What do you think?
Rate this book
Scientocracy: The Tangled Web of Public Science and Public Policy
Scientific research is the time-honored key to objective knowledge. In the past it was funded pluralistically, but today certain portions of the market for knowledge are dominated by a single buyer, namely the government. This is especially true in the research fields that impinge on the regulatory sphere, such as pollution and climate change. As discussed in The Tangled Web of Public Science and Public Policy , science today is in systematic trouble. The popular notion is that science is a force for good. Knowledge, derived from theory and experiment, gives rise to technological advancement, which results in improved lives for all. The editors and authors of this book believe that this is not always the case. Science can be a force for good, and it has enhanced our lives in countless ways, but even a cursory look at the last century shows that what passes for “science” can be detrimental. This book examines a number of recent abuses of science in research areas including nutrition, pollution, drugs and the opioid crisis, and global warming. Please don't let this book make you into a science cynic. Science has done much for us under both public and private funding; we certainly live longer, healthier lives! Many fundamental questions have been answered, especially in physics. We look forward to a future of still more vigorous scientific discovery; we ask only that science be structured in a more polycentric manner, and less subject to authoritarian abuse. We believe that the chapters you are about to read will more than justify these desires.
- GenresScienceNonfiction
365 pages, Paperback
First published November 7, 2019
9 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 2, 2020
After WWII Vannevar Bush wrote an influential paper which helped to define the Federal approach to scientific research. What developed over a very short time was a strategy to fund scientific research which would concentrate on dealing with fundamental questions of science. A division was created between basic (advancing knowledge of fundamental scientific questions) and applied research. (Taking that scientific knowledge and using it for specific projects or activities). The Feds and specifically the National Science Foundation would fund those things which would advance knowledge and allow others to fund applied research. A second fundamental assumption of the Bush paper was that it would require the best scientific minds to evaluate proposals for research (peer review).
The concept is not as clear as Bush made it out to be - either between basic and applied research or in how to conduct peer related research. This book examines several issues where federal processes have at times been driven not by the original peer assumptions but by groupthink and cronyism.
The book then uses a series of essays on topics like the Salt-Hypertension and Fats debates on diet; Opioids and Drugs; Radiation and Carcinogens. There are also chapters on issues like Climate change and some EPA regulation writing. In each there is significant evidence that the peer process has often been driven not by objective standards but by interests of the individual bureaucrats running the process or of the peer reviewers who are being funded by the agency making the grants.
Two examples at the end of the book are especially telling. There are good chapters on the potential and actual errors on CO2 modeling and studies on particulate matter which suggest that alternative conclusions to the established orthodoxy are well justified. Perhaps one of the most interesting is one on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska - where the author presents compelling evidence that officials in the EPA have violated their own rules for making a decision.
Obviously, if the federal government is going to fund research - it needs a process which funds only the best research. And one can certainly make a case that all of the funded research is not perverted by these kinds of self-interested manipulations. What the book does best is to point out in each of these areas that we need to think more carefully about where the best place to fund research is and how to assure that as Thomas Kuhn pointed out long ago - that new ideas can creep into established paradigms.
The concept is not as clear as Bush made it out to be - either between basic and applied research or in how to conduct peer related research. This book examines several issues where federal processes have at times been driven not by the original peer assumptions but by groupthink and cronyism.
The book then uses a series of essays on topics like the Salt-Hypertension and Fats debates on diet; Opioids and Drugs; Radiation and Carcinogens. There are also chapters on issues like Climate change and some EPA regulation writing. In each there is significant evidence that the peer process has often been driven not by objective standards but by interests of the individual bureaucrats running the process or of the peer reviewers who are being funded by the agency making the grants.
Two examples at the end of the book are especially telling. There are good chapters on the potential and actual errors on CO2 modeling and studies on particulate matter which suggest that alternative conclusions to the established orthodoxy are well justified. Perhaps one of the most interesting is one on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska - where the author presents compelling evidence that officials in the EPA have violated their own rules for making a decision.
Obviously, if the federal government is going to fund research - it needs a process which funds only the best research. And one can certainly make a case that all of the funded research is not perverted by these kinds of self-interested manipulations. What the book does best is to point out in each of these areas that we need to think more carefully about where the best place to fund research is and how to assure that as Thomas Kuhn pointed out long ago - that new ideas can creep into established paradigms.
November 14, 2021
We need more books like this
This book uses 10 examples to show how government funded science produces echo chambers that often result in policies that are economically , physically and environmentally harmful. Policies and regulations are put in place based upon the Ali test, often incorrect evidence. Once in place they are almost impossible to change . The nutrition guides that favored carbs over fats are an obvious example of negative policies. But that’s the tip of the iceberg . The most telling quote came from a senator who said we don’t have the luxury to wait for the facts to come in. We have to act now. People need to read this before blindly accepting health, climate and environmental claims made by advocates. They’re mostly wrong.
This book uses 10 examples to show how government funded science produces echo chambers that often result in policies that are economically , physically and environmentally harmful. Policies and regulations are put in place based upon the Ali test, often incorrect evidence. Once in place they are almost impossible to change . The nutrition guides that favored carbs over fats are an obvious example of negative policies. But that’s the tip of the iceberg . The most telling quote came from a senator who said we don’t have the luxury to wait for the facts to come in. We have to act now. People need to read this before blindly accepting health, climate and environmental claims made by advocates. They’re mostly wrong.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews