Description

Introduction

Is smoking harmful to your health? Do nuclear weapons pose a threat to society? Are scientific explanations for acid rain, climate change, and ozone layer depletion reliable? These questions may seem absurd today, as most people acknowledge the risks associated with smoking, nuclear weapons, and climate change.

However, the answers were not always so clear-cut. In the mid-20th century, the causes and effects of these phenomena were still being researched, leaving room for misinformation and dishonest arguments to spread. Merchants of Doubt exposes the tactics employed by corporate interests and the US government to distort the truth, often with ulterior motives.

These summaries will reveal how:

– The tobacco industry downplayed the risks of smoking in the 1960s and 1970s.

– The US government dismissed climate change concerns.

– Former President Ronald Reagan’s stance on nuclear weapons.

Delve into the history of scientific deception and discover how doubt was manufactured on critical issues.

One

The tobacco industry’s deliberate deception about the dangers of smoking is now well-documented. Today, it’s common knowledge that smoking kills, but in the second half of the 20th century, this fact was not widely recognized. Shockingly, many people were unaware of the harmful effects of smoking. However, the tobacco industry itself had knowledge of its product’s risks as early as the 1950s.

When scrutiny of the industry intensified, the four largest US tobacco companies – American Tobacco, Benson and Hedges, Philip Morris, and US Tobacco – joined forces in 1953 to defend their interests. They hired PR firm Hill and Knowlton to salvage tobacco’s tarnished image. This move would later serve as evidence that the industry knowingly misled consumers.

Their strategy was straightforward: cast doubt on the health risks associated with smoking. As research emerged in the 1960s and ’70s, the tobacco companies challenged scientifically proven facts by propagating doubt. In 1979, they launched a program funding top universities, including Harvard, with $45 million over six years to “prove” smoking’s harmlessness.

The industry also hired respected scientist Frederick Seitz to distribute funds and bolster their credibility. They even enlisted scientists to testify in court that there was no link between smoking and poor health. However, the industry’s truth suppression was eventually exposed, and the public became increasingly aware of the dangers of smoking.

Two

The tobacco industry persisted in its campaign to cast doubt on the harms of secondhand smoke and science itself. Despite their efforts, the industry couldn’t conceal its product’s harmful effects. Initially, scientific evidence focused on the health risks of smoking itself, with the dangers of passive tobacco smoking only being proven and acknowledged in the 1980s.

Studies in 1980 and 1981 by British and Japanese researchers revealed that non-smokers experienced decreased lung function after exposure to smoky environments. The US Surgeon General reported in 1986 that secondhand smoke was as hazardous as smoking. Finally, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report in 1992 detailing the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

The tobacco industry continued to dispute the claims, attacking the science itself. They challenged the EPA’s “weight of evidence” approach, which combined data from multiple studies to draw conclusions. Scientist Frederick Seitz argued that some studies were more credible than others, making the EPA’s approach flawed.

The industry also criticized the EPA review for citing studies with only a 90% assurance of certainty. Scientist Fred Singer echoed this point, dismissing the EPA’s report as “junk” science that exaggerated imaginary problems. However, both Seitz and Singer omitted that the EPA report had undergone peer review twice, by a panel of scientists and consultants.

The tobacco industry’s tactics of misinformation and manipulation had misled the public. However, they were not alone in employing such strategies. Other societal issues had also fallen victim to similar tactics, which will be explored further.

Three

The debate on nuclear weapons was prolonged artificially. Since the development of atomic warheads, nuclear war has been a major concern. In the 1980s, scientists clashed with the government over a defense protocol. Here’s what happened:

In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon initiated détente to establish peaceful relations between the US and the Soviet Union. However, some individuals, including Fred Seitz, opposed this effort, convincing the government that the Soviet threat was real.

When President Ronald Reagan took office in 1980, a group of scientists persuaded him to support the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a program to deploy space-based weapons to intercept nuclear missiles. This sparked controversy among scientists, who saw it as a threat of nuclear war. By 1986, 6,500 scientists opposed the SDI.

Despite the majority’s opposition, a few scientists, including Fred Seitz, Edward Teller, and Robert Jastrow, prolonged the debate. They founded the George C. Marshall Institute, which promoted propaganda about the Soviet threat and supported the SDI. Using the Fairness Doctrine, they garnered public attention, keeping the debate alive despite their scientifically invalid ideas.

Four

In the 1970s, the US government disregarded scientific findings on acid rain, despite overwhelming evidence of its devastating effects. Acid rain, a phenomenon characterized by abnormally low pH concentrations, was found to harm forests, plants, and aquatic life. Research traced its primary cause to fossil fuel combustion, often originating from distant sources.

The US government’s dismissal of scientific evidence began when Canadian researchers discovered that American emissions accounted for 50% of Canada’s acid rain. This finding prompted both countries to form technical working groups in 1980. Their research was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences in 1981.

However, the White House intervened, commissioning an independent panel to reassess the findings. William A. Nierenberg was tasked with assembling the panel, but the White House circumvented his authority by appointing Fred Singer, an expert focused on the financial costs of addressing acid rain. Consequently, the panel’s final review was heavily edited to cast doubt on the results and proposed solutions.

A handwritten note discovered among Nierenberg’s documents revealed that he had altered the review at the White House’s request, further undermining the scientific consensus on acid rain.

Five

The debate over the ozone layer hole persisted into the 1990s, illustrating how scientific progress can be slowed by industry interests. The conversation about ozone layer depletion spans nearly five decades, with scientists presenting conclusive evidence in the 1970s that certain chemicals, particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), were causing the depletion.

Research on CFCs’ effects began in the late 1960s, with James Lovelock hypothesizing in 1970 that CFCs, commonly used in aerosol products, were accumulating in the stratosphere and potentially depleting the ozone layer. This led to a rapid scientific effort, culminating in the 1985 discovery of an ozone layer hole over Antarctica.

However, the aerosol industry resisted these findings, launching campaigns to defend their products and attributing ozone depletion to natural sources like volcanic dust. Despite these efforts, the US government acted on National Academy of Science reports linking CFCs to ozone depletion. Consequently, CFC propellants were banned in 1979, and the 1987 Montreal Protocol required countries to halve CFC production.

The aerosol industry continued to dispute the science, with Fred Singer leading the charge. As late as 1991, Singer published articles arguing that the scientific evidence for ozone depletion was too vague to be credible.

Six

The scientific evidence for global warming faced significant resistance in the 1980s. Despite clear proof, global warming wasn’t taken seriously until the 1980s. So, what caused the delay?

In 1977, a group of physicists known as “the Jasons” concluded that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations would lead to increased global temperatures, particularly at the poles. A White House-issued panel confirmed these findings. However, the government remained skeptical and assembled another review panel, the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, in 1980. Chaired by William A. Nierenberg, the committee aimed to assess the climate and potential CO2 issues.

The committee was divided between natural scientists, who predicted global warming, and economists, who focused on financial implications. The economists authored the report’s first and last chapters, arguing that technology would resolve the issue or future generations would adapt. This report led the White House to dismiss calls for fossil fuel regulation.

The issue regained momentum in 1988 when James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced that global warming had begun, rekindling public interest. By 1994, 194 countries had signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to combat global warming.

However, prominent scientists, including Nierenberg, dismissed global warming as a media scare. By 1989, Nierenberg, now with the Marshall Institute, claimed global warming was a ruse, attributing any warming to solar activity. He even briefed the White House on the institute’s position.

Seven

The debate over DDT, a notorious pesticide, was revived in the early 2000s as a way to challenge environmental regulations. But let’s take a step back and look at the history of DDT.

DDT was initially used during World War II to control mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. After the war, its use expanded to agriculture. However, DDT’s effectiveness came with a hefty environmental price tag. The chemical accumulates in the food chain, causing harm to wildlife and humans alike.

Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, exposed the dangers of DDT and other pesticides. Her work sparked widespread concern and ultimately led to DDT’s ban in 1972. But here’s the thing: the ban only applied to commercial use in the United States, and DDT was still allowed for domestic emergencies and export to countries fighting malaria epidemics.

Fast-forward to the mid-2000s, when Carson’s legacy was unfairly attacked by critics who claimed that the DDT ban led to unnecessary human deaths from malaria. Major media outlets like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal perpetuated this misinformation, ignoring the fact that insects develop resistance to DDT and that it was never banned in malaria-endemic countries.

This smear campaign was nothing more than a political stunt aimed at discrediting environmental regulations. The irony is that these regulations are designed to protect the public and the environment, not harm them. It’s the industry representatives who lobby against these regulations that stand to lose the most.

Conclusion

Many critical public issues, ranging from the risks of smoking to climate change, have been distorted by the media for political gain. A key tactic employed by those seeking to undermine scientific evidence has been the deliberate spread of doubt and misinformation, aimed at deceiving the public and obscuring the truth.

About the author

Naomi Oreskes is a professor at Harvard University, specializing in the history of science. Prior to her current role, she spent 15 years as a professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego. Oreskes is also a renowned expert in geophysics and global warming.

Erik M. Conway is a historian and author based at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Buy Book on Amazon