the war on Science

by Shawn Lawrence Otto, Lawrence M. Krauss (Foreword)

An “insightful” and in-depth look at anti-science politics and its deadly results (Maria Konnikova, New York Times–bestselling author of The Biggest Bluff).   Thomas Jefferson said, “Wherever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” But what happens when they aren’t?   From climate change to vaccinations, transportation to technology, health care to defense, we are in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of scientific progress—and a simultaneous expansion of danger. At the very time we need them most, scientists and the very idea of objective knowledge are being bombarded by a vast, well-funded war on science, and the results are deadly.   Whether it’s driven by identity politics, ideology, or industry, the result is an unprecedented erosion of thought in Western democracies as voters, policymakers, and justices actively ignore scientific evidence, leaving major policy decisions to be based more on the demands of the most strident voices.   This compelling book investigates the historical, social, philosophical, political, and emotional reasons why evidence-based politics are in decline and authoritarian politics are once again on the rise on both left and right—and provides some compelling solutions to bring us to our collective senses, before it's too late.   “If you care about attacks on climate science and the rise of authoritarianism, if you care about biased media coverage and shake-your-head political tomfoolery, this book is for you.”—The Guardian

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Society, Philosophy, Education

440 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 10, 2016

About the author

Shawn Lawrence Otto is an award-winning screenwriter, novelist and science advocate who wrote and coproduced the movie House of Sand and Fog, which was nominated for three Academy Awards. Sins of Our Fathers, a literary crime novel, is his first novel. It earned a starred review from Publishers Weekly and is a finalist for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize.

Otto is also the producer of the US Presidential Science Debates between Barack Obama and his opponents Mitt Romney and John McCain, and author of Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, which won the Minnesota Book Award.

Reviews

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

A dense and informative book about the war on science that threatens our democracy. The War on Science comes at quite the relevant time as our current US President often outright denies facts and spews falsehoods, much to the detriment of our country. Donald Trump serves as only one villain in the war on science, though, and Shawn Otto delves deep into the many players who refuse to believe the truth about climate change, evolution, the healthfulness of vaccinations, and many other important topics. He includes a vast history of the origins of science as well as its current antagonists, such as the extremely religious who refute secular truths, industries that prioritize making money over spreading objective information, and journalists who believe in sharing two sides of every story even if one side is completely driven by myths and/or opinions. Otto concludes this book by sharing a barrage of actions we can take to reclaim our democracy and return science to its rightful place.

I appreciate how Otto does such a thorough job investigating the roots and current trends of science denial, and I would recommend this book to anyone interested in science and its precarious yet vital place in society. My main criticism, though, stems from Otto's attack on "identity politics" and how postmodernists and marginalized academics have hurt science. He writes that postmodernists "[confuse]... science with the politics surrounding the power that science creates." He conveniently ignores how scientists - predominately those of the white male persuasion - have advocated for scientific racism, labeling homosexuality as a brain disease, and many other social injustices. I wish Otto had written about how addressing the rampant sexism, racism, etc. within science would actually make science even better, more diverse and more tolerant, and more effective at capturing a variety of individuals' lived experiences. Instead, he derides scholars who try to fight for change within academia, thus alienating a group that cares a great deal about science and how to improve it.

Additionally, I would have preferred if Otto argued for a mutually symbiotic relationship between the humanities and the sciences instead of just lampooning humanities' majors for not understanding science. If you think about it, one of the reasons why scientists often lack the tools to communicate their findings is because they have forgotten how to write well after only taking science classes in college (I have heard and read this from several scientists themselves.) Here's to working across the aisle to ameliorate science's tenuous position within society and to enhance the positive impacts it can create for us all.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much blind praise from unskeptical 'skeptics'

This book is uneven in spots, has seeming straw men in spots, and has errors of commission and omission in spots, among other things.

As best as I can tell, at least some of that is related to what I suss out as its apparent target audience — moderate mainline Protestants who aren't totally liberal politically but aren't totally conservative either. In fact, given some of the specific straw men and errors of omission, and Otto's residence, I'll venture that he's thinking about (fellow??) Minnesota Lutherans of the ELCA persuasion in writing this.

Arguably, the book is worth a third star, but with all the tribalism apple-polishing, per my headline, it gets knocked down. Even without that, I'm not sure it's worth three, though.

First, Otto projects a Democrat/Republican split on science backward and overreaches — badly. Related to that is a factual error, claiming that William McKinley defeated William Jennings Bryan in part due to evolution. Reality is that evolution was a VERY minor campaign issue, if it was any at all, in 1896 and 1900, a full generation before the Snopes trial. McKinley won because he had a lot more campaign money, employers threatened employees with job loss if Bryan won, and the race was fought over the gold standard vs. free silver. Otto's clams are ahistorical at best, antihistorical at worse.

Second, his "Religion, Meet Science" chapter is chock full of errors.
1. The Puritans didn't come to America for religious freedom. They came for religious freedom for *themselves only.* BIG difference.
2. He straw mans Catholics by pretending that only Protestants of the Reformation and beyond had a serious natural theology. That would be a surprise to the thousands of Catholic and non-Catholic scholars who still study Thomas Aquinas.

Third, in a later chapter, he claims antivaxxerism basically started as a left-wing stance, then spread to religious conservatives over HPV. Wrong. Orange County, California, is full of anti-government libertarian antivaxxers.

Fourth, he gets a number of things at least partially wrong in relation to modern media and news coverage. That includes an exact discussion of the issue of "objectivity."

I remember Otto's Science 2008 project. It sounded promising. Maybe there was already then less than meets the eye.

Unfortunately, by dipping below the three-star level, I put myself in the company of climate change denialists. Don't blame me; blame Otto for serious errors elsewhere. (He's totally correct on climate change.) Blame "skeptics" for failure to give a more critical read. Blame Otto again for his presumed Minnesota nice liberal Lutheran target audience.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Definitive Book on Science Denialism in America

“The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, and What We Can Do About It” should be viewed as the definitive book on science denialism in America and belongs on the bookshelves of anyone in government or politics seeking to make public policy decisions that require sufficient knowledge, understanding and appreciation of science, including medicine and technology. This is no mere sequel to Otto’s earlier – and still terrific – “Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America”. Instead, what Otto does here is to cover both the history and philosophy behind science denialism, doing an exemplary job in describing how the scientific method actually works, and in praising Karl Popper’s philosophy with regards to testing scientific hypotheses. He also reminds us of science’s importance – especially with regards to basic research – in promoting democratic values, which even scientifically-literate Founding Fathers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson understood and appreciated, realizing that they were creating a democratic republic that would promote the growth of scientific knowledge, with that knowledge used to further our country’s economic success; a point which others, most notably Kenneth R. Miller and Niles Eldredge, have emphasized in their own noteworthy books on evolution denialism, by pointing out that failing to deter and to defeat science denialists – in this case, Intelligent Design creationists and other, so-called “scientific” creationists – has grave implications for ensuring America’s future economic and intellectual success as a preeminent global economic, intellectual and cultural power.

Otto shows how moral ambivalence over the development of atomic weaponry, and fear of the military-industrial complex, sowed the seeds for much contemporary American science denialism, transforming the once pro-science Republican Party, whose luminaries included such notable scientists as distinguished astronomer Edwin Hubble, into an intellectual backwater dominated increasing by those skeptical of science within the Religious Right, aided and abetted, oddly enough, by the emergence of postmodernist relativist philosophers like Jacques Derrida who had no understanding or appreciation of science. It is this thinking which Otto contends has established one of the three main fronts in the war on science; the others are ideological and industrial, borrowing heavily from Postmodernist thought. Postmodernists like Derrida dismissed scientific claims for objectivity via the scientific method, and instead, saw science as myths to preserve or acquire power; clearly a less than desirable aspect of identity politics; a point of view that would become part of the mindset of right-wing Intelligent Design creationists, as well as progressive anti-science movements like vaccine denialism. It is within this academic environment that philosopher Thomas Kuhn developed his concept of “scientific revolutions”, which Otto notes persuasively is one worthy of dismissal simply for relying upon Postmodernist thought.

In his chapter entitled “The Ideological War on Science”, Otto describes how faith-based ideological warfare is being conducted not only on whether one should teach as science, biological evolution and contemporary evolutionary theory, but even, on a more personal level, adequate sex education for teenagers. In each and every case, he demonstrates how religious thought has too often been heeded, resulting in dismantling credible science education, including sex education, and harming greater public understanding of the science behind biological evolution. My only cautionary note here is that Otto is not giving credit where credit is due to theistic scientists like Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller and religious leaders like the Dalai Lama who recognize that their respective faiths should endorse greater public awareness and understanding of science, with the Dalai Lama famously noting that if Buddhism is wrong and science is right, then Buddhism should conform with science. I also suspect that Miller and former National Center for Science Education director Eugenie C. Scott’s efforts in engaging with religious leaders – other notable instances include Michael Zimmerman’s Clergy Letter Project and noted evolutionary ecologist Edward O. Wilson’s efforts at reaching common ground with those creationist-leaning Evangelical Christians interested in preserving Earth’s biodiversity - may ultimately be more successful than the “slash and burn” tactics advocated by some militant New Atheists, including one notable figure interviewed by Otto.

Otto devotes a surprisingly large portion of his chapter on “The Industrial War of Science” to the rise of modern advertising in the United States, but it’s a history worth noting, since that includes numerous efforts by industry to cast ample doubt on “unsettled” science, whether it is smoking as a primary cause of cancer – which was recognized as early as the 1930s by the Nazis, who banned smoking in public places – or ongoing debates over the “reality” of climate change. Otto describes how industry has been successful in casting ample doubt on the “reality” of climate change, which he regards as the newest form of science denialism, much younger, in fact, than the vaccine denialism of disgraced ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield and his intellectual forebears in Great Britain, including an early episode in the middle of the 19th Century. Much of his discussion on contemporary climate change denialism deals of course with political intrigue in the Bush and Obama administrations, and especially in the United States Congress, with Otto offering us a cautionary tale regarding how pervasive scientific ignorance exists within the halls of Congress as well as within the White House.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Otto’s encyclopedic overview of science denialism in the United States, there should be agreement that Otto has clearly thought long and hard about what needs to be done, going as far as offering battle plans for politicians, journalists, scientists and the general public to help combat and eventually, defeat, the ongoing war on science in the United States, which has its parallels overseas, in Great Britain, the rest of Europe, and, to an extent, in South Korea and much of the Muslim world. He calls upon politicians, including local ones, to acquire credible science advisors. One important bit of advice that Otto gives to journalists is that they need to cease striving to be “objective” when dealing with vaccine denialism, evolution denialism and climate change denialism, especially since overwhelming scientific evidence supports those critical of these science denialist movements. He also urges scientists to become more politically involved, as a means of furthering greater public understanding of science and perhaps, more importantly, to ensure that the United States remains the democratic republic founded on its core values, including knowledge and appreciation of science. To his everlasting credit, Otto has written one of the most important – and necessary – books of our time, describing how we can win the ongoing war against science, and one that deserves a wide readership from a vast audience, not only those of us concerned with fostering greater scientific literacy here in the United States.

[Alan Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is very good at presenting and corroborating most of its major arguments. I was less impressed with some of the details. Science writers like Mr. Otto often have an excellent grasp of what science is all about. They are, unfortunately, often less knowledgeable about history and political philosophy. Another example of this phenomenon is discussed in my review of Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc. But then it is probably impossible to acquire an expertise in all relevant fields, each of which would require something on the order of a lifetime to master.

The main arguments of the book, which I heartily endorse, are as follows. First, science, properly speaking, is based on evidence and critical thinking. Feelings, opinions, popular memes, and so forth mean nothing to science. At the beginning of chapter 11, Mr. Otto quotes, with approval, the famous scientist Richard Feynman on this subject: "The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty." Some of the best discussions in The War on Science are elaborations of this theme.

Otto properly criticizes contemporary left-wing postmodernism for wanting to replace objective facts with subjectivity and relativism. Academic postmodernists have gone so far as to argue that there are no objective facts, that every view in science is subjective, and that science should therefore be made a wing of the humanities. That this kind of tripe is taught in many American colleges and universities today constitutes a travesty of what education should be. I entirely agree with the author on his indictment of postmodernist thought.

Otto also observes the essential similarity of postmodernist and Religious Right thinking: both reject objectivity in favor of subjectivism. For example, according to the "young earth" creationists, the devil placed fossils in the earth in order to deceive us. The Religious Right, like postmodernism, has no place for science unless they themselves can control it.

The Religious Right, in turn, has made a devil's bargain with certain industrial interests and their public relations gurus. Those industrial interests are adamantly opposed to any scientific evidence supporting an argument that humans have caused climate change. The public relations spin doctors for these industrialists have adopted the tactics that the tobacco interests perfected in the twentieth century. The Religious Right is fine with this attack as long as they can also perpetrate their antiscience agenda regarding evolution and reproductive matters.

It is not possible in this review to discuss all the arguments Mr. Otto makes regarding the foregoing and related challenges to science. Suffice it to say that his arguments are mostly excellent. Otto also elaborates how many scientists have allowed themselves to be used in a manner that is detrimental to the environment and public health, not to mention such military applications as the hydrogen bomb.

Now I must address where the author departs, in my judgment, from objective facts in areas in which his knowledge is clearly incomplete. I have space to discuss only one example. At various points throughout the book, Mr. Otto praises the Puritans for their dedication to inductive and experimental science. He even goes so far as to quote a speech by President Ronald Reagan that extolled the "city upon a hill" trope initiated, in this country, by John Winthrop, the most important Puritan governor of the colony of Massachusetts Bay during the seventeenth century.

Otto is partly correct. Winthrop's son, John Winthrop, Jr., was himself interested in scientific matters as were some other Puritan thinkers. But it is exceedingly strange that Otto does not address the other side of the Puritan coin. Winthrop's colony of Massachusetts Bay was a theocracy that prosecuted and persecuted people solely on account of their expression of religious views. The Massachusetts Bay government hanged four Quakers, whipped and imprisoned Baptists, and exiled Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and others. The details are elaborated and corroborated in Alan E. Johnson, The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (Philosophia, 2015), especially chapter 2 and appendix B. One of the themes of Otto's book is the contrast between antiauthoritarian science and authoritarian threats to science. He seems to imply that the Puritans were antiauthoritarian, but an understanding of their history, known to every American historian, shows them to be theologically narrow and politically ruthless in rooting out what they regarded as heresy or blasphemy.

Nevertheless, the virtues of this book outweigh its defects. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in giving it a four-star rating. My only regret is that I could not, in view of its occasional historical inaccuracies, assign five stars to it.

(minor edits on 9/9/2017)

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favorite (among many) quotes from this book:

"We are living in a time of supranational corporations and a global economy based on feudalism and the false, unexamined assumption that the world is effectively unlimited."

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's late at night and I'm tired. I have neither the time nor the available brain cells to write notes on this long book that would do it justice. Suffice it to say that it offers an enormously exhaustive primer on the ongoing war that's being waged against inconvenient science by vested interests of various kinds, most notably corporate and political, primarily in this country but with due attention given to others. Otto gives us extensive historical background, too, so we can see where the modern mess -- culminating, for the moment, in Trump withdrawing us from the Paris Accord -- has come from.

I very rarely say that books are important, but I think that this one is. Very. It's also astonishingly readable: I found myself turning the pages almost as if I were reading a novel. There are moments of minor repetition, presumably because this is a revised and very much amplified edition of Otto's earlier book Fool Me Twice; but that's barely an irritation in the context of this hugely impressive enterprise.

Wholeheartedly recommended.

[Leigh Pomeroy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Earlier this summer I recommended three excellent reads in "Tired of all Trump, all the time? Enlighten yourself with these books": Dark Money by Jane Mayer, Lab Girl by Hope Jahren and Tipping Point for Planet Earth by Anthony D. Barnosky & Elizabeth A. Hadly.

Now I'm going to add a fourth:  The War on Science by Shawn Otto.

My first impressions of the book were:

1. It was originally released in paperback, not hardcover.

2. It was not your usual 250-page popular science book but a 426-page hefty tome that could double as an adequate doorstop.

But it is far from a doorstop. Rather, it is a must-read for anyone who cares about the planet and its future.

Granted, it is at times a thick slog. It starts very slowly, including a long list of questions bunched into one long, nearly two-page paragraph. Right away I was thinking: Why wasn't this put into an easy-to-read list?

But once Otto gets into the meat of things with an overview of the history of politics and science, the book sings with detail.

Only once does it falter after that, giving (I think) much more emphasis on postmodernism than this mostly silly intellectual diversion deserves. But then Otto has a point: That science bashing on the intellectual left can be as dangerous as on the intellectual right or from fundamentalist religious movements.

In The War on Science Otto covers a lot. In fact, I can't think of anything he doesn't touch upon. He even addresses issues that seem peripheral to his thesis but that resonate strongly with me and others I know in academia: for example, the current thrust by universities to "overempower" administrations at the expense of faculty and the learning environment, and to be job trainers rather than pure educators.

That said, I can't think of any book today that better covers the grand scheme of the interaction of science and antiscience, all mixed in with politics, religion, economics, short-term thinking and pure corporate greed.

In short, do NOT read this book at your own peril!

[David Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

The War on Science is a must read book for scientists and anyone even remotely interested in science or policy or politics or decision-making or life. Yes, that means you.

The book is actually much more than the title suggests. Shawn Otto (one of the founders of ScienceDebate.org) delves deep into the history of science, but also in the psychological, sociological, political, educational, and religious histories and their interactions with science. He points out that the early leaders of this nation were promoters of science. George Washington said "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of Science and Literature." Jefferson heavily promoted science during his presidency and noted as he was leaving office that "Science is my passion, politics my duty." Great Republicans presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and William McKinley all emphasized the importance of science and technology. The author notes that Republicans were once the party of progressive optimism and tolerance, of environmentalism and finance, of rationalism and national parks. Only recently have Republicans turned against science. [But Democrats have their anti-science as well, which he discusses]

The reasons for this turn toward antiscience are discussed in great detail. Otto digs into the history of religious intolerance for science that contradicts scripture, most notably by the excommunication of Galileo (who, ironically, was devoutly religious), but also with many other examples ranging through history to today. He examines the interplay of antiscience and "freedom," including how fear of annihilation from Cold War/nuclear weapons led to the "live for today" attitude of the 1960s. But not just nihilism, this constant stress and attachment to the "military-industrial complex" caused a suspicion of science.

Further, the book delves into the turn towards postmodernism, which denied the existence of objective truth, claiming that all "truth" is subjectively in the eye of the beholder and that your opinion (often, ignorance) is as good as decades of scientific fact. This postmodernist believe severely damages education, where no longer are students expected to learn from accumulated facts but how they "feel" about reality. The media promotes this subjectivism, combined with the need to create controversy to garner ratings, as well as promote "false balance." All of these erode citizen confidence in science for no reason other than to assuage their fears of the unknown.

Otto also takes a closer look at the "three-front war on science" from identity politics, ideology, and industry. All three provide substantial and substantive background and analysis and should be read closely. The third, "The Industrial War on Science," is extensive and examines the long and fruitful strategies of industries (often working in tandem with religion and media) to deny established science and delay or eliminate any policy action. We saw this for decades as the tobacco industry denied smoking causes cancer, and today as fossil fuel and libertarian lobbyists deny man-made climate change, as well as many other examples. Otto documents in detail the tactics used by denier lobbyists and their hired spokespeople; even quoting from their own strategy materials. He shows also how companies like Exxon and the Koch companies shifted from paying directly to denier front groups to slipping the money in through "dark money" vehicles like Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund.

The final three chapters look at "winning the war" in the sense of how do scientists and others battle against the misinformation of identity politics, ideologies, and industrial disinformation campaigns. In short, it isn't easy. Otto discusses how to engage in conversations in ways people can relate to. He also proposes a series of 14 "battle plans" to communicate science and overcome denial. The plans begin with something as simple as "doing something;" getting out there and trying to communicate. They continue with specific actions like creating a science advisory organization, pushing for science debates, using science advisors more effectively, and reaching out to religious, educational, and political leaders to help them understand the importance of science and its role in policy making. Otto also suggests that scientists need to fight back against the harassment, disinformation, and personal attacks of denial organizations.

All of this can get rather intense. The book is dense in both information and thought. Otto has done tremendous research in a wide range of science and sociological history to develop the incredible insights he displays in this book. I highly recommend that all scientists read it, but I also highly recommend everyone who has an interest in honest discussion and policy making to read it. Finally, every responsible American citizen should read it as it helps put into context our role as citizens in this democracy.

[Justin Dittburner · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think this book does a good job of selling itself to the audience that it is intended for but I think itself is a part of a broader issue within science at the moment.

This book provides massive amounts of evidence regarding pushback against scientific findings by religious groups, conservatives, hippies, tobacco companies, and energy companies. The section on industry capture by those two industries is interesting because it goes into the strategic use of propoganda from the early 1900s until today.

I think the book fails itself by taking unspoken sides and then failing to argue against certain positions which it dismisses outright, many times in ways that are quite egregious. I'll list some major issues in an unstructured format.

The author compares Billy Graham's (and other televangelist types) use of television and radio to that of Nazi propaganda with the only connection being that they both use technology to deliver a message. This comparison is blatantly done in bad faith.

There are many unexcusable dismissals of viewpoints in this book with many strawman arguments being set up and then disregarded without further discussion. I understand why they do this in many cases, and oftentimes will agree with the author, but I cannot overlook this unscientific dismissal of ideas in a book predicated on science.

The book hammers the point that any questioning of climate science is the work of energy companies, yet dismisses concerns around pharma companies as conspiratorial with the only evidence provided being that vaccines don't cause autism. Pharma lobbying is triple that of oil/gas, yet we are to believe that their connection to science is one of purely good will?

The idea that oil/gas and tobacco are the bogeymen to blame for corporate capture of science while ignoring agriculture/pharma/food/tech companies is a pretty glaring blind spot. This immediately discredits the entire premise of the book in my eyes. You cannot claim to take sides in a war and ignore major combatants.

There is a section on postmodernism which pays lip service to critiquing ideological capture but doesn't seem to give it enough credit considering how pervasive of an issue this has become.

Quite frankly, this book views Science as a religion and the attitudes and framing of the book are the exact messaging issues that have created a loss of public trust in science that has continued to degrade year after year.

The book would be great for anyone looking for confirmation bias. The reader is meant to feel self righteous, moral, and intelligent. There's a lot to like about this book and I could spend plenty of time discussing that, but there are so many glaring issues with the metanarrative provided that cannot be overlooked. There's some great political history provided and much of the analysis is accurate. The failures of the book are subtle but foundational.

I will be putting this book in a free little library, I know there are plenty of people who will greatly enjoy this book. I am not one of them.

[Conor Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book wonderfully describes how we got to our current state of science denial in our culture. From religious fundamentalists rejecting evolution, to corporate interests spreading misinformation regarding climate change and a journalistic culture convinced that "there is no such thing as objectivity" which makes such science denial possible.

Shawn Otto makes the compelling case that the war on science is not merely a war on knowledge, but also a war on democracy. He argues that the ability to objectively observe and test reality in order to gain knowledge is our greatest check against authoritarian regimes. I must say, given the long history of authoritarian regimes attacking scientific and other academic endeavors, I can't help but agree.

Ultimately, I did find this story disheartening. The forces waging the war are numerous and devious. To fight them will require a concerted effort not just of scientist, but of all citizens who see the value of science. While I would like to believe this is possible, I can't help but have my doubts.

[Ashley K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome book, I learned a ton. Here are just a few quick notes about the main points or most interesting tidbits that stuck out to me. Apologies for oversimplifications of complex issues.

-Most journalists today not only usually lack a scientific background, but they are taught "there are two sides to every story" / "no such thing as objectivity" which lends itself to false equivalency. Meanwhile, most newspapers have cut costs by removing specialty sections like "science", making it harder for actual science reporters to find work.

-The energy corporations that are most responsible for climate change are deliberately misleading the public by following the PR playbook used by tobacco companies fifty years ago.

-Science flourishes in democratic, anti-authoritarian societies; it is inherently political, but not partisan.

-This paraphrased quote from Thomas Jefferson should be the mantra of scientists everywhere: "Science is my passion, politics my duty."

-What set the US apart & enabled scientific discovery for so long was 1) public education, 2) the university system, and 3) our tolerance and freedom that drew in talented immigrants.

-Earlier in US history (think turn-of-the-20th-century), scientists were more dependent on private funding from philanthropists, which made them necessarily better communicators-- they had to impress the public to keep the funding coming. Then (think circa WWII) the government began funding more research, which enabled scientists to turn inward, ensconce themselves in their ivory towers, and forego science communication with the public.

-At the same time, science became more specialized, so scientists found it increasingly hard to communicate even with other scientists. And churches were reaching more aggressively all the while. Sooo, now we have the major issue of many Americans (esp. baby boomers) thinking of science as something remote (maybe even sinister) that happens behind closed doors in mysterious labs by anonymous people in lab coats. We need scientists to return to the age of greater transparency, more scientists who are celebrities, more engagement with the public so people feel like they are in on the secret/part of the process.

-Startlingly few of our leaders have science backgrounds-- this needs to change. We have leaders who are unable to distinguish between facts and opinions, who have no understanding of the empirical basis of science or the value of inductive as opposed to deductive reasoning, no appreciation for the pure objectivity of science.

-People inherently believe in a "just world" (which leads to victim-blaming); the more apocalyptic our messaging about climate change, the more people's brains will simply reject it. The idea that innocent children will be hurt by climate change is so unjust that people can't fully process it.

-The first evidence for global warming emerged in 1824 with Joseph Fourier's experiments (yup, almost 200 years ago. Sigh) and has only gotten increasingly strong since.

[Mimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Otto explains the methodology behind attacks by vested corporate interests on scientific conclusions that might hurt their business, public good be damned. From asbestos manufacturers to tobacco to climate change, these business moguls have developed a multi-phase plan to attack scientific conclusions by vastly exaggerating "uncertainty' in the data and launching ad hominem attacks on scientists themselves. Scientists need to become more aware of the threat and more communicative in making their results public.

Based on the number of people who marched with us in the rain on April 22, 2017 in the D.C. March for Science, it's clear to me that the alarm has been sounded and they have awakened. Let the Battle for Reason and Truth begin!

[Collin Duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I rarely find a book, fiction or otherwise, worth five stars. This book is worth a solid six.

First off, let me preface by saying this isn't your usual book bemoaning the "war on science" blaming some partisan politics with tired rhetoric. This book is completely bipartisan and is cruel to anyone and everyone that denies basic science. Deny global warming? Hate GMOs? This book targets any and all. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, a Republican or something else...if you appreciate and respect the validity of science, then this book is for you. And if you don't respect the validity of science, then you are who this book is about. Perhaps you, too, should read it.

That's to say this book is apolitical. It's very political, but it's political in the sense that Otto wants to see more done to support science and proper scientific education and he doesn't particularly care who does it as long as they get their shit together.

Make no mistake: This is not a light book. Despite it's rather small stature, it is text heavy with a small font and crams lots of information into its form. It's incredibly dense and jams reams of information into its pages. It's meticulously documented, almost to a ridiculous extent, but that's a good thing....very little in here is conjecture and this book becomes more of a desk reference for all things scientific debate than anything else. It's a guide, a how-to manual and a whole lot of facts jammed into a single volume that could probably have been a good three volumes. That said, the author deftly keeps his writing style accessible and very little here was something I would deem difficult material for the layman to understand. This isn't a textbook and it isn't even popular science; it's a tirade against a culture that is rejecting science as a whole. I found it easy to read and digest and although it was heavy material it was very well broken up and made reading it easy in chunks.

Everyone in America should read this book. Buy it now. Read it. I don't care if you regret it...this is one for your shelf.

[Melissa · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yeah, I did drop this down to one star--because honestly there are so many fallacies, poorly made arguments, and questionable statements that I really can't recommend it. On top of that, it's freaking long.

One of my biggest issues is an argument he comes back to throughout the book, that knowledge = power, and because science contributes to knowledge that's why science is political and has been attacked by societal institutions like industry and religion for the past several hundred years. But that's just not true. Power is the ability to create change, which requires a lot more than knowledge. Knowledge can be one meaningful step towards creating change. But there's so much more to it than that. Science is political because it's a process conducted by humans, who inevitably have to make choices about the allocation of resources and its impacts--that's politics.

Otto also spends a mindnumbingly long chapter railing against postmodernism as one of the main reasons science has been undermined and under attack by the left but then was also coopted as an argument against science by the right. But there's no evidence to back this up at all--he presents no arguments about curriculum changes for example, that could be attributed to postmodernism undermining science.

There's some interesting takeaways in the chapter on how industry is attacking science, but unfortunately that work has already been written better by others (Naomi Oreskes, Neela Banerjee.)

There's also some really cringey moments (possibly in the postmodernism chapter, I'm not really sure how he tied it in) where he talks about how diverse classrooms are bad...he doesn't go full on eugenics or separate-but-equal or anything, but it's really apparent that he stops short of saying what he really wants to say, and it's fairly alarming.

Anyway, long story short--don't read this.

[Julie A · Rating 5 out of 5]

Otto brilliantly and entertainingly weaves the links between scientific exploration, aesthetics, equality and democracy into a critique of the marginalization of science in public discourse and policy making, and its implications for the future of our democratic experiment and the planet. As an economist and former legislator, I could not recommend it more highly.

The book’s arguments extend well beyond the attack on science, to the diminished role more generally of research, knowledge, critical thinking, and expertise in political leadership and policy making. Otto then provides hope and a path forward by outlining specific actions that can be undertaken by the education, journalism, legal, religious, business, policy and foreign policy communities to turn this around.

A must read for anyone interested in the critical question Otto closes with: whether “we, the people, remain well enough informed to be trusted with our own government?” And certainly for those who think public policy outcomes, especially when they impact the very viability of our existence on the planet, should be by guided by research, not faith and opinion. One would hope that includes most all of us – those who support the anti-authoritarian vision of our founding fathers.

[Larina · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author does a good job of pointing out how dependent our economy and very civilization are on science; how partisanship and public policy impact the way science is understood and used; and how woefully ignorant of science policy-makers are. What a mess we’ve created of our planet, the environment, and human health because of elected science-deniers. The religious far-right are leading the war on science to promote their ideology in a way very reminiscent of the dark ages. We are being taken down a dark path by authoritarians who only view the world in terms of what’s good for their personal status and wealth rather than in terms of what’s good for the planet and future generations. The author sets forth a bold agenda for bringing science back into the forefront. He is one of the co-creators of Science Debate: https://actionnetwork.org/forms/scien...

[Eric Gilliland · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[Paperclippe · Rating 2 out of 5]

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

[Max Nova · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The War on Science" does a good job of contextualizing the current science/politics debate but is unevenly written and methinks it smacks a bit too much of half-baked undergraduate political ranting. Otto's book gave me a better understanding of recent anti-science political history and helped me frame the current issues, but his grandiose Malthusian rhetoric and interminable list of political recommendations at the end of the book made me doubt his reliability. There are some good ideas in here, but it takes some work to sift them out from the fluff.

Otto's thesis goes something like this:

* Scientists have lost touch with the public since Vannevar Bush's massive program of federal science funding made science a fear-driven national security issue and decoupled it from popular support. This has led to a serious decline in science outreach.
* As a result, the average voter has little understanding or appreciation of science. The specialization and complexity of modern science don't make this any easier.
* The post-modern academic left set the stage for the current anti-science movement by arguing that everything is a matter of perspective and there is no objective truth. As a society, we no longer have a standard for the "common authority of evidence".
* Modern journalists do a massive disservice to science by presenting "both sides" of an issue with equal weight because they don't believe in objective facts.
* The evangelical right uses this as a philosophical basis for resisting scientific advances that oppose their beliefs (evolution, reproductive controls, etc).
* Big corporations manipulate the post-modern media (à la Bernays) to build popular support among the evangelical right for anti-science, pro-business objectives.

I was surprised that Otto tackled the academic left head-on. During my time in college, anti-science was discussed as an exclusively right-wing issue, so it was refreshing to see Otto discuss leftist anti-science bugbears (fluoridation, vaccination, and GMOs). But Otto reveals his leftist Malthusian tendencies by favorably citing Paul Ehrlich (of "The Population Bomb" notoriety) and by evidence-free rhetoric such as:

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

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

The relationship between science, religion, and government is the source of Otto's most interesting questions. Regarding the increasingly complicated and arcane nature of highly-specialized science, he asks:

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

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

Full review and highlights at http://books.max-nova.com/war-on-science/

[Ben Slivka · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another piece of CO2 Climate Alarmism rubbish.
If you want to understand the real war on science, please read the 7/2025 "The War on Science" edited by Lawrence M. Krauss.

[AudioBookReviewer · Rating 5 out of 5]

My original The War on Science audiobook review and many others can be found at Audiobook Reviewer.

In an emergency, medics are taught to look for those that are not speaking among those who are screaming for help. In a similar light, we may be missing those most important scientific voices because they can’t be heard above the din of media attention some unscientific work gets. In the audiobook, The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It, by Shawn Otto, it’s clear that the issue is complex and he doesn’t shy away from the whole story. In this 20- hour volume, which resembles an eloquent offering from the Great Courses line-up, we get the full story from beginning to end, that we as a country, are often in the dark.

The volume couldn’t be timelier as the new administration, whether you are for or against, puts stops on the dissemination of information from the USDA, the CDC, and EPA. Before tackling the current issues, it makes sense to look back at the rise and decline of our leader's desire for scientific evidence.

Who would want to listen to twenty hours of content? Scientists. policymakers, and those with a vested interest in science and government that want the free and transparent distribution of information. The writing is at a very high and sometimes inaccessible level for many and the sheer depth of research would normally make it difficult to digest. However, the logic is sound, the arguments clear, and well documented. The expectation for many would be to listen from beginning to end, but with multiple parts, chronological movement from a presidential policy of one administration to another, it becomes difficult to follow if in that way. It is really, I believe, a great catalyst for upper-level undergraduate or graduate classroom discussion. The book provides a great return on investment for the single credit Audible charges.

About the Narrator

Peter Berkrot is a veteran narrator with a few hundred titles on Audible.com alone. I first listened to him with The Design of Everyday Things, a classic from Donald A. Norman and his voice works especially well for non-fiction. With his readings of the 30-hour Untold History of the United States and other classics, it’s not just a veteran narrator, but a key fit.

Audiobook was provided for review by the publisher.

[Viral · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book. I am someone who is really passionate about science communication, and was hoping to learn something valuable from this book. While it has some good sections, it's very dense, fairly unapproachable/jargon heavy, and I strongly disagree with one of the sections of the book.

Otto argues there are three wars being waged on science: one by industry, one by religious conservatives, and one by "identity politics" post-modernist liberals. I don't disagree with the points he makes in the first two sections. I also don't disagree that there are liberals who harbor anti-science positions (don't get vaccinated, believe untrue things about GMOs). But his argument for that section is that "post-modernists" have spread the idea that objectivity is a lie, which Otto does not agree with, and that this is what enables the wars on science waged by industry and religious conservatives. First of all, liberal anti-science rhetoric is fairly minuscule in scope and reach compared to conservative anti-science rhetoric, which has the material backing of a well funded church network and industry network. Second of all, the argument that science is completely objective is a lie. There is (as far as we can tell) an objective reality. But humans are subjective beings with subjective experiences. We can never truly experience objectivity. We can try to get close to it, we can try to control for our natural limitations, but it exists nevertheless. Science is pragmatic; it is a process that produces solutions, and when those solutions fail us, we seek new ones. It's a dynamic process that is constantly tweaked to serve our needs, so by definition, it cannot possess this "view from nowhere" objectivity. And yes, our experiences do shape our understanding of the world, Otto. People may not experience gravity differently, but they certainly have differences in how they are taught about science, how they are shown science is relevant to them, and how it can be used to help or harm their lives. Otto argues that the Iraq War happened because a postmodernist rejection of truth enabled "many truths" about the situation to flourish. I argue the Iraq War happened because politicians working closely with their corporate allies wanted to make some money and took advantage of peoples latent Islamophobia to justify a military invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Which explanation makes more sense to you?

We needed a better book. I'm disappointed. Do not recommend.

[Javier · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Cleokatra · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[John Findlay · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a scientist, I have been appalled by the misinformation that I encounter every day on subjects such as Climate Change. So this book appealed to me greatly, and confirmed what I had long recognized. Otto blames journalism for much of the problem. Apparently journalism schools now teach that there is no such thing as objective truth, and also that the job of a journalist is simply to present both sides of an argument without judgement. While this may be a good approach for social or political issues, it is the WRONG approach for science. Many times there is an objective truth. For instance, 2 + 2 = 4. We don't need to give some nutjob who argues that the answer is really 5 equal time. Yet that is how journalists treat science. They put well-established science, with a compelling collection of objective data and evidence, on the same footing as pure opinion backed up by little or no data, and create the impression that the science is not settled. Clearly Climate Change is one example of this. Another is evolution. One issue is that science, which observes and measures the natural world, is never able to conclusively say that any theory is proved. All that can be said is that it is proved by a "preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" leaving a tiny crack for those opposing science to seize on. The word "theory" has a different meaning for scientists than it does to the general public. Gravity is a theory. Newton's laws are theories. The rotation of the earth around the sun is a theory. These are all well-proven theories. Today, Climate Change and Evolution are similar theories. We don't need to give equal time to those who disagree. Journalists need to distinguish between well-supported generally accepted "theories" and outright, unsubstantiated opinions. Otto has many ideas as to how scientists can do a better job of fighting back in the "War on Science". They need to be more vocal, more involved politically. There need to be more science advisors to politicians who are most frequently untrained and semi-literate in science. I felt the book was longer than it needed to be, but it was filled with new concepts and ideas. I enjoyed his interpretation of the history of science in America, and how it fell in and out of favor over different decades. And I agree with his insistence that we not only fund applied science, with clear short-term benefits, but also basic research. I was somewhat surprised that he did not use the "Human Genome Project" as an example of the latter. In a world that is so dependent on science, it is absurd that politicians try so hard to discredit it. Otto points out that it is attacked both by conservatives, who fight evolution, climate change, and in vitro fertilization, and by leftist liberals who fight vaccination and genetically-modified crops. It is abundantly clear that whole industries hire pseudo-scientists to create disinformation to imply that the science is "not settled". In some instances, the same individuals who worked with the tobacco companies to confuse the public about the link between smoking and lung cancer now work with the fossil fuel companies to create confusion around the effects of carbon dioxide on climate change. ("Merchants of Doubt" is another good book to read).
I could go on and on, but the best recommendation is to simply read this book. You will learn a lot, and come away with a new appreciation of how real science has been discredited from both sides.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anyone following the politics of science and technology in the US would see that public policy and democratic institutions are questioning science, but also seeking its legitimacy. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be the "War over Science". Otto's analysis shows that the war *on* science is being waged on three fronts. First by post-modernists liberals who see truth as subjective and morality is relative. Second by religious conservatives who see truth as objective and faith-based, and morality is absolute. Third is by industrial corporate interests who seek to manipulate the ideological conflict to their economic advantage.

So far, so good. I have no problem with the explanation of how science is manipulated for political gain and discounted when it challenges a political ideology. Building the case takes far too long and rehashes debates that go back centuries. At least to Galileo and arguably to Aristotle or even the writing of the Old Testament. While the context needs to be set, how many times do we need to be reminded of the history of the Enlightenment to get to the present day? The shift of the Protestants from defenders of the Enlightenment to the enemies of science is superficial and incomplete, as is the shift of Catholics from running the inquisition to proposing the Big Bang hypothesis.

The bigger problem is that the author cherry-picks the data and is selective in his case studies. In my field, agriculture, the author makes several unsubstantiated or at least disputable claims. These are mostly related to the adoption of genetically modified crops. To take one prominent example, he makes a claim that there is no evidence that glyphosate tolerant crops increased herbicide use. That is empirically false. The other, more disturbing thing is that he overlooks Monsanto's long history of falsifying scientific evidence, suppressing data, and intimidating researchers who challenged the safety of their products. Monsanto lost the glyphosate cases, not because their products were unsafe, but because they knowingly and willfully misrepresented their safety. Is this really the kind of "science" we want to support?

Even if one accepts the author's unsubstantiated or selectively referenced assertions of the safety of genetic engineering, he overlooks the economic and ecological consequences. Bacon's inductive model became the dominant paradigm over Descartes; deductive model for a reason, as the author reminds us. However, that leaves out a vast array of knowledge not fully explained by either model. It is easy to dismiss those who seek to develop holistic models as cranks and crackpots, but that does not refute their critique of reductionism. Ecology and systems theory are not necessarily wrapped up in the Post-Modern / New-Age mantle, and it is unfair to dismiss it as such.

Finally, the book is already dated because it was published in 2016. Trump is barely mentioned, and when he is, he is not viewed as a serious threat to scientific inquiry or the truth. I have no doubt that those events and the on-going partisan polarization has changed the way that science is dealt with in the United States after the book was published. The recommended path forward faces a more partisan and divisive challenge over science and the truth than when it was published and a different strategy from what the author proposed needs to be developed.