A Voice in the Wilderness: Thoughts on Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway

He [John] said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’” as the prophet Isaiah said. --John 1:23

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. –Matthew 7:15-20

Merchants of Doubt starts with the science and scientists of the tobacco industry and follows it/them through their involvement in national defense, and the acid rain and the ozone layer science (and debate). This has me thinking biblically.  While reading these first four chapters, I cannot help but think of the confusion that these apparent false (science) prophets have contributed to the discussion and the role they’ve played in the public distrust of scientists.  There are people (in my family for starters) who hear a scientist speak on a topic like global warming who are outside of the general scientific consensus and they view her or him as a voice in the wilderness, someone who speaks the TRUTH that the other scientists fail to see.  The voice in the wilderness is viewed as someone ahead of the curve, who fights against the status quo.  Certainly, there have been scientific voices in the wilderness—the Galileos and Darwins—who have uncovered a scientific truth that was in contrast to prevailing views, including the prevailing scientific views. Oreskes & Conway clarify that many of the scientists that argued smoking was safe, acid rain wasn’t a problem, and the ozone hole was natural were false prophets—in many cases, the same false prophet continued to be on the wrong side of the debate, which suggests either their perspective was faulty or they were deliberately lying in some cases. (Why is it that Americans especially appear to love the person who is an underdog in their scientific interpretation?)

But, false prophets should be detectable by their fruit.  Many of the scientists highlighted in the text who were false prophets had prestigious scientific credentials—scientifically, they were hot stuff.  Big trees.  But oh their fruit!  How is a regular person supposed to know?  There are so many areas in life where I am relying on experts—I do not have time (or the will) to investigate every health, political, and social claim that is put forth.  And, I suspect, I am like most people. I may miss a few wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The success of delusional or dishonest scientists counts on a public that is disengaged, that will not investigate their sources, and that would rather believe things are fine so that they do not have to change (and that is willing to be deceived). How do others who are honest with a clear sense of reality set the record straight?  It is clear that people need to consider whether a scientist has a clear financial conflict of interest—it should be a sign to listen very carefully, and it never hurts to follow the money. How plausible is it that a scientist may be being paid for their opinion or interpretation??  An interesting point is made that regular ole academic scientists also have a potential conflict of interest because they may be seeking fame and ways to bolster their likelihood of getting grants by opposing the voice in the wilderness.  And there is some truth in that, which is why it is probably an effective approach.  However, the opinion of a scientist at an academic institution is of little difference to the university—we will not get fired for interpreting the data in support of acid rain as a problem or not. (Perhaps we should be trusting the scientists without funding who can do research on a shoestring.)  But at the end of the day, the evidence should be the guiding light. Everyone has some degree of conflict of interest (we can still argue that financial conflicts of interest where an individual’s professional opinion could be biased by the fact that their employer has a vested interest in the professional opinion s/he expresses is the most insidious type of conflict of interest), but the data should be the source of our understanding.

This book so far highlights for me why scientists should draw a strict line on advocacy.  When you cross the line into advocacy, the science itself can be viewed with more doubt and it compromises the ability for our society to decide what we care about.  Better to not have an agenda beyond providing the best data and interpretation of the data that you possibly can.