DOCSLIB.ORG

To Know Or Better Not To: Agnotology and the Social Construction of Ignorance in Commercially Driven Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
To Know Or Better Not To: Agnotology and the Social Construction of Ignorance in Commercially Driven Research Article Fernández Pinto To Know or Better Not to: Agnotology and the Social Construction of Ignorance in Commercially Driven Research Manuela Fernández Pinto Departamento de Filosofía, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia / [email protected] Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Abstract With an innovative perspective on the social character of ignorance production, agnotology has been a fruitful approach for understanding the social and epistemological consequences of the interaction between industry and scientif c research. In this paper, I argue that agnotology, or the study of ignorance, contributes to a better understanding of commercially driven research and its societal impact, showing the ways in which industrial interests have reshaped the epistemic aims of traditional scientif c practices, turning them into mechanisms of ignorance production. To do so, I examine some of the main contributions to agnotology and provide a taxonomy of practices of ignorance construction common in commercially driven research today. In particular, I present the tobacco industry’s campaign against the health hazards of smoking as a paradigmatic case of ignorance production, identifying f ve central strategies. I then argue that the same strategies have been used in three other cases — global warming, pharmaceuticals, and the 2008 f nancial crisis. Keywords: agnotology, commercially driven science, social construction of ignorance. Introduction Through the 20th century, the social organization 1980s, led to major changes in the organization of of scientif c research had radical transformations, research and development (R&D) in the U.S. (Der- from big in-house corporate labs fueled by major touzos, 1989: 306; Tyson, 1992: 291; Hunt, 1999: U.S. corporations, such as DuPont and General 19; Hart, 2001: 930; Coriat and Orsi, 2002: 1493; Electrics, to military funded projects for national Mirowski, 2011: 115). Accordingly, with the end of defense during the Cold War, to new forms of the Cold War came the transition towards a new private research in the global market, where out- regime of science organization that has reshaped sourcing and of -shoring practices have prevailed the role of science in liberal democracy (Slaugh- (Mirowski and Sent, 2008). In particular, a general ter and Rhoades, 2004; Davies et al., 2006; Fischer, concern with a loss of U.S. competitiveness in 2009; Lave et al., 2010). the global market during the late 1970s and early 53 Science & Technology Studies 30(2) The weakened intellectual property legisla- different mechanisms and practices, tradition- tion proper of the Cold War was strengthened ally tied to knowledge production, have been to accommodate the new R&D commercial reshaped and rechanneled to favor industry framework. A series of legislative Acts, trans- friendly outcomes, leading in many occasions to formed the connection between public and increasing ignorance among policy makers and private research, allowing commercial prof ting the public at large. In this paper, I aim to show of publicly funded research (Barben, 2007: 62). that the agnotological perspective contributes The Bayh-Dole Act, for instance, famously granted to a better understanding of commercially driven property rights to universities over federally scientif c research and its societal impact, showing funded research, allowing them to prof t from the ways in which industrial interests have commercially driven research: “The act enabled reshaped the epistemic aims of traditional scien- universities to enter the marketplace and to prof t tif c practices, turning them into mechanisms of directly when universities held equity positions in ignorance production. To do so, I examine some of companies built around the intellectual property the main contributions to agnotology and provide of their faculty as well as to profit indirectly a taxonomy of practices of ignorance construction when universities licensed intellectual property common in commercially driven research today. to private sector f rms” (Slaughter and Rhoades, In particular, I present the tobacco industry’s 1996: 318). campaign against the health hazards of smoking Changes in the corporate and university as a paradigmatic case of agnogenesis, i.e., of models meant changes in the organization of ignorance production, identifying five central scientif c research as well — most signif cantly, strategies. I then argue that the same strategies the in-house research lab was replaced through have been used in three other cases — global outsourcing R&D — leading to the consolida- warming, pharmaceuticals, and the 2008 f nancial tion of a new regime of science organization crisis. To conclude, I summarize some of the with a new liaison between the industrial and advantages of using the agnotological perspec- the academic sectors (Mirowski, 2011: 94). Hans tive to understand commercially driven science as Radder (2010: 4) characterizes this ongoing well as possible limitations of the approach. commercialization of academic research as “the pursuit of prof t by academic institutions through The social construction of ignorance selling the expertise of their researchers and the results of their inquiries.” As one would expect, Agnotology’s main contribution to the social the industrial influence in academic research studies of science is its understanding of igno- has become a growing concern among science rance as a social construction. This dif ers from the scholars, who have warned us against some of the traditional conception of ignorance as a natural possible consequences of commercially driven vacuum: scientific inquiry (Greenberg, 2001, 2007; Bok, 2003; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Wise, 2006; We need to think about the conscious, unconscious, and structural productions of Resnik, 2007; Radder, 2010). ignorance, its diverse causes and conformations, With an innovative perspective on the social whether brought about by neglect, forgetfulness, character of ignorance production, agnotology, myopia, extinction, secrecy, or suppression. The or the study of ignorance, has been a fruitful point is to question the naturalness of ignorance, its approach for understanding the social and epis- causes and its distribution. (Proctor, 2008: 3) temological consequences of the interaction 1 between industry and academic research. Agno- Accordingly, Proctor (2008: 3) distinguishes three tology introduces a new perspective to the studies kinds of ignorance. In the traditional sense, igno- of science, one in which the social construction of rance is understood as native state: A vacuum or ignorance becomes relevant for understanding void that needs to be replaced with knowledge. scientific practice today. In particular, agnoto- In a second sense, ignorance can be a passive con- logical studies have uncovered the ways in which struct or lost realm. This is the type of ignorance 54 Fernández Pinto that grows from the social conditions in which sci- construction and showing how their traditional ence is made, including science’s political geogra- epistemic purposes have been reshaped, this phy (who is a scientist and why, and why science paper contributes to a better understanding of is done in some places rather than others) and the the import of commercial interests on scientif c selection of certain lines of research over others. research today. In this sense, ignorance emerges from the combi- nation of decisions, circumstances and accidents The tobacco strategy that surround practices of knowledge production. th Finally, ignorance can also be an active construct The paradigmatic case of agnogenesis in the 20 or strategic ploy: It can be deliberately made and century is the U.S. tobacco industry’s denial of 2 maintained to fulf ll the interests of certain peo- the health hazards of smoking. The campaign ple. In this sense, ignorance becomes a manu- began in 1953, when Ernest L. Wynder and his factured product, instead of being a natural or colleagues at the Sloan-Kettering Institute dem- accidental result (Proctor, 2008: 6). onstrated that tobacco tars on the skin of mice The study of the social construction of caused fatal cancer (Wynder et al., 1953) and their ignorance has two central characteristics findings were published in major journals and th (Fernández Pinto, 2015: 295). First, it is construc- magazines in the U.S. On December 15 , the presi- tivist — it focuses on the manufactured character dents of four major tobacco companies (American of ignorance as a phenomenon that needs to be Tobacco, Benson and Hedges, Philip Morris and studied, explained, and dealt with, especially, U.S. Tobacco) met with John Hill, founder and CEO but not particularly, in scientif c practice today. of the famous public relations f rm Hill & Knowlton Second, agnotology in this sense is social — it is (H&K). This was the launching point of the tobacco not concerned with the individual knower, but industry’s denial campaign, in which the U.S. with the social circumstances that encourage tobacco industry together with H&K would design the production of ignorance. The agnotological and execute a strategy to counter scientif c f nd- perspective emphasizes that a better under- ings against tobacco smoking. Oreskes and Con- standing of the mechanisms through which way (2010: 6) call it the tobacco strategy: “Its target ignorance is socially created and maintained was science, and so it relied heavily on scientists would lead us to a more
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEFENCE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS the Official Journal of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence
    Volume 3 | Autumn 2017 DEFENCE STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS The official journal of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Overwriting the City: Graffiti, Communication, and Urban Contestation in Athens Putting the Strategy Back into Strategic Communications Japanese Strategic Communication: Its Significance As a Political oolT ‘You Can Count On Us’: When Malian Diplomacy Stratcommed Uncle Sam Strategic Communications, Boko Haram, and Counter-Insurgency Fake News, Fake Wars, Fake Worlds Living Post-Truth Lives … But What Comes After? ‘We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us’ Defence Strategic Communications | Volume 3 | Autumn 2017 1 ISSN 2500-9478 Defence Strategic Communications Editor-in-Chief Dr. Neville Bolt Managing Editor Linda Curika Editor Anna Reynolds Editorial Board Professor Mervyn Frost Professor Nicholas O’Shaughnessy Professor Žaneta Ozoliņa Professor J. Michael Waller Professor Natascha Zowislo-Grünewald Dr. Emma Louise Briant Dr. Nerijus Maliukevicius Dr. Agu Uudelepp Matt Armstrong Thomas Elkjer Nissen Defence Strategic Communications is an international peer-reviewed journal. The journal is a project of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (NATO StratCom COE). It is produced for scholars, policy makers and practitioners around the world. It does not represent the opinions or policies of NATO or the NATO StratCom COE. The views presented in the following articles are those of the authors alone. © All rights reserved by the NATO StratCom COE. These articles may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or publicly displayed without reference to the NATO StratCom COE and the academic journal Defence Strategic Communications. NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence Riga, Kalnciema iela 11b, Latvia LV1048 www.stratcomcoe.org Ph.: 0037167335463 [email protected] Living Post-Truth Lives … But What Comes After? 191 LIVING POST-TRUTH LIVES … BUT WHAT COMES AFTER? A review essay by Kevin Marsh Post-Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back Matthew D’Ancona.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Ignorance: on the Importance of Developing Psychoanalytic Sensibilities in Education
    TEACHING IGNORANCE: ON THE IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING PSYCHOANALYTIC SENSIBILITIES IN EDUCATION Jennifer Logue Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Lacan once remarked that there was “something quite ironic about Christ’s injunction to love thy neighbor as thyself because, actually, people hate themselves.”1 We might say, in observing the way people treat each other, perhaps they have always loved their neighbors as they’ve loved themselves: that is, “with a great deal of cruelty and disregard.”2 In his thorough engagement with Freud, Lacan theorizes that we are, at the core, ambivalent animals: wherever we love we hate, wherever we hate we love. Ambivalence does not, in the Freudian story (retold by Lacan, retold here by Adam Philips), mean mixed feelings, it means conflicting or contradictory feelings. Love and hate—too narrow concepts and so not quite accurate articulations—are the rudimentary sources, the most primary affects with which we try to make sense of our realities. They are mutually constituting in that you can’t have one without the other.3 Psychoanalytic inquiry encourages us to grapple with our often unrecognized yet structurally organizing ambivalences about anything and everything that matters to us, even as we carry on as if we are entirely rational, as if we are masters of our own house, so to speak. In other words, psychoanalytic insight informs us that we are often ignorant to our own affective (dis)investments. Can Lacan’s observation about our loving and hating our neighbors the way we love and hate ourselves
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Countering Climate Science Denial
    Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, vol. 150, part 2, 2017, pp. 207–219. ISSN 0035-9173/17/020207-13 Understanding and countering climate science denial John Cook Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Email: [email protected] Abstract Science denial causes a range of damaging impacts on society. This is particularly the case with climate science denial, which has resulted in strong polarization around a non-controversial scientific issue, and prolific dissemination of climate misinformation. This in turn has had the effect of reducing public acceptance of climate change, and eroding support for policies to mitigate climate change. In order to develop effective responses to science denial, it is necessary to first understand the drivers of science denial, which leads to deeper understanding of the techniques employed to cast doubt on the reality of climate change. Analysis of denialist techniques can inform development of interventions that neutralize misinformation. Inoculation has been shown to be an effective way to preemptively reduce the influence of climate science denial. Two methods to practically implement inoculation are misconception-based learning (teaching science by addressing scientific misconceptions) and techno- cognition (an interdisciplinary approach that implements psychological principles in the design of technological solutions to misinformation). Interventions and procedures developed for the counter- ing of climate misinformation may also be applied to other scientific topics rife with misinformation, such as vaccination and evolution. Introduction damaging and significant impacts of misin- here is an overwhelming scientific con- formation. In 2014, the World Economic T sensus that humans are causing global Forum named online misinformation as one warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Ignorance Production and Corporate Science
    IGNORANCE PRODUCTION AND CORPORATE SCIENCE by Marilena Danelon A thesis submitted to the Department of Philosophy in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (September, 2015) Copyright ©Marilena Danelon, 2015 Abstract This thesis is a philosophical exploration of “agnotology”, the study of ignorance or non- knowledge, and focuses on the production of ignorance for private interests. In particular, I argue that corporate science often deliberately produces ignorance in an effort to promote corporate interests. My thesis is structured into five chapters. In Chapter 1, I introduce agnotology and outline Robert N. Proctor’s three categories thereof: ignorance as native state, ignorance as selective choice, and ignorance as active construct. In Chapter 2, I present a review of the agnotological literature on the basis of which I argue for two expanded categories of ignorance: ignorance from ideology, and ignorance from interest. In Chapter 3, I address the question of the normative assumptions underlying agnotology. As well, given agnotology’s task of unpacking the values laden in science, agnotology’s normative conception of science may stand in tension with a conception of science as objective, neutral inquiry. In the end, I argue that agnotologists need not deny science’s objectivity when they view science as value-laden. In Chapter 4, I present a case study. Through an agnotological analysis, I argue that some HPV vaccine legislation was passed via agnogenesis. I also argue that the silencing of vaccine skeptics is a form of agnogenesis. This case, interpreted in the light of the novel agnotological framework developed in Chapters 2 and 3, supports my main thesis that corporate science serves primarily corporate interests via agnogenesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Post‐Truth and the Production of Ignorance
    Sociological Forum, 2019 DOI: 10.1111/socf.12576 © 2019 Eastern Sociological Society Post-Truth and the Production of Ignorance1 Joanna Kempner2 This essay is written in response to Fujimura and Holmes’s piece “Staying the Course,” published in the December 2019 special issue of Sociological Forum—Resistance in the Twenty-First Century. KEYWORDS: ignorance; knowledge; post-truth; power; science; technology. These days, even postmodernists might be forgiven a little nostalgia for a time when truth felt easier to grasp. Every day, we are introduced to a new disorienting fissure with what previously seemed to be obvious fact. News anchors in the United States continue to host debates about the existence of climate change, despite his- toric hurricanes that have nearly wiped out entire island nations. The public appears willing to question whether holding young children in detention for months on end meets the definition of a “concentration camp.” And many of us now wonder whether Donald Trump could, in fact, shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and then suc- cessfully deny what we have all witnessed. Given this political hellscape, it is not surprising that so many scholars have begun to question and debate the general util- ity of critique, particularly when it comes to critiques of science (Fassin 2017; Latour 2004; Sismondo 2017). Even Bruno Latour (2004)—the scholar who is per- haps most closely associated (rightly or wrongly) with the idea that facts are socially constructed—has argued that science studies scholars must now begin defending science. Fujimura and Holmes’s (2019) essay on the value of science and technology studies (STS) scholarship in relationship to the “post-truth” movement wades into this debate.
    [Show full text]
  • A Discussion Guide by Interfaith Power & Light
    A discussion guide by Interfaith Power & Light A religious response to global warming Merchants of Doubt has been selected by Interfaith Power & Light as our top choice for summer movie viewing for people of faith who are concerned about the climate crisis. The 90-minute documentary exposes a concerted strategy to create doubt about the facts of climate change through the use of pundits-for-hire who present themselves as scientific authorities. Based on the book by Naomi Oreskes, the film interviews industry reps, global warming deniers, environmentalists, and climate scientists to create a riveting behind-the-scenes look at how the fossil fuel industry has been so successful in blocking government action on climate. In Merchants of Doubt, we learn how the climate denial movement has borrowed from the playbook used by the tobacco industry for year, and how climate denial is a risky game of deception with high stakes – preying on people’s fears and creating societal division and inaction on climate. “Doubt is our product,” states a 1969 memo from the tobacco giant Brown and Williamson, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.” As people of faith, we have a special responsibility to speak the truth, especially when manufactured confusion about climate change is endangering the very people we are most called to serve: the vulnerable and the voiceless, and the whole of Creation. Throughout the history of social change there have been brave people of faith standing up to powerful forces to tell the truth, point out moral wrongs, and create a better society.
    [Show full text]
  • Paradoxes of Oreskes & Conway's “Merchants of Doubt”
    Paradoxes of Oreskes & Conway’s “Merchants of Doubt” conspiracy theory In their 2010 book, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change”, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway argue a remarkable conspiracy theory in which they claim that four physicists are singlehandedly responsible for the entire climate sceptic movement. Three of these physicists (Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg and Frederick Seitz) had been dead for several years before Oreskes & Conway wrote the book, and the remaining one of them (S. Fred Singer) sadly passed away earlier this year (April 2020). If the Merchants of Doubt conspiracy theory were genuinely true then it would actually imply that the narrative on climate change which Oreskes and Conway promote is remarkably flimsy. After all, if the science behind their narrative was as genuinely compelling as they insist, then why was the research of one retired and three deceased physicists sufficient to undermine it? Admittedly, all four scientists were highly intelligent, well-respected and accomplished scientists who had individually made substantial contributions to scientific progress over the 20th century, including in the study of the Earth’s climate. For instance, Fred Singer was one of the architects of the 1957/1958 International Geophysical Year which led to an unprecedented improvement in the world’s weather and climate monitoring systems, including the first weather satellites, and Robert Jastrow founded the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – a NASA institution with a particular focus on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. However, if Oreskes and Conway’s narrative was as scientifically rigorous as they claim, how were these four scientists still easily able to provide compelling scientific critiques against it which (according to Oreskes and Conway) majorly altered public opinion? Moreover, the book is littered with numerous logical inconsistencies in their arguments which beggar belief.
    [Show full text]
  • Merchants-Of-Doubt-Assignments.Pdf
    Discussion Guide: https://urbauerlab.uga.edu/fyo/pdfs/merchants-of-doubt-discussion-guide.pdf Background reading: -Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement -New York Times review of “Merchants of Doubt” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/movies/review-merchants-of-doubt- separating-science-from-spin.html? -Think Progress interview with Robert Kenner https://thinkprogress.org/professional-deceivers-people-who-can-convince-you-a- garbage-man-knows-more-science-than-a-nasa-phd-33a6fece3825/ 2017 Report on Climate Change: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/government-document-directly-contradicts- trump-on-climate-change-report-says.html https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09082017/climate-change-science-report- leaked-truth https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of- the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming- trump.html? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the- Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf A bit (a few sentences) of background, how this person/entity fit into the movie, and then how this person/entity contributed to (or battled against) a “war on science” Explain how/why each of the following people/entities constitute or contribute in some way to a “war on science” 1. The Oregon Petition () https://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/
    [Show full text]
  • The Government's Manufacture of Doubt
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2018 The Government's Manufacture of Doubt Helen Norton University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legal History Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Citation Information Helen Norton, The Government's Manufacture of Doubt, 16 First Amend. L. Rev. 342 (2018), https://falrunc.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/falr-volume-16-symposium-issue3.pdf, available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1183/. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE GOVERNMENT’S MANUFACTURE OF DOUBT Helen Norton* “The manufacture of doubt” refers to a speaker’s strategic efforts to undermine factual assertions that threaten its self-interest. This strategy was perhaps most famously employed by the tobacco industry in its
    [Show full text]
  • Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M
    Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway The authors are significant historians of science. The general arc of the story they tell begins when the major tobacco companies banded together and hired a powerful PR company to help them deal with the rising possibility that the federal government was about the regulate tobacco and thus negatively affect their profits. They hired Hill and Knowlton; John Hill advised them to sell doubt about the scientific findings. They did so and found several eminent scientists willing to carry their banner. Fred Seitz was an atomic scientist who as a young man worked on the Manhattan Project and helped develop the atom bomb. Another eminent physicist eagerly helping was Edward Teller, often called “the father of the hydrogen bomb.” There were others. One issue that united them all was a Cold War fierce anti- communism which saw any move toward government regulation as a huge step toward the loss of capitalism and thus of personal freedom. The effort was wide and deep and long-lasting. Think tanks were funded, national committees formed, research funded. All of this effort was to promote doubt about the scientific evidence indicting smoking tobacco as addictive and carcinogenic. And it was successful. The tobacco industry knew, from its own research, about the dangers of smoking, and its representatives continued to lie and to sow doubt. The strategies and tactics that worked for so long were soon adopted by industries and political groups to cast doubt about scientific evidence for the dangers of acid rain, asbestos, the hole in the ozone layer, second hand smoke, and now global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Oreskes CV FEB 2020
    Naomi Oreskes Professor of the History of Science Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge MA [email protected] http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/oreskes.html Education B.Sc. (First Class Honours) 1981 Royal School of Mines, Imperial College Ph.D. 1990 Stanford University (Graduate Special Program: Geological Research and History of Science) EMPLOYMENT Current Professor of the History of Science, Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University. Columnist, Scientific American magazine, “The Observatory” 2005-2013 Professor, Department of History & Program in Science Studies Adjunct Professor of Geosciences (from 2007), University of California, San Diego 2008-2011 Provost, Sixth College, University of California, San Diego 2003-2006 Director, Science Studies Program, University of California, San Diego 1998- 2005 Associate Professor, Department of History & Program in Science Studies, UCSD 1996-1998 Associate Professor, History and Philosophy of Science Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University 1991-1996 Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences and Adjunct Asst. Professor of History, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 1990-1991 Visiting Asst. Professor of Earth Sciences and Visiting Asst. Professor of History Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 1984-1989 Research Assistant, Geology Department, and Teaching Assistant, Depts. of Geology, Philosophy, and Applied Earth Sciences Stanford University 1981-1984 Geologist, Western Mining
    [Show full text]
  • The Anticommunist Origins of Climate Denial | 1
    The Anticommunist Origins of Climate Denial | 1 The other night, my wife and I saw Merchants of Doubt, Robert Kenner’s new film about the climate denial industry. I thought it was excellent. I was surprised by the high production values and the way in which it did not feel like a documentary, at least until the last 15-20 minutes or so. (Then it began to remind me of a Frontline segment.) Former Republican Congressmember Bob Inglis of South Carolina, a die-hard conservative who lost his seat when he began to advocate for grappling with climate change (as well as the DREAM Act), comes off as particularly thoughtful. For me, the most interesting part was the discussion of Fred Singer, a physicist who is a leading climate denial rock star, and the late Fred Seitz, another distinguished scientist who was also a climate denier. Why, the movie asks, do the handful of scientists who deny climate science do so? (and it really is no more than handful despite the denial industry’s attempt to show the contrary). Naomi Oreskes, upon whose book of the same name the movie is based, argues in the film that although they get a certain amount of money from fossil fuel interests, that does not really explain their position, and I agree with her. For Oreskes, it stems from Cold War ideology – an anti-communism that makes them hate, fear, and then deny the existence of any problem that would require government intervention. That is persuasive to me: Seitz began to fall out with the scientific community over his strong advocacy of the Vietnam War.
    [Show full text]