SPOILER ALERT! - To the guest reader, the following will reveal all sorts of plot details. If you wish to remain blissfully ignorant, leave now.
This discussion was difficult to record. My notes were vague and confusing. I'm afraid if you wanted a totally accurate record of your opinion you needed to submit your notes like K'Lynn : ) Feel free to amend them by clicking the comment link at the bottom of the page and I'll update.
Average rating: 3.8
Becky 4/4
This wasn't an easy read. There were too many scientists to keep track of and acronyms to digest. Some of the scientists who helped win WWII by developing the atomic bomb became employed to defeat communists during the Cold War. Building on their scientific reputation they offered their services to defeat Environmentalist which they viewed as a possible subversive Communist plot. The idea of equal time for all views on TV and the free press allowed a small group of dissenters who can shout their opinion the loudest to win over public opinion and therefore policy.
Michelle 4/4
Liked the tobacco chapter. The sections on ozone and climate change felt as though she would have to spend hours on to fully understand. None of this is about the science but rather the political debate. Many of the 'experts' weren't even scientists. She thought she would need a lecture to understand the whole thing, and thought it might be written for a more scientific audience.
Letitia 3/5
Found this painful to read. As in pulling teeth painful. And added, extremely painful. She thought it would have been more readable had it been shorter and more approachable. She found it depressing that people would obscure science with doubt in order to make no progress, and wondered why scientists would refute the work of other scientists and why so many of the scientists being refuted didn't stand up for themselves. The last chapter was enjoyable with the authors finally tying everything up and making their case against the doubters, but she found herself wishing she could side with the doubters because their version was much more pleasant.
Pat 5/5
I found this an exhaustingly dry read and wanted college credit just for finishing. Halfway through the first chapter I wondered how I would ever make it through the whole book, and was relieved to find it wasn't all about tobacco. I like science and history and learned a lot along those lines. I read National Geographic regularly in the '80s and '90s so was familiar with the acid rain and ozone layer studies/debates. The more I read about the doubt cast upon these issues, the more I felt duped, pissed, and manipulated. It was a great story poorly told. It needed a better narrative, editing and at the very least a timeline with cast of characters. It was frustrating since the book could change minds if it were better framed.
Carolyn 4/4
Summarized that paying scientists to formally cast doubt equals keeping the status quo. She wondered why the ban on tobacco advertising didn't also apply to alcohol. Twenty-five percent of people polled doubt that smoking is harmful because they prefer comforting lies to sobering facts. Her sister died of lung cancer and she would prefer to think that it was because she was a heavy smoker, not because she had a dormant cancer cell. The second hand smoke story proved that all freedoms have their limits. Your right to smoke doesn't supersede my right to clean air.
K'Lynn - 3/3
This wasn't an easy read. There were too many scientists to keep track of and acronyms to digest. Some of the scientists who helped win WWII by developing the atomic bomb became employed to defeat communists during the Cold War. Building on their scientific reputation they offered their services to defeat Environmentalist which they viewed as a possible subversive Communist plot. The idea of equal time for all views on TV and the free press allowed a small group of dissenters who can shout their opinion the loudest to win over public opinion and therefore policy.
Michelle 4/4
Liked the tobacco chapter. The sections on ozone and climate change felt as though she would have to spend hours on to fully understand. None of this is about the science but rather the political debate. Many of the 'experts' weren't even scientists. She thought she would need a lecture to understand the whole thing, and thought it might be written for a more scientific audience.
Letitia 3/5
Found this painful to read. As in pulling teeth painful. And added, extremely painful. She thought it would have been more readable had it been shorter and more approachable. She found it depressing that people would obscure science with doubt in order to make no progress, and wondered why scientists would refute the work of other scientists and why so many of the scientists being refuted didn't stand up for themselves. The last chapter was enjoyable with the authors finally tying everything up and making their case against the doubters, but she found herself wishing she could side with the doubters because their version was much more pleasant.
Pat 5/5
I found this an exhaustingly dry read and wanted college credit just for finishing. Halfway through the first chapter I wondered how I would ever make it through the whole book, and was relieved to find it wasn't all about tobacco. I like science and history and learned a lot along those lines. I read National Geographic regularly in the '80s and '90s so was familiar with the acid rain and ozone layer studies/debates. The more I read about the doubt cast upon these issues, the more I felt duped, pissed, and manipulated. It was a great story poorly told. It needed a better narrative, editing and at the very least a timeline with cast of characters. It was frustrating since the book could change minds if it were better framed.
Carolyn 4/4
Summarized that paying scientists to formally cast doubt equals keeping the status quo. She wondered why the ban on tobacco advertising didn't also apply to alcohol. Twenty-five percent of people polled doubt that smoking is harmful because they prefer comforting lies to sobering facts. Her sister died of lung cancer and she would prefer to think that it was because she was a heavy smoker, not because she had a dormant cancer cell. The second hand smoke story proved that all freedoms have their limits. Your right to smoke doesn't supersede my right to clean air.
K'Lynn - 3/3
Non-fiction, in general, tends to be my least favorite genre to read - with a few exceptions of course.
I'm between 2 and 3 stars here. Overall this book tells a good story about how a small group of politically powerful scientists have changed public opinions on "scientific debates" as well as science in general. This book is really good for discussion purposes, but was not an enjoyable read for me. There were many times when the story was just too detailed, and repetitive. Each chapter focused on a different issue such as acid rain, climate change, secondhand smoke etc., but the overall concept for each chapter was the same. I felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again.
Also, I feel like the people who need to hear this message will likely just dismiss this book as liberal propaganda. Despite the fact that conservatives tend to be against environmentalist concerns, the downright blaming of the Republican party is just going to alienate those that identify as Republican, regardless of how they feel about these issues. Therefore, I feel like this book is not accessible to a wide audience. I'm not sure how this book can avoid politics as politics was the main influence of the contrarians, but I think the book could be more objective. Although, it would unfortunately still not reach the people it needs to reach
In summary, if you are a scientist who is really interested in political discussions of science, you will enjoy this book. But as someone who tends to avoid political discussions because they make me angry (and I got very angry while reading this book) this book wasn't for me.
Maggie
Felt that this was too dry and she would need at least two months to finish it.
Artie - 4/4
Thought the topics were interesting and well informed, but he pointed out that the authors had an agenda as well. "If only the people that needed to read this would, then . . ." Science exists in a social context, and this cuts both ways. When he worked in pharmaceuticals he observed a meeting where the CEO dressed down an employee for costing the company millions because he felt that the employee didn't write the proposal for a new drug correctly. In other words, the science behind the refusal didn't matter so much as the company's interpretation and approach to it. Artie pointed out that you can have a 99% slam dunk certainty but 1% doubt played properly is often all that's needed to keep the status quo. The history of man has been to exploit resources until they are gone and then adapt which reminded me of this Far Side.
Didn't finish but did watch the documentary.
Comments