources."
"With its lawyers often funding and directing research, Big Tobacco pumped considerable resources into sowing public doubts about scientific studies showing risks from active smoking. The technique, which has been dubbed 'manufacturing uncertainty,' finds perhaps its best articulation in this oft-quoted passage from a circa 1969 Brown & Williamson document: 'Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.'"
"Passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1973 and signed by Richard Nixon, the Endangered Species Act was deliberately written to be tougher than two previous laws that had failed to curb extinctions. The new legislation embodied an activist desire to prevent the loss of any more species. As a report of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries put it at the time: 'Who knows, or can say, what potential cures for cancer or other scourges, present or future, may lie locked up in the structure of plants which may yet be discovered, much less analyzed?...Sheer self-interest impels us to be cautious.'"
"As an account of the origin of life, ID doesn't have any meat to it. It doesn't provide any details that scientists might confirm or refute through future experimentation. And most crucially of all, it doesn't explain anything or predict anything, a key requirement for successful scientific theories. As three of Meyer's scientific critics have noted, '"An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model.'"
"As a report from the National Academy of Sciences put it in 1995, 'well-implemented needle exchange programs can be effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not increase the use of illegal drugs.'"
September 21, 2025
The Republican War on Science offers a snapshot in time to the George W. Bush Administration's abandonment and perversion of science. I say snapshot because the book was not written as well as something like Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt, which shows a behind-the-scenes look at how the Republican Party came to base its politics on contrarian pseudoscience. This book wasn't crafted with the same narrative and investigative style that lets it hold up over time. It reads more like each chapter as an independent article covering the aim of his thesis in 2005. The problem with that approach is entire chapters have lost their relevancy over time. He focused way too much on certain characters while completely omitting others. Dick Cheney isn't even mentioned in the book. How do you critique the Bush Administration's stance on climate change without mentioning Cheney's influence on the president? Continuing on with that example, it's not surprising then that Mooney leaves out any discussion of agency/regulatory capture and the revolving door. He provides so many good dots but fails to connect them in a way to creates a truly impactful account of what happened.
Despite these flaws, it's good this snapshot exists. We need to see how things evolved from W. Bush to Trump. Trump has been so evil, so incompetent, and so adversarial toward science that we often forget that Bush in his charming stupidity was the one who ushered in this new unreality.
Despite these flaws, it's good this snapshot exists. We need to see how things evolved from W. Bush to Trump. Trump has been so evil, so incompetent, and so adversarial toward science that we often forget that Bush in his charming stupidity was the one who ushered in this new unreality.
February 15, 2018
It would be easy to say in 2018 that this work is out-of-date and while that is true for some of the examples the continuing efforts of President Trump, Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke along with a corporate-funded (and mostly spineless) Congress to decimate environmental and scientific protections makes Mooney’s work of continued relevance! This work remains an excellent history and analysis of the anti-expert and corporate bias of Washington and the disastrous affect that has had, and will have, on the health of all Americans and the well-being of our communities. Read and weep, then get angry.
April 6, 2019
This book, sadly, has become more relevant than when I first picked it up in response to George W’s anti-science administration. For anyone who struggles to understand how political cognitive dissonance (aka voting against one’s own interest) happens — and how it can be so fervently adhered to, almost no matter what.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews