What do you think?
Rate this book
The War on Science: Thirty-Nine Renowned Scientists and Scholars Speak Out About Current Threats to Free Speech, Open Inquiry, and the Scientific Process
An unparalleled group of prominent scholars from wide-ranging disciplines detail ongoing efforts to impose ideological restrictions on science and scholarship throughout western society.
From assaults on merit-based hiring to the policing of language and replacing well-established, disciplinary scholarship by ideological mantras, current science and scholarship is under threat throughout western institutions. As detailed by this group of prominent scholars—who range across many different disciplines and political leanings—the very future of free inquiry and scientific progress is at risk.
Many who have spoken up against this threat have lost their positions, and a climate of fear has arisen that strikes at the heart of modern education and research. Banding together to finally speak out, this brave and unprecedented group of scholars issues a clarion call for change.
From assaults on merit-based hiring to the policing of language and replacing well-established, disciplinary scholarship by ideological mantras, current science and scholarship is under threat throughout western institutions. As detailed by this group of prominent scholars—who range across many different disciplines and political leanings—the very future of free inquiry and scientific progress is at risk.
Many who have spoken up against this threat have lost their positions, and a climate of fear has arisen that strikes at the heart of modern education and research. Banding together to finally speak out, this brave and unprecedented group of scholars issues a clarion call for change.
480 pages, Hardcover
Published July 29, 2025
72 people are currently reading
255 people want to read
About the author
Lawrence M. Krauss
46 books1,764 followersLawrence Maxwell Krauss is a Canadian-American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who taught at Arizona State University (ASU), Yale University, and Case Western Reserve University. He founded ASU's Origins Project in 2008 to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and served as the project's director.
Krauss is an advocate for public understanding of science, public policy based on sound empirical data, scientific skepticism, and science education. An anti-theist, Krauss seeks to reduce the influence of what he regards as superstition and religious dogma in popular culture. Krauss is the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek (1995) and A Universe from Nothing (2012), and chaired the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors.
Upon investigating allegations about sexual misconduct by Krauss, ASU determined that Krauss had violated university policy, and did not renew his Origins Project directorship for a third term in July 2018. Krauss retired as a professor at ASU in May 2019, at the end of the following academic year. He currently serves as president of The Origins Project Foundation. Krauss hosts The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss and publishes a blog titled Critical Mass.
Krauss is an advocate for public understanding of science, public policy based on sound empirical data, scientific skepticism, and science education. An anti-theist, Krauss seeks to reduce the influence of what he regards as superstition and religious dogma in popular culture. Krauss is the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek (1995) and A Universe from Nothing (2012), and chaired the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Board of Sponsors.
Upon investigating allegations about sexual misconduct by Krauss, ASU determined that Krauss had violated university policy, and did not renew his Origins Project directorship for a third term in July 2018. Krauss retired as a professor at ASU in May 2019, at the end of the following academic year. He currently serves as president of The Origins Project Foundation. Krauss hosts The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss and publishes a blog titled Critical Mass.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
October 11, 2025
At first glance this might appear to be yet another book on how to deal with climate change deniers and the like, such as How to Talk to a Science Denier. It is, however, a much more significant book because it addresses the way that universities, government and pressure groups have attempted to undermine the scientific process. Conceptually I would give it five stars, but it's quite heavy going because it's a collection of around 18 essays by different academics, with many going over the same ground, so there is a lot of repetition. Even so, it's an important book.
There are a few well-known names here - editor Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker - but also a range of scientists (with a few philosophers) explaining how science is being damaged in academia by unscientific ideas. Many of the issues apply to other disciplines as well, but this is specifically about the impact on science, and particularly important there because of the damage it has been doing.
Dawkins draws an impressively accurate parallel with Lysenko's disastrous poisoning of Soviet science by replacing scientific discovery with theorising driven by Marxist concepts that were unconnected to reality, leading to crop failures and millions of deaths in the Soviet Union and China. Others point to parallels with the 1930s Germany, where only science that fitted with Nazi ideology was accepted, and hundreds of scientists were forced out of their institutions.
While I was aware of the problems faced by universities over DEI, critical race theory and gender issues, I had not realised until reading this book how much this has been driven by the Marxism-based postmodernist thinking that was powerfully parodied in Alan Sokal's famous hoax paper (Sokal is another contributor). The apparent aim to destroy basic scientific principles that seems to have taken over many universities is so strong here, whether it is in denial of the binary nature of biological sex (Dawkins points out the clear distinction of macrogametes and microgametes in all animals and plants), racially discriminatory job offers, assertions made with no metrics or data to support them, and erosion of free speech.
As parts of the book suggest, it does feel as if in some regions of the world the mood is changing, moving back to greater rationality. This volume is an important testament to the importance of undertaking worthwhile science, not hindered by bizarre concepts like decolonising mathematics, and getting universities back to being places in pursuit of knowledge, with open and free debate, not in thrall to the latest social fad, suppressing all dissent Soviet-style.
There are a few well-known names here - editor Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker - but also a range of scientists (with a few philosophers) explaining how science is being damaged in academia by unscientific ideas. Many of the issues apply to other disciplines as well, but this is specifically about the impact on science, and particularly important there because of the damage it has been doing.
Dawkins draws an impressively accurate parallel with Lysenko's disastrous poisoning of Soviet science by replacing scientific discovery with theorising driven by Marxist concepts that were unconnected to reality, leading to crop failures and millions of deaths in the Soviet Union and China. Others point to parallels with the 1930s Germany, where only science that fitted with Nazi ideology was accepted, and hundreds of scientists were forced out of their institutions.
While I was aware of the problems faced by universities over DEI, critical race theory and gender issues, I had not realised until reading this book how much this has been driven by the Marxism-based postmodernist thinking that was powerfully parodied in Alan Sokal's famous hoax paper (Sokal is another contributor). The apparent aim to destroy basic scientific principles that seems to have taken over many universities is so strong here, whether it is in denial of the binary nature of biological sex (Dawkins points out the clear distinction of macrogametes and microgametes in all animals and plants), racially discriminatory job offers, assertions made with no metrics or data to support them, and erosion of free speech.
As parts of the book suggest, it does feel as if in some regions of the world the mood is changing, moving back to greater rationality. This volume is an important testament to the importance of undertaking worthwhile science, not hindered by bizarre concepts like decolonising mathematics, and getting universities back to being places in pursuit of knowledge, with open and free debate, not in thrall to the latest social fad, suppressing all dissent Soviet-style.
August 10, 2025
Five stars for the value of the topic as a point of awareness and discussion. Obviously, with thirty-nine different contributors each with their own talking points and perspectives, the quality of the writing, and the interest to each reader will vary. On the whole I agreed with most of what was said in the book, nodding along with some authors, finding some points of resistance with others.
My interest in getting this book stemmed from a conversation I had with a friend (who is a department head at a university) about faculty discussions over math being a racist construct. I wanted to understand how this could even be a talking point outside of an insane asylum. I had also heard that the American Humanist Association had revoked a prize awarded to Richard Dawkins twenty years ago. I wanted to understand how a supposed rational organization could feel the need to kowtow to social media warriors to such a degree. With the exception of the contribution by Richard Dawkins there isn’t much that deals directly with math and the evidence-based sciences (biology, physics, chemistry) in this book, mostly because these disciplines seem to some extent less effected by all the craziness. Rather, the predominant focus of the book is on censorship and cancellation culture across all disciplines (hard and soft sciences, humanities, even the athletic programs), but particularly volatile in the social sciences.
As Krauss says in the introduction, the fight against rightwing censorship has been going on for decades, and with Trump at the helm again we are likely to see more of the same. But this is all a known entity; irksome as it is, we’ve learned how to keep the worst of it at bay (banned books, equal time for creationist teaching, funding for advanced scientific research, etc.). But the new form of censorship from the left is far more insidious. Anybody who hasn’t been living under a rock this last decade will have heard some of the stories, like Professor Bret Weinstein being bullied out of a job. I heard on a podcast that music appreciation classes have come under attack for teaching about dead white Europeans like Beethoven, supposedly yet another example of either overt systemic racism at worst, or cultural insensitivity at best. Much of this book documents such assaults on reason, attacks on the very validity of science, or even what constitutes truth. I’ll say this: feelings and indignation and interpretations of facts did not land us on the moon, nor will they help when a meteor is hurtling toward Earth. Houston: we have a problem!
The highlight of the book for me was by a contributor I had never heard of: Belgian philosopher Maarten Boudry. There is a reason why jokes that begin with “there are two types of people in the world” are popular with comedians and raconteurs: the division into two simplified propositions is easy for even the most intellectually challenged to follow. Thus, Boudry distills the outrage and defines the battle line into a simple binary reduction: The oppressors and the oppressed. “These two groups are locked in a zero-sum struggle where one group’s gain can happen only at the expense of the other’s loss. There can be no middle ground: either you are an oppressor or a victim.” He believes the current antisemitism has nothing to do with actual Jew hatred and everything to do with virtual signaling on the side of the perceived oppressed. Boudry sums it up by saying:
“By presenting Western civilization as the root of all evil, this ideology ultimately ends up with a wholesale rejection of everything Western civilization stands for – science, progress, freedom of expression, human rights – which are seen as cynical covers for imperialism and oppression. Worst of all, it devolves into the most reactionary form of racist essentialism: the view that democracy, rationality, and secularism are exponents of “whiteness,” not suitable for people with dark skin.”
Boudry also provided an incredible story, all new to me, about the black psychiatrist from Martinique, Frantz Fanon, who believed that “outbursts of violence [against oppressors] could resuscitate the enslaved mind, which had been dulled to passive resignation and feelings of inferiority.” Amazingly, this radical notion found sympathy in thinkers as diverse as Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul-Michel Foucault, and Edward Said.
Rather than talk about other highlights from the book, I can’t help but think that it may be more important is to ask why this book has been so poorly marketed and had no major press reviews. I look at the new release notices for science every month on Goodreads and never saw this book listed. I think the major papers like the NY Times are afraid to touch anything controversial these days. Or it could be that the lack of major press reviews is just another form of prejudgment and censorship. The lack of attention is unfortunate, because this is a very well-reasoned and centrist book which thirty years ago would have been called classical liberal.
I was, however, rather disappointed with the concluding section of the book, which supposedly purports to offer solutions to the craziness. What I found was insipid milquetoast. One contributor says “Do not cower away because of your career concerns.” Easy enough to say, but for those without tenure, speaking out can mean career suicide. Another suggests that those who are concerned need to gently and compassionately encourage fellow left-wing colleagues to step away from the brink, and Steven Pinker admits that his five-phase remedy “will not be quick fix for universities.” Richard Redding is overly optimistic by stating that “whenever a societal institution’s policies and practices swing too far in one direction, self-correcting forces almost always eventually swing it back toward the center.” But, as the author himself states, this trend of anti-science policies has been going on for more than twenty-five years, across both Democratic and Republic leadership in Washington, and yet rather than self-correcting it continues to escalate beyond absurdity into the realm of societal fracture and violence.
In sum: those who have already closed their minds to debate will never read this book, those who are already concerned will find even more to be concerned about after reading this book. But in the end, I don’t have hope for self-correction, even with private donors threatening to withhold funding. No, this will need to be debated amongst legislatures and decided at the ballot box.
My interest in getting this book stemmed from a conversation I had with a friend (who is a department head at a university) about faculty discussions over math being a racist construct. I wanted to understand how this could even be a talking point outside of an insane asylum. I had also heard that the American Humanist Association had revoked a prize awarded to Richard Dawkins twenty years ago. I wanted to understand how a supposed rational organization could feel the need to kowtow to social media warriors to such a degree. With the exception of the contribution by Richard Dawkins there isn’t much that deals directly with math and the evidence-based sciences (biology, physics, chemistry) in this book, mostly because these disciplines seem to some extent less effected by all the craziness. Rather, the predominant focus of the book is on censorship and cancellation culture across all disciplines (hard and soft sciences, humanities, even the athletic programs), but particularly volatile in the social sciences.
As Krauss says in the introduction, the fight against rightwing censorship has been going on for decades, and with Trump at the helm again we are likely to see more of the same. But this is all a known entity; irksome as it is, we’ve learned how to keep the worst of it at bay (banned books, equal time for creationist teaching, funding for advanced scientific research, etc.). But the new form of censorship from the left is far more insidious. Anybody who hasn’t been living under a rock this last decade will have heard some of the stories, like Professor Bret Weinstein being bullied out of a job. I heard on a podcast that music appreciation classes have come under attack for teaching about dead white Europeans like Beethoven, supposedly yet another example of either overt systemic racism at worst, or cultural insensitivity at best. Much of this book documents such assaults on reason, attacks on the very validity of science, or even what constitutes truth. I’ll say this: feelings and indignation and interpretations of facts did not land us on the moon, nor will they help when a meteor is hurtling toward Earth. Houston: we have a problem!
The highlight of the book for me was by a contributor I had never heard of: Belgian philosopher Maarten Boudry. There is a reason why jokes that begin with “there are two types of people in the world” are popular with comedians and raconteurs: the division into two simplified propositions is easy for even the most intellectually challenged to follow. Thus, Boudry distills the outrage and defines the battle line into a simple binary reduction: The oppressors and the oppressed. “These two groups are locked in a zero-sum struggle where one group’s gain can happen only at the expense of the other’s loss. There can be no middle ground: either you are an oppressor or a victim.” He believes the current antisemitism has nothing to do with actual Jew hatred and everything to do with virtual signaling on the side of the perceived oppressed. Boudry sums it up by saying:
“By presenting Western civilization as the root of all evil, this ideology ultimately ends up with a wholesale rejection of everything Western civilization stands for – science, progress, freedom of expression, human rights – which are seen as cynical covers for imperialism and oppression. Worst of all, it devolves into the most reactionary form of racist essentialism: the view that democracy, rationality, and secularism are exponents of “whiteness,” not suitable for people with dark skin.”
Boudry also provided an incredible story, all new to me, about the black psychiatrist from Martinique, Frantz Fanon, who believed that “outbursts of violence [against oppressors] could resuscitate the enslaved mind, which had been dulled to passive resignation and feelings of inferiority.” Amazingly, this radical notion found sympathy in thinkers as diverse as Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul-Michel Foucault, and Edward Said.
Rather than talk about other highlights from the book, I can’t help but think that it may be more important is to ask why this book has been so poorly marketed and had no major press reviews. I look at the new release notices for science every month on Goodreads and never saw this book listed. I think the major papers like the NY Times are afraid to touch anything controversial these days. Or it could be that the lack of major press reviews is just another form of prejudgment and censorship. The lack of attention is unfortunate, because this is a very well-reasoned and centrist book which thirty years ago would have been called classical liberal.
I was, however, rather disappointed with the concluding section of the book, which supposedly purports to offer solutions to the craziness. What I found was insipid milquetoast. One contributor says “Do not cower away because of your career concerns.” Easy enough to say, but for those without tenure, speaking out can mean career suicide. Another suggests that those who are concerned need to gently and compassionately encourage fellow left-wing colleagues to step away from the brink, and Steven Pinker admits that his five-phase remedy “will not be quick fix for universities.” Richard Redding is overly optimistic by stating that “whenever a societal institution’s policies and practices swing too far in one direction, self-correcting forces almost always eventually swing it back toward the center.” But, as the author himself states, this trend of anti-science policies has been going on for more than twenty-five years, across both Democratic and Republic leadership in Washington, and yet rather than self-correcting it continues to escalate beyond absurdity into the realm of societal fracture and violence.
In sum: those who have already closed their minds to debate will never read this book, those who are already concerned will find even more to be concerned about after reading this book. But in the end, I don’t have hope for self-correction, even with private donors threatening to withhold funding. No, this will need to be debated amongst legislatures and decided at the ballot box.
September 25, 2025
Fascist drivel!
-10 stars
-10 stars
October 13, 2025
When The War on Science appeared earlier this year, it immediately drew criticism for being “unbalanced.” The collection, edited by Lawrence Krauss and featuring essays by many prominent scientists, focuses on what its contributors see as the left-wing war on science: the slow infiltration of ideology, moral orthodoxy, and linguistic policing into the academic world.
The timing couldn’t have been worse. The book was assembled before the re-election of Donald Trump and the resurgence of a very visible right-wing war on science — climate denial, vaccine revisionism, and the defunding of research. With that backdrop, readers naturally asked: Why ignore the greater danger right in front of us?
That’s a fair question, but not a fair condemnation. Most of these essays were written, or at least conceived, a couple years ago, when the dominant worry among scientists was not right-wing conspiracy, but the subtle corrosion of reason by ideological activism from within the academy. The major problem wasn’t denial of data but a growing moral filter on what could be studied, said, or published.
I sympathize deeply with that concern. When I began my graduate studies back in 2014, I deliberately chose one of the “hardest” of the hard sciences, partly because I hoped the cultural winds sweeping through the humanities wouldn’t reach there. They did, of course, eventually. No matter the field one could feel these new pressures as a constant uneasy pestering: grant applications framed in moral terms, cautious self-editing in seminars, a sense that one’s research needed to sound socially redemptive.
That’s the atmosphere this book describes. It’s not about denialism but about slow ideological capture — the transformation of science from a truth-seeking enterprise into an instrument of moral signaling. In that sense, The War on Science is both necessary and courageous. It documents a cultural illness that many scientists feel but rarely name out loud publicly.
Still, the critics aren’t wrong that the world has changed. The right-wing war on science now dominates the headlines and poses immediate dangers: climate policy gutted, experts purged, research defunded. People simply don’t have the bandwidth to worry about long-term institutional decay when it feels like our house is being shelled.
That doesn’t mean Krauss et al were mistaken — only that the moment has moved on. Their focus on the slow, interior rot of academia has been overshadowed by a faster, louder crisis.
I don’t fault the authors for that. If I were a prominent scientist, I’d have gladly contributed an essay much like theirs. The left’s ideological pressures on science haven’t vanished; they’ve only been eclipsed by more flamboyant assaults. When the political winds shift again — as they will — those pressures will return with a vengeance. At that time this book may seem prescient.
What this book captures, perhaps unintentionally, is how fragile our intellectual culture has become. We lurch from one crisis to another, losing the ability to sustain attention long enough to fix the deeper causes. The real war on science, in that sense, isn’t left or right. It’s the war on seriousness itself — the war on patience, nuance, and the slow work of truth-seeking.
For now, The War on Science feels mistimed but still essential: a reminder that while the fires rage outside, something inside our institutions continues to smolder quietly. Both dangers deserve our attention — if we can still spare any.
The timing couldn’t have been worse. The book was assembled before the re-election of Donald Trump and the resurgence of a very visible right-wing war on science — climate denial, vaccine revisionism, and the defunding of research. With that backdrop, readers naturally asked: Why ignore the greater danger right in front of us?
That’s a fair question, but not a fair condemnation. Most of these essays were written, or at least conceived, a couple years ago, when the dominant worry among scientists was not right-wing conspiracy, but the subtle corrosion of reason by ideological activism from within the academy. The major problem wasn’t denial of data but a growing moral filter on what could be studied, said, or published.
I sympathize deeply with that concern. When I began my graduate studies back in 2014, I deliberately chose one of the “hardest” of the hard sciences, partly because I hoped the cultural winds sweeping through the humanities wouldn’t reach there. They did, of course, eventually. No matter the field one could feel these new pressures as a constant uneasy pestering: grant applications framed in moral terms, cautious self-editing in seminars, a sense that one’s research needed to sound socially redemptive.
That’s the atmosphere this book describes. It’s not about denialism but about slow ideological capture — the transformation of science from a truth-seeking enterprise into an instrument of moral signaling. In that sense, The War on Science is both necessary and courageous. It documents a cultural illness that many scientists feel but rarely name out loud publicly.
Still, the critics aren’t wrong that the world has changed. The right-wing war on science now dominates the headlines and poses immediate dangers: climate policy gutted, experts purged, research defunded. People simply don’t have the bandwidth to worry about long-term institutional decay when it feels like our house is being shelled.
That doesn’t mean Krauss et al were mistaken — only that the moment has moved on. Their focus on the slow, interior rot of academia has been overshadowed by a faster, louder crisis.
I don’t fault the authors for that. If I were a prominent scientist, I’d have gladly contributed an essay much like theirs. The left’s ideological pressures on science haven’t vanished; they’ve only been eclipsed by more flamboyant assaults. When the political winds shift again — as they will — those pressures will return with a vengeance. At that time this book may seem prescient.
What this book captures, perhaps unintentionally, is how fragile our intellectual culture has become. We lurch from one crisis to another, losing the ability to sustain attention long enough to fix the deeper causes. The real war on science, in that sense, isn’t left or right. It’s the war on seriousness itself — the war on patience, nuance, and the slow work of truth-seeking.
For now, The War on Science feels mistimed but still essential: a reminder that while the fires rage outside, something inside our institutions continues to smolder quietly. Both dangers deserve our attention — if we can still spare any.
Read
April 24, 2025skepchick review
September 30, 2025
You lot really showed your true colors with this one. A bunch of racists and sexists who turned out to be political tools in the pockets of whoever has more power, specifically, of whoever will protect you from being held accountable for whatever you "allegedly" did with your bff JE on his private island. Your days of self righteously criticizing other peoples' morality are over.
This book, written by a bunch of atheism apologists, published by a far right platform, is full of hypocrisy and contradictions. You lost all credibility. You clearly have no values.
This book, written by a bunch of atheism apologists, published by a far right platform, is full of hypocrisy and contradictions. You lost all credibility. You clearly have no values.
November 24, 2025
Declaring that science is under attack by partisans is a fertile field. Searching Amazon for 'war on science' brings up this book, but also a raft of others. I obtained this volume for free from the Reason Foundation earlier this year, which may give you a hint about its ideological positioning. (Full disclosure about my priors: I'm usually in agreement with that positioning.)
The book is a collection of 32 essays; enough are co-written to bring the author count to (see subtitle) 39. Most are written in academic style, with copious citations, footnotes, etc. (References are not included in the book itself, at least not the hardcover; they are available here.)
What makes this version of the "war on science" different is that the aggressors are often on the inside of "science" itself. We're not talking about a rerun of the Scopes trial. A lead essay by Richard Dawkins draws the historical parallel with Lysenkoism in the bad old Soviet Union; opposing Lysenko's batshit ideas about evolution could be at best career-ending, but often enough, life-ending.
This strikes (literally) close to home. One bad example mentioned in a couple places is Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, a (tenured) Associate Professor in the Physics Department of the University Near Here. She is cited for her tendentious argument in her published paper "Making Black Women Scientists under White Empiricism: The Racialization of Epistemology in Physics", which claimed (citations elided):
Yet white empiricism undermines a significant theory of twentieth-century physics: General Relativity. Albert Einstein’s monumental contribution to our empirical understanding of gravity is rooted in the principle of covariance, which is the simple idea that there is no single objective frame of reference that is more objective than any other. All frames of reference, all observers, are equally competent and capable of observing the universal laws that underlie the workings of our physical universe. Yet the number of women in physics remains low, especially those of African descent. The gender imbalance between Black women and Black men is less severe than in many professions, but the disparity remains. Given that Black women must, according to Einstein’s principle of covariance, have an equal claim to objectivity regardless of their simultaneously experiencing intersecting axes of oppression, we can dispense with any suggestion that the low number of Black women in science indicates any lack of validity on their part as observers. It is instead important to examine the way the social forces at work shape Black women’s standpoint as observers—scientists—with a specific interest in how scientific knowledge is dependent on this specific standpoint. As Jarita Holbrook notes, Black students have their capacity for objectivity questioned simply because their standpoint on racism is different from that of white students and scientists who don’t have to experience its consequences.
That article was published in Signs, a publication of the University of Chicago Press. In case you're unconvinced of its absurdity, a lengthy rebuttal came from Alan Sokal, published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, available here.
The book is wide-ranging, covering issues all over the (campus) map: gender ideology, race-based hiring, diversity statements, "decolonizing" mathematics, and more. And, as sort of a unifying theme, the career-destroying efforts of today's censorious heirs of Lysenko.
A concluding section covers "what is to be done". Pun Salad Hero Steven Pinker is here with some good ideas, and I can also recommend Dorian Abbot, Geophysics prof at the University of Chicago. His article is a hoot, showing that he's retained a healthy sense of humor, despite getting cancelled at MIT back in 2021.
December 9, 2025
It’s so incredibly sad to see these people who influenced me so much falling so low. But to any readers who do in fact like this, I beg of you to look up some of the actual context around the people who claim to be “cancelled” or “suppressed” or “targeted” because they present it so deceptively in this book. From exploiting students to defending Epstein to being on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies.
On every level this is one of the worst books I have ever read. Truly awful and that’s before knowing any context. Never have hero’s.
On every level this is one of the worst books I have ever read. Truly awful and that’s before knowing any context. Never have hero’s.
December 2, 2025
I think one thing I should highlight first is that one of the final essays mentioned a question from a indegenous woman and why she should put faith in the institutions that have betrayed her people per Christakis's phrasing. He seems to have a considerable amount of faith in the institutions and did not give her a good answer in person or in print. The current rate of Missing and Murdered Indegenous Women point to how they still fail her. I think that this examples demostrates how little the contributors understand the concepts they are trying and failing to argue against.
This book was disapponting on a variety of levels. For the authors (except Peterson), I expected more. Having read some of the contributors' work, I expected them to be more informed on the issues they choose to discuss. Within their fields, they are knowledgeable. However, they strayed too far or are ignoring the evidence orconsequences. I know many will say this was written during Biden. However, if the university I am familiar with did not recover from the first Trump term by the start of his second, I have no idea what rock these authors were under. The funding cuts were not restored, many programs remained under funded.
Onto the meat if one can call it that. The arguments were typically shallow or made assumptions about their opponents. Examples were poorly constructed or lacked detail. Many authors conflated being anti-Isreal with being anti-semitic. Most complained about DEI or trans people. One terrible individual referenced Money without mentioning how disgusting and unethical that experiment it. The main impression I get from this is that they want to study what they want, don't want to think about touchy topics, and have little to no concern for the potential reprocussions of the research.
Some topics discussed do have merit to asking hard questions. Like when does something become anthropology? However, in the chapter it was unevenly applied. They only talked abot indegenous grave sites. What about in Europe? When can we start poking at old graveyards. Since this was not brought up, it makes me wonder why it was not considered.
Overall, this was a horribly researched and disappointing read. I expected more from the book. More from the familiar names, except Peterson. More specifically, I am also saddened to see them focus on one side. I have seen more harm from the conservative side when it comes to science funding and research. This being written during the Biden administration is a poor excuse.
This book was disapponting on a variety of levels. For the authors (except Peterson), I expected more. Having read some of the contributors' work, I expected them to be more informed on the issues they choose to discuss. Within their fields, they are knowledgeable. However, they strayed too far or are ignoring the evidence orconsequences. I know many will say this was written during Biden. However, if the university I am familiar with did not recover from the first Trump term by the start of his second, I have no idea what rock these authors were under. The funding cuts were not restored, many programs remained under funded.
Onto the meat if one can call it that. The arguments were typically shallow or made assumptions about their opponents. Examples were poorly constructed or lacked detail. Many authors conflated being anti-Isreal with being anti-semitic. Most complained about DEI or trans people. One terrible individual referenced Money without mentioning how disgusting and unethical that experiment it. The main impression I get from this is that they want to study what they want, don't want to think about touchy topics, and have little to no concern for the potential reprocussions of the research.
Some topics discussed do have merit to asking hard questions. Like when does something become anthropology? However, in the chapter it was unevenly applied. They only talked abot indegenous grave sites. What about in Europe? When can we start poking at old graveyards. Since this was not brought up, it makes me wonder why it was not considered.
Overall, this was a horribly researched and disappointing read. I expected more from the book. More from the familiar names, except Peterson. More specifically, I am also saddened to see them focus on one side. I have seen more harm from the conservative side when it comes to science funding and research. This being written during the Biden administration is a poor excuse.
October 19, 2025
This is shit. Pure utter shit.
Lacks integrity refuses to really explain anything but just used fancy to allude to racism and hey theres no discrimination in the sciences. Oh what fucking nonsense is the fact the title would make you think theu would talk about the big pharma censoships or climate change but noooo the biden administration is restricting free speech when we are in trump’s term. This outdated view of “free speech” because they couldnt handle the sexual assault allegations and being thrown away by the academies because of thejr excessive bigotry. “We just wanna talk about our research peacefully” miss me with that bullshit. The author of the book was a friend of Epstein and have defended him, and all other writers in this book either: A, have a sexual predator past, B: a racist, C: a misogynist, D: a homophobic or all three. Bunch of ridiculous pretentious scum that stroke each other’s dicks.
This is just fucking disgraceful and disappointing to see.
And why is there an essay from a fucking marketing guy when its supposed to be about science?????
Lacks integrity refuses to really explain anything but just used fancy to allude to racism and hey theres no discrimination in the sciences. Oh what fucking nonsense is the fact the title would make you think theu would talk about the big pharma censoships or climate change but noooo the biden administration is restricting free speech when we are in trump’s term. This outdated view of “free speech” because they couldnt handle the sexual assault allegations and being thrown away by the academies because of thejr excessive bigotry. “We just wanna talk about our research peacefully” miss me with that bullshit. The author of the book was a friend of Epstein and have defended him, and all other writers in this book either: A, have a sexual predator past, B: a racist, C: a misogynist, D: a homophobic or all three. Bunch of ridiculous pretentious scum that stroke each other’s dicks.
This is just fucking disgraceful and disappointing to see.
And why is there an essay from a fucking marketing guy when its supposed to be about science?????
December 23, 2025
If a reader takes one thing from this book, the message is: as far right politicians need to undermine independent, critical thinking in order to prosper, fight them at every opportunity.
November 19, 2025
A fine collection of diverse viewpoints by a group of demonstrably brilliant authors. I don't agree with every opinion in the book, but then, why would I need to?
Looking at all the 1 star reviews, I have to wonder how many of these people finished the book. How many slammed it shut and gave it the lowest possible score the first moment they read something that hurt their feelings or challenged them in some way?
Looking at all the 1 star reviews, I have to wonder how many of these people finished the book. How many slammed it shut and gave it the lowest possible score the first moment they read something that hurt their feelings or challenged them in some way?
October 8, 2025
This book is an anthology of essays on different aspects of the ‘war on science’. I’ve given it 4 stars overall – some of the essays deserve 5 stars, some are closer to 3. For me, Richard Dawkins’ essay was the best, with very good essays including ones by Geoff Horsman and Steven Pinker. I understand that all of the essays bar one were specifically written for inclusion in this book.
The ‘war on science’ is basically the undermining of scientific enquiry – the pursuit of evidence-based knowledge that is falsifiable and replicable – and scientific teaching to accommodate ideologies such as postmodernism and identity politics. The results of this are many: censorship, curbs on academic freedom, the curtailing of merit-based admissions and recruitment, lip service being paid to ideologies that few believe, the propagation of lies concerning known scientific facts, such as that sex is binary or that there are human populations with distinct genetic traits (“race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning” according to the American Medical Association – p. 140 in the hardback edition – thereby negating not just genetic variation in human populations but the theory of evolution by natural selection itself), even the curtailing of medically beneficial research. Some have been hounded out of their jobs or forced to retract scientific findings for committing heresies against the new dogma.
While this book gives a good, if depressing, insight into the state of academic life for those in the sciences, along with recommendations on how to restore the previously healthy state of affairs, I found the book somewhat disappointing in some respects. There was little analysis in any of the essays of how this state of affairs has come about. What caused so many rational people to, at the very least, pay lip service to the new dogma? Mention is made of the spread of postmodernism in the social sciences and of the effect of crises, such as the murder of George Floyd, to further the spread of – effectively – neo-Marxist ideas. Blame is rightly laid at the door of cowardly faculty and administrators for giving in to demands following even small protests. However, as an outsider it seems astonishing that this was enough to take over institutions. Did nobody have a backbone or an ounce of common sense? Was there outside/foreign interference or propaganda involved? As I said, looking from the outside, what has happened at Western universities is incomprehensible to me. Having read The War on Science, I am no wiser.
It is also worth noting that, in my opinion, there is no place at universities for dogma in any discipline. What is not acceptable in the sciences should not be acceptable in the social sciences, in history or literature or any other subject. It should be no more acceptable for a lecturer to teach ‘Marxist history’ than ‘creationist evolutionary biology’. All subjects should be taught to the highest evidentiary and intellectual standard without concessions to anyone’s politics (or ‘feelings’ for that matter). The teaching of all subjects should be free of the deformities required to fit pre-conceived ideologies and dogma.
The ‘war on science’ is basically the undermining of scientific enquiry – the pursuit of evidence-based knowledge that is falsifiable and replicable – and scientific teaching to accommodate ideologies such as postmodernism and identity politics. The results of this are many: censorship, curbs on academic freedom, the curtailing of merit-based admissions and recruitment, lip service being paid to ideologies that few believe, the propagation of lies concerning known scientific facts, such as that sex is binary or that there are human populations with distinct genetic traits (“race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning” according to the American Medical Association – p. 140 in the hardback edition – thereby negating not just genetic variation in human populations but the theory of evolution by natural selection itself), even the curtailing of medically beneficial research. Some have been hounded out of their jobs or forced to retract scientific findings for committing heresies against the new dogma.
While this book gives a good, if depressing, insight into the state of academic life for those in the sciences, along with recommendations on how to restore the previously healthy state of affairs, I found the book somewhat disappointing in some respects. There was little analysis in any of the essays of how this state of affairs has come about. What caused so many rational people to, at the very least, pay lip service to the new dogma? Mention is made of the spread of postmodernism in the social sciences and of the effect of crises, such as the murder of George Floyd, to further the spread of – effectively – neo-Marxist ideas. Blame is rightly laid at the door of cowardly faculty and administrators for giving in to demands following even small protests. However, as an outsider it seems astonishing that this was enough to take over institutions. Did nobody have a backbone or an ounce of common sense? Was there outside/foreign interference or propaganda involved? As I said, looking from the outside, what has happened at Western universities is incomprehensible to me. Having read The War on Science, I am no wiser.
It is also worth noting that, in my opinion, there is no place at universities for dogma in any discipline. What is not acceptable in the sciences should not be acceptable in the social sciences, in history or literature or any other subject. It should be no more acceptable for a lecturer to teach ‘Marxist history’ than ‘creationist evolutionary biology’. All subjects should be taught to the highest evidentiary and intellectual standard without concessions to anyone’s politics (or ‘feelings’ for that matter). The teaching of all subjects should be free of the deformities required to fit pre-conceived ideologies and dogma.
November 8, 2025
An important read.
November 26, 2025
If this is the best that 39 renowned scientists could come up with on the subject of DEI and free speech, then I think many of them ought to go back to school. Otherwise very accomplished writers and thinkers can lapse into ranting when they engage in polemics about an issue that strikes at the heart of their ability to make a living in today's universities.
One of the worst chapters -- I did not read them all, they get repetitive -- comes courtesy of Niall Ferguson, a historian at Stanford University. Ferguson accuses woke academics of being hopelessly anti-Semitic, based on their opposition to the war in Gaza. As evidence, he cites a note left under the keyboard of a Jewish student at an "elite Eastern university" that said “Zionist kike”. A loathsome act, yes, but hardly proving his point. He extensively discusses the Nazi era and seems to come to the conclusion that its analog in the modern era is ... DEI? That's what he takes away from studying Nazism? Mind-boggling. He appears to have learned very little from the history of the 20th century, or the 21st century for that matter. He is the worst kind of ideological academic, useless to conservatives and progressives because his historical and intellectual contortions make everything he writes untrustworthy. You would have no idea from his chapter that, while pro-Palestinian protests were taking place on American campuses, Gazan cities were being leveled, tens of thousands were being killed, and the remainder were being systematically starved then shot at by Israeli troops when they showed up at food distribution points – all while the US continued to supply arms and funding to the Netanyahu regime. Photos of Gazan children look like concentration camp survivors from 1945. To meet a terrorist atrocity – the Hamas attack of Oct 7 – with a vastly larger atrocity – two years and counting of devastating Israeli reprisals – is an abomination. This seems totally lost on Ferguson, who has picked his side and settled comfortably into his confirmation bias.
The rest of the book is largely a catalog of the excesses of DEI on campuses, such as imposing a vocabulary focused on creating new categories of oppressed groups, particularly with respect to gender choice. DEI bureaucracies have heavily inserted themselves into the hiring process as well as the disciplinary process for faculty members unwilling to adopt the ideas and especially the jargon of DEI. Most faculty members lie low, using ChatGPT to crank out diversity statements when required to do so, and carefully avoiding the ideological minefields of the modern university. This is probably not good for their souls and certainly does almost nothing to further the cause of disadvantaged groups in our society. Will it lessen inequality? Will it lessen poverty? Will it hold back the descent of the country into illiberal democracy? Will it improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged groups? Probably not in the slightest.
Interestingly, there is very little discussion of how the DEI era came into being and how it became so entrenched in at least some parts of academia and scholarly journals. It parallels the affirmative action wars of an earlier era, which were focused on race rather than gender and sexual orientation. Those wars did not assume the kind of prominence that DEI has in the present era, where Trump and the MAGA right have made their anti-DEI rage one of the central pillars of the party, second only to immigration. What will they do when DEI is gone?
One final comment: the absolute worst chapter of the book is the epilogue by Jordan Peterson, a right-wing podcaster, psychologist, author and former academic. Peterson's intemperate rantings eventually got him into trouble with the regulatory body in charge of the professional psychologists of the province of Ontario, which sent him for mandatory remedial training -- despite his attempts to appeal this judgment all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Peterson's chapter is one of the finest examples of the kind of writing that can be achieved when ChatGPT is prompted to aim for maximum pomposity, maximum venom and minimum coherent content. After reading it, you will be unsure if it was a satire or not. A sample sentence:
"The great storage places of value that derived their material wealth and brand status from the actions of those imbued with the true redeeming spirit of civilization have been invaded by the most anti-meritocratic, morally relativistic, cynical, nihilistic, power-mad, and bitter immature hedonists imaginable." We can only hope that civilization can be saved from such defenders.
One of the worst chapters -- I did not read them all, they get repetitive -- comes courtesy of Niall Ferguson, a historian at Stanford University. Ferguson accuses woke academics of being hopelessly anti-Semitic, based on their opposition to the war in Gaza. As evidence, he cites a note left under the keyboard of a Jewish student at an "elite Eastern university" that said “Zionist kike”. A loathsome act, yes, but hardly proving his point. He extensively discusses the Nazi era and seems to come to the conclusion that its analog in the modern era is ... DEI? That's what he takes away from studying Nazism? Mind-boggling. He appears to have learned very little from the history of the 20th century, or the 21st century for that matter. He is the worst kind of ideological academic, useless to conservatives and progressives because his historical and intellectual contortions make everything he writes untrustworthy. You would have no idea from his chapter that, while pro-Palestinian protests were taking place on American campuses, Gazan cities were being leveled, tens of thousands were being killed, and the remainder were being systematically starved then shot at by Israeli troops when they showed up at food distribution points – all while the US continued to supply arms and funding to the Netanyahu regime. Photos of Gazan children look like concentration camp survivors from 1945. To meet a terrorist atrocity – the Hamas attack of Oct 7 – with a vastly larger atrocity – two years and counting of devastating Israeli reprisals – is an abomination. This seems totally lost on Ferguson, who has picked his side and settled comfortably into his confirmation bias.
The rest of the book is largely a catalog of the excesses of DEI on campuses, such as imposing a vocabulary focused on creating new categories of oppressed groups, particularly with respect to gender choice. DEI bureaucracies have heavily inserted themselves into the hiring process as well as the disciplinary process for faculty members unwilling to adopt the ideas and especially the jargon of DEI. Most faculty members lie low, using ChatGPT to crank out diversity statements when required to do so, and carefully avoiding the ideological minefields of the modern university. This is probably not good for their souls and certainly does almost nothing to further the cause of disadvantaged groups in our society. Will it lessen inequality? Will it lessen poverty? Will it hold back the descent of the country into illiberal democracy? Will it improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged groups? Probably not in the slightest.
Interestingly, there is very little discussion of how the DEI era came into being and how it became so entrenched in at least some parts of academia and scholarly journals. It parallels the affirmative action wars of an earlier era, which were focused on race rather than gender and sexual orientation. Those wars did not assume the kind of prominence that DEI has in the present era, where Trump and the MAGA right have made their anti-DEI rage one of the central pillars of the party, second only to immigration. What will they do when DEI is gone?
One final comment: the absolute worst chapter of the book is the epilogue by Jordan Peterson, a right-wing podcaster, psychologist, author and former academic. Peterson's intemperate rantings eventually got him into trouble with the regulatory body in charge of the professional psychologists of the province of Ontario, which sent him for mandatory remedial training -- despite his attempts to appeal this judgment all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Peterson's chapter is one of the finest examples of the kind of writing that can be achieved when ChatGPT is prompted to aim for maximum pomposity, maximum venom and minimum coherent content. After reading it, you will be unsure if it was a satire or not. A sample sentence:
"The great storage places of value that derived their material wealth and brand status from the actions of those imbued with the true redeeming spirit of civilization have been invaded by the most anti-meritocratic, morally relativistic, cynical, nihilistic, power-mad, and bitter immature hedonists imaginable." We can only hope that civilization can be saved from such defenders.
November 15, 2025
The War on Science is exactly what I expected it to be. It brings together many scientists, educators, and scholars to talk about the pressures and problems facing modern science. The book focuses on how science, research, and teaching are being affected by politics, social pressures, and fear of offending people. I understand the message clearly because many things the authors describe are already visible in the real world.
The book includes contributions from well known voices like Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker. Some chapters stood out to me. I especially liked what Richard Dawkins wrote about science and human feelings in politics. I also found the parts on scientific censorship and the chapter by Gad Saad about harmful ideas in universities to be thought provoking. These writers explain issues in a much better way because they are close to the academic world and see the impact directly.
The core message of the book is that science depends on objectivity. But funding, research priorities, and academic decisions are being influenced by political sensitivities. Important fields like science and mathematics are losing support. Meanwhile money and attention are moving to subjects that may not contribute much to scientific progress. The authors warn that if this continues for another few decades, science and math may not look the same. They believe we need to protect scientific inquiry so researchers and educators are not pushed aside or punished for asking honest questions.
I agree with most of what the book says. I also understand why the book has a low rating. People who strongly support certain political views will not like it. Many readers judge it through ideology rather than logic or evidence. There is very little middle ground for a book like this. You either agree with its concerns or you completely reject them.
For me, this is a good and important book. I respect Lawrence Krauss and the other contributors. I appreciate the honesty and the courage behind their writing. I think people will keep referring to this book in the future because it raises issues that matter for the long term.
The book includes contributions from well known voices like Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker. Some chapters stood out to me. I especially liked what Richard Dawkins wrote about science and human feelings in politics. I also found the parts on scientific censorship and the chapter by Gad Saad about harmful ideas in universities to be thought provoking. These writers explain issues in a much better way because they are close to the academic world and see the impact directly.
The core message of the book is that science depends on objectivity. But funding, research priorities, and academic decisions are being influenced by political sensitivities. Important fields like science and mathematics are losing support. Meanwhile money and attention are moving to subjects that may not contribute much to scientific progress. The authors warn that if this continues for another few decades, science and math may not look the same. They believe we need to protect scientific inquiry so researchers and educators are not pushed aside or punished for asking honest questions.
I agree with most of what the book says. I also understand why the book has a low rating. People who strongly support certain political views will not like it. Many readers judge it through ideology rather than logic or evidence. There is very little middle ground for a book like this. You either agree with its concerns or you completely reject them.
For me, this is a good and important book. I respect Lawrence Krauss and the other contributors. I appreciate the honesty and the courage behind their writing. I think people will keep referring to this book in the future because it raises issues that matter for the long term.
August 11, 2025
Like most reviewers will point out, there could not possibly have been worse timing for the release of this book. The kind of left-wing censorship it targets has given way to its mirror image: right-wing conspiratorial obfuscation and outright science denial. The book is unequivocally fighting the wrong battle. In fact, if you want to learn about the more significant war on science, read Michael E. Mann’s upcoming book “Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World.”
However, contrary to the other reviews, this is not a right-wing tract, either. If you think Richard Dawkins or Steven Pinker are right-wing in this climate, then you’re either unfamiliar with their work or you’re so far left as to have fallen off a cliff. (Although, what in the world is Jordan Peterson doing here….)
The book targets the wrong perpetrators, to be sure, but the message is still timeless: 1) the findings of science and the laws of morality lie in two distinct planes; therefore, 2) we should not be afraid of what science tells us, as this will only inform, not dictate, our politics. And most importantly, 3) ideology has no place in science, and academic freedom remains paramount—regardless of which party currently holds power.
If you don’t agree with those statements, read this book; if you already do, then move on to more important battles.
However, contrary to the other reviews, this is not a right-wing tract, either. If you think Richard Dawkins or Steven Pinker are right-wing in this climate, then you’re either unfamiliar with their work or you’re so far left as to have fallen off a cliff. (Although, what in the world is Jordan Peterson doing here….)
The book targets the wrong perpetrators, to be sure, but the message is still timeless: 1) the findings of science and the laws of morality lie in two distinct planes; therefore, 2) we should not be afraid of what science tells us, as this will only inform, not dictate, our politics. And most importantly, 3) ideology has no place in science, and academic freedom remains paramount—regardless of which party currently holds power.
If you don’t agree with those statements, read this book; if you already do, then move on to more important battles.
December 31, 2025
I expected more in the way of bravery and details
Some essays (Sullivan's, Dawkins', Ferguson's, Armstrong's in particular) are far more informative than others.
I expected more bravery in calling out trans ideology for what it is: a dystopian religious cult that tells one to disbelieve what's in front of her own eyes (the material reality of sexed bodies) and to instead believe in the metaphysical, ill-defined, unfalsifiable entity of 'gender identity'.
While Dawkins goes further than any one of the other contributors in challenging the 'sex is a spectrum' tenet (or, rather, ideological crutch) of the trans cult, he falls short of confronting the emperor's-new-clothes nature of it and indulges in the polite lie of calling trans-identifying men 'she'.
Some essays (Sullivan's, Dawkins', Ferguson's, Armstrong's in particular) are far more informative than others.
I expected more bravery in calling out trans ideology for what it is: a dystopian religious cult that tells one to disbelieve what's in front of her own eyes (the material reality of sexed bodies) and to instead believe in the metaphysical, ill-defined, unfalsifiable entity of 'gender identity'.
While Dawkins goes further than any one of the other contributors in challenging the 'sex is a spectrum' tenet (or, rather, ideological crutch) of the trans cult, he falls short of confronting the emperor's-new-clothes nature of it and indulges in the polite lie of calling trans-identifying men 'she'.
September 19, 2025
Absolutely Fan Tas Tic !!!
39 authors’ personal perspectives on intrusive disruption in their world …..Education , Law , Many areas of Science……by current “social justice” and/or “Woke” ideology…..a must read for those interested in our times and explanations of irrational trends- Highly recommend!!
39 authors’ personal perspectives on intrusive disruption in their world …..Education , Law , Many areas of Science……by current “social justice” and/or “Woke” ideology…..a must read for those interested in our times and explanations of irrational trends- Highly recommend!!
April 26, 2025
Filled with misinformed verbiage by petulant manchildren who deserve to be cancelled.
https://youtu.be/M1FNkGgutgc?si=1WtDW...
https://youtu.be/M1FNkGgutgc?si=1WtDW...
September 5, 2025
Rage-bait to suck money out of rightwing lunatics.
September 25, 2025
oh, spoilers!
anyway, here is, at lenght, everything you need to know without needing to read this garbage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyU5X...
anyway, here is, at lenght, everything you need to know without needing to read this garbage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyU5X...
October 6, 2025
For four-hour shade session, see YouTube social critic & essayist Shawn: https://youtu.be/tyU5Xkk6TuE?si=-RIXu...
November 7, 2025
I was shocked at how bad (and inaccurate) this book is. A complete and shameful departure from the authors other books.
December 22, 2025
Should be required reading in the postmodern utopia known as Canada.
January 1, 2026
I appreciated the variety of scholars and genres. They highlight how cancel culture is detrimental to society as a whole. The book did drag on though…
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews