Customer Reviews

Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(22)
2 star:		(18)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

"Denialism" states author Michael Specter, "is denial writ large---when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie". The author proceeds to examine recent current events and issues to bolster his contention that some people, unreassured by the healthy and rigorous skepticism of scientific method, have rejected scientific evidence itself, thus lapsing into denialism. By examining the events around the removal of the anti-inflammatory medication Vioxx from the market, the current controversy about vaccines, what the author describes as the "organic fetish", the rise in popularity of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine), and the flawed concept of race, Specter attempts to show that American gullibility and hostility to science are endangering our lives, our nation, and our planet.

I'm a family physician, and I face what Specter terms "denialism" on an everyday basis, both in the office and in general conversation. Whether speaking with Young Earth proponents that feel the planet is no more than a few thousand years old, parents that refuse immunizations for their children, people that won't take medication for their blood pressure or heart disease because they fear the side effects more than the disease, or doubters of global warming, I'm regularly faced with people across the spectrum of intelligence, and across the spectrum of religious or political belief, that are unable to interpret the facts that are beginning to impact them where they live. What I had hoped for, when I picked up this book, was an investigation into WHY otherwise well-meaning, often educated, responsible people take rigid stances on issues that are starkly at odds with the facts. Further, I hoped that solutions would be offered to help break through these barriers between well documented information and subsequent ability to act accordingly. Denialism left both hopes unfilled. The book thus becomes more of a wringing of the hands rather than a rolling up of the sleeves.

The book fails on several levels. First, the people most likely to read a book called "Denialism" are the scientific faithful. Being amongst that crowd, I'm as happy as the next guy or gal to be told that I'm right and they (the denialists) are wrong. But I already thought that, and I'm wondering how this book moves even a tiny step closer to those that we would like most to reach. Specter appears to have so much disdain for deluded souls that he might as well have titled his book "Stupidism". The marked tone of condescension virtually guarantees that the target audience that the author would like to reach will tune out within 20 pages. Secondly, I deal with many otherwise quite intelligent folk that run businesses, or hold other positions of high responsibility, but also ascribe to astrology, homeopathy,or cult religions. If such people were amenable to facts, they would have gotten the point long ago. Specter's solution to this is to attempt to bludgeon the "denialist" with page after page of facts. Whatever it is that is blocking the understanding of the "denialist", it is not access to facts or information. The blockage is most likely emotional, possibly based on fear, and one does not most effectively deal with emotional barriers by using facts as instruments of assault and battery.

In order to make my third and final criticism, I need to relate a short story. As I write this, there is a high level of anxiety about a duel epidemic of flu, traditional and H1N1, in my community. My wife is a teacher at a local middle school. In the teacher's lounge yesterday the topic was flu vaccines, both the traditional and the H1N1. All the old reasons for not getting the flu vaccinations surfaced: "I've never had the flu, why should I worry about it?" or "Last time I got the flu shot, I got the worst case of flu that I've ever had" or "This is a new vaccine, what if they got it wrong and it kills more people than it helps?". One teacher, struggling to make up her mind, turned to my wife and said "Are you going to get the flu shot?". My wife replied "I've never gotten a flu shot before, but this year, Dan (that would be me) is really worried about it, and he thinks I should get it. So yes. I'm going to." The teacher then announced "I know Dan, he's a good doc, he would NEVER recommend a flu shot for Cindy unless it was his very best guess that she should do it. That's enough for me. I'm going for it.". The point here is that trust is an essential companion to facts. And the truth is that the frequent divorces between science and wisdom, between science and ethics, between science and the environment have done tremendous harm to the trust science feels that it deserves. No knowledge comes without subsequent responsibility, and Denialism addresses this fact only weakly. PhD's in geology (oil and mineral technology), chemistry (pesticides, household products containing carcinogens, napalm, neurotoxins), pharmacy (don't get me started), physics (nuclear weapons) are granted with little, or more commonly, NO training in ethics. I have a deep respect for science, but science has to up its game if it wishes to regain lost trust. Denialism doesn't even begin to discuss how this might be done.

Ironic, is it not, that a book entitled Denialism appears to be in denial about the substantial damage that scientists themselves, through arrogance or unethical behavior, have done to the field of knowledge that appears to be our only route towards solving the enormous challenges mankind currently faces. The solution to denial will be a multi-factorial one, and involve movement of both sides toward each other, rather than a merciless beating down of the recalcitrant "denialist".

Lastly, True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society is a very readable and interesting exploration of why the way a person thinks is not always congruent with the best information available. I found it illuminating.

Denialism is all around us in many forms, from the anti-vaxxers to the Holocaust deniers and "Moon landing hoax" proponents. Scientists get it from both sides, from the populist know-nothings on the right to the conspiracy paranoiacs on the left. It's been addressed in various books over the years, from Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things to Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. But the new varieties of denial keep coming, as do the examples of corporate and scientific malfeasance that fuel them, and the fear-mongering media and crackpot celebrities keep cranking up the general level of anxiety. So we should welcome authors who can help to calm the panic and redress the balance.

Sadly, Specter fails in this. His concerns are real, the targets well-chosen, and the depth of his research is impressive. Unfortunately the presentation fails in several respects. The introduction is disorganized, as he keeps oscillating between the irrationality of the denialists and the range of provocations that have led to a quite understandable level of popular anxiety. And once he plunges into his first example - the drug Vioxx - it's unclear why he feels that it advances his argument. Merck put profit ahead of rigor, and patients paid with their lives. True. Where's the denialism? It looks like good old-fashioned greed. And so forth.

That pretty much sets the tone for the book. It's scattershot. There are probably half a dozen plausible essays for the New Republic or Mother Jones lurking in here, but as a sustained argument it's a flop. And that's a shame.

This is a great gem of an idea for a book, "denialism" being the name this journalist gives to the fear and mistrust that people ( both in the US and globally) have towards government agencies, pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, etc.

As a nation, we don't like being told what to do. But no one can deny that wearing your seatbelt may save your life, and certainly will not hurt you. Countless studies prove this. Specter starts his study of denialism by examining the irrational fear of vaccinations in this country, a movement that seems to be headed up by self appointed anti-vaccination mom, Jenny McCarthy, an actress/comedienne. Specter explains at length why any actual risks that vaccinations may cause are clearly outweighed by the benefits(small pox being almost completely eradicated being on major benefit!). parents in this country are refusing vaccinations, and though measles sounds like a benign and survivable illness, many children have died from complications of the disease, much less than have died from the vaccination. Measles was eliminated in 2002, but recent refusals to vaccinate have caused several outbreaks in the US this year, and 540 children die every day from measles infections and complications. Much more than are effected by the MMR vaccinations.

McCarthy claims vaccinations caused her child's autism, as well as many others, but studies show, the level of autism diagnoses has not increased at all since the supposedly offending vaccinations have been added. Plus, autism is diagnosed strictly by behavior, and can often be misdiagnosed.

The whole book carries on in this vain. Specter looks at our fear of "big pharm" out for our cash, and not actually interested in our health (not to mention, our subsequent belief that alternative medicine and supplements will cure/heal/prevent illness, with absolutely no proof that any of the items actually does those things). He examines the current trend for local foods, organic foods, and the "all natural" trend that we are currently so enchanted with, both in the US and in Europe. He looks at our fear of bio-tech and the possible advances it could bring into health care in this country, but that fear and rhetoric of certain groups and people halts and inhibits.

Specter has done an exhaustive job of researching all the topics he tackles in this book, and generally speaking is an readable writer. The last chapter started to lose me...I just couldn't think about any more of the bio-tech scenarios, and there was a little too much scientist talk for me, personally.

However, this is a smart book with some excellent ideas that we need to start talking about soon, if we are to protect the health and welfare of this nation. Irrational fear of things new is normal, as is the fear of being told you must do something, even if it is for the good of both yourself and your family, and others around you. But a voice of reason needs to intervene when our fear turns us into a nation of fools.

The tempo of technological development and scientific discovery seems only to be accelerating every day, and the time that it takes for a discovery to make its way in everyday life shortens all the time. Unfortunately, many of these changes are not very well understood and there are vocal opponents of many of them. A healthy dose of skepticism about everything that is novel and makes promises that seem too good to be true should be welcome, especially for tools and technologies that have not been proven themselves. However, when a technological advancement has already been proven to be effective and promises to facilitate human life in a very dramatic way, then the opposition to that advance can be hurtful to the society in general. "Denialism" is a book about several of those technological developments. Some of them, like the vaccination, are actually centuries old, but the opposition to them has never completely gone away. To the contrary, it looks like it has only increased in the recent years. The author does a very good job of describing and arguing in favor of several of those technological advances, and takes their critics to a task. A long-time New Yorker contributor, Michael Specter writes a very exciting and passionate book. The topics that he covers are all very interesting, and for the most part well documented. Unfortunately, the book has many significant flaws that make it less-than-ideal argument in favor of those technologies.

The books biggest fault is the portrayal of a very natural and sometimes very legitimate human tendency to be suspicious and fearful of novel and unusual substances into something that is misguided at best and more often than not pathological. This attitude serves neither the author nor his cause well. If his aim is to change minds and win over hearts, it would have been much more prudent to assume a much more conciliatory and far less condescending attitude towards those who don't share his opinions. As it is, I am afraid that this book will just end up preaching to the choir and solidify the opposition to many of the scientific developments that are promoted herein.

Another big flaw is a completely one-sided presentation. I am very inclined to believe most of the stuff that Specter argues in favor of, but the fact that he presents an incredibly unbalanced presentation leaves me very suspicious. On a few occasions that he mentions some of the arguments from the opposing viewpoint they invariably come from people that are so out of the mainstream way of thinking that it is hard to believe they are very representative. In other words, there is a lot of straw-man in this book.

Overall, this is an interesting book that will most likely not change many hearts or minds.

I was very much looking forward to reading this book. I'm one of those progressive liberals who decries the lack of critical thinking in modern America, and i thought this book would, at the very least, be some comfort reading.

The first major topic in the book is the drug Vioxx, and how the company producing it engaged in egregious practices, leaving it on the market despite knowledge that it could cause harm. I know very little about that whole chain of events, but it was interesting reading all the same.

The second topic is vaccinations. I have a baby, and he gets all his vaccinations on schedule, because i did some research and decided that it was proven safe to my satisfaction. I have several friends who don't vaccinate at all, and several who've insisted on alternate schedules for their child, despite no family history of bad reaction to vaccines. We debate it sometimes, but in all, Specter's summary of the argument seemed to mesh pretty well with what i've seen first-hand.

The third topic is organic food, and that chapter made me angry. In it, Specter engages in nearly all of the behaviors for which he castigates the anti-vaccination crowd in the previous chapter. He conflates the pro-organic and anti-GMO movements; i'll concede that there's tremendous overlap, but they are two entirely different arguments. He ignores large swaths of evidence, for example, arguing that artificial fertilizers are not particularly dangerous with no mention of the runoff in rivers leading to, among other things, the giant Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. He argues that only through non-organic techniques can we produce enough food to feed the world, citing famines in Africa, without mentioning that during most of these famines, some of those countries are net exporters of food. Market forces make it more profitable to sell food oversees than to one's own neighbor, so that's what some people do. Specter asserts that lab-based genetic modification is just an accelerated version of what happens in nature, and that it's harmless... but then recounts a story of scientists putting some genetic material from Brazil nuts into wheat. Brazil nuts and wheat would never share genes in the wild, and the scientists themselves found that people with deadly allergies to Brazil nuts could have the same reaction to the transgenic wheat. That doesn't sound harmless to me. He acknowledges that raising animals for meat consumes ridiculous amounts of grain and water, resources that could instead be used to feed people, but never remotely suggests that encouraging a vegetarian diet could be another way to feed the world by freeing up all those resources. There's more, but i think i've probably made my point. I can't help but wonder how many flaws i might have seen in the other chapters on which i haven't done some extensive research.

This book is stuffed full of oversimplifications and vilification of 'denialists'. He doesn't even draw any distinction between people who are misled, people who are simply ignorant, and people who have seen the evidence and still deny it. They're all 'denialists' to him. And i guess i am too, because despite an advanced degree and enough critical thinking to notice myriad flaws in his arguments, i still think that organic farming practices could feed the world, were there not commercial and governmental obstructions.

If it weren't for the fact that "Denialism" has gotten unfairly reviewed by some people here who seem to have an axe to grind, I'd have given it four stars. But I figure that adding an extra star on my part offsets people who are themselves of the mindset the author writes about or people who think that the author is condescending in his tone (he didn't strike me as such).

I'm death on people who promote conspiracy theories, and "Denialism" definitely shows that the problem is much more widespread than just people who go on about the Kennedy Assassination or September 11...that there are many people who have paranoid conceptions of the pharmaceutical industry and vaccinations or who think that just because something was grown "naturally" it's automatically better for the world than a plant that is genetically modified to be pest-resistant or have more yield.

"Denialism" pours a lot of cold water on people who espouse such viewpoints, and yes, it is occasionally done in a strident fashion. But I can understand the author's frustration with people who link autism with vaccinations despite the flood tide of evidence to the contrary or who think it better that people in Africa starve to death rather than grow and eat genetically modified crops (I can hardly wait to read the negative comments that this paragraph alone is likely to trigger on my review).

To me, the best chapters are about vaccinations and the organic food cult. It blew me away to read that there are people out there who think "raw milk" (i.e. unpasteurized milk is somehow better for you than the regular stuff despite clear evidence showing that people can and do die from drinking the former instead of the latter). Similarly, I was shocked to read that vitamins and supplements that are routinely and aggressively marketed as cure-alls and preventatives for a variety of ailments come with a neat little disclaimer that states that none of these claims have been held up for scrutiny by the FDA.

My only criticisms of the book is that the author is a little too much in the tank for Obama (although he does lambaste a member of the Kennedy clan for incredible assertions about vaccinations). I really wonder what Obama's viewpoint is about medical evidence that shows that certain races are more susceptible to certain diseases and disorders (which is not politically correct to assert even in medical journals).

I'm also chary of his implied assertion that anyone who doesn't believe that climate change threatens the survival of mankind is in the denialist camp. I for one don't doubt that man can have an extremely negative impact on climate and the environment. I'm just not sold on the idea that all climate change is down to mankind instead of nature and that humanity should embark on monumental economic outlays to deal with the problem and change its ways and behavior on a scope that has never been attempted before. I'm also alienated by people who do believe that this is all necessary and their tendency to demonize people who don't agree with them as stupid or corrupt.

But overall, "Denialism" is a cold breath of fresh air and anyone who is truly open-minded will benefit from reading it.

In Denialism, Michael Specter takes an excellent look at an important subject. We tend to think that people get truth, unvarnished and untainted, from science. But no. From Vioxx to vaccines, what we think is true is not. Not because we are fooled by science. Instead, we fool ourselves.

Specter did his research on topics like organic foods, vitamins and supplements, and race and disease. That he is a staff writer on The New Yorker magazine shows -- he writes well on these topics. What he says is important and convincing. He deserves praise for that. (Although his style rubs me wrong. He writes himself into the book by using "I" a lot. Fine for a magazine article, at book-length that became annoying to me.)

My main complaint with the book? Specter goes too far in labeling denialism as the villain. He trots out the specter (sorry) of holocaust deniers -- those poor deluded souls -- and then finds similar deniers of facts from various fields of science. Denialism in science, he says, is threatening our society.

I don't buy that. Through the ages societies have struggled to cope with what science told them. We are no different. In the developed world, science's role has never been stronger. We could do better at sorting out fact from fiction. But overall, we're pretty good at it.

In spite of its faults, Denialism made me think. That made, for me, the book worth reading.

Although this book is well meaning, the author seems to have bitten off more than he could chew. He enters the problem at eye level as a practicing scientist, ostensibly defending science for all it is worth -- never looking either up, down, or backwards. Had he done so, he may not have been quite as smug and derisive in his comments towards those he sees as engaging in denial.

Even though I am not a defender of those in denial, his arguments about citizen's reticence towards drugs offered by profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies is nothing new, arguably barely passes the smell test, and is, I would argue, more an argument about distrust of companies that use low and loose standards of science, than a rejection of science, per se. Personally, as a Scientist, I would have attacked rather than defended these obvious "bottom-feeders of science." And certainly would not then have used citizen's rejection of them and their often questionable research as a baseline for determining the state of American denialism?

Users of alternative medicines, and organic food nuts, are not so much in denial as they are in desperate search of a last resort to the very industries that this author seems to have no problem defending in the name of science. Those he characterizes as being "in denial about the healthcare industry" are in fact trying desperately to cope and deal with the devastating reality that the same industries peddling drugs and fast foods are not only in cahoots, but that together they (and the FDA which is more their lackey than their master) are wholly responsible for the sorry state of health of the American public. Pretending that it is otherwise - that American food is healthy for them, and that the drug companies and the FDA have their best interests at heart --now that in my humble opinion is real denial.

The larger point however is that the real history of American denialism, which has both anti-scientific and anti-intellectual roots sadly goes all but untouched in this book about denialism. And although the author is not a psychologist, it is impossible for him to have expected to shed new light on an old and deeply rooted problem without delving at least a bit into the psychology that has shaped our national tendency towards collective denial.

Denialism in American society, which the author only alluded to in passing (when he mentioned both race and religion), has a deep almost metaphysical basis that has two parallel tracks; one running above and the other running below the water mark of consciousness. And while it is true that science rarely touches either side, by completely ignoring the role deeper historical patterns of thought have played in shaping the American "culture of denialism," the author missed the forest for the trees, and leaves himself open to being guilty of dilettantism. Seeking alternatives to a broken healthcare system, food distribution and regulation system, and a profit-seeking drug industry, hardy seems like it ought to be put in the same class as "holocaust deniers" and those who believe in angels?

Two stars

There's no shortage of books available about the abysmal state of science education in the United States today. "The Republican War on Science," "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul" and "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free" are a few that quickly come to mind. There are many more. These books tell the sad and very disturbing story of how America, the only country ever to land men on the moon, has become a place where half of the population denies the proven reality of evolution in favor of supernatural nonsense. I first expected "Denialism" to be a similar tale of how religious fundamentalists and right-wing ideologues have joined together into a powerful force dedicated to stifling objective, fact-based scientific inquiry and extinguishing scientific literacy.

Actually, though, "Denialism" is quite a bit different. As such, it is another piece of the jigsaw puzzle of reasons why irrationalism and emotion-based appeals with no basis in fact have, to a great extent, replaced critical, logical thought in America. It focuses on one of the major factors responsible, in author Michael Specter's opinion, for bringing about this sad state of affairs. That factor is fear. Many Americans have recently come to unreasonably fear legitimate science, even over and above their religious and/or ideological reasons for doing so. Mr. Specter analyses why, in detail, in several case studies. His work is a thought-provoking look at what has gone wrong in the last 20 or 30 years to transform a nation famed for its "can-do" spirit, for which no challenge was too great to overcome, into a divided land of bickering, increasingly rude, anti-intellectual, proud-of-being-ignorant people who care about nothing other than their own narrow political agendas. As America continues to cede its global technological leadership role, it is important to understand how we came to this dismal situation.

Mr. Specter examines five factors that have contributed to the current anti-science mindset: 1) the controversial marketing of the prescription drug Vioxx; 2) disputes over the efficacy and possible side effects of vaccinating children; 3) arguments over the costs and benefits of genetically modified and "organic" foods; 4) the value (or not) of "natural" remedies; and 5) the role that genetics (i.e., race) plays in various afflictions and in the responses to certain drugs. Each topic gets a long chapter, with a set of endnotes containing sources and titles for additional reading, if you choose to dig deeper. In general, these subjects are not the usual ones covered in other contemporary books about the decline of scientific knowledge in America. Thus "Denialism" nicely complements other books on the subject, and fills in areas that other authors barely mention.

There's no doubt that legitimate reasons exist for people to have some concerns about the foods they eat, the drugs they take and how their children are protected. The days of everyone docilely lining up to get vaccinated because "the Government says so" are long gone. However, the pendulum has swung WAY too far the other way. Many people are now paralyzed with fear over some of the most common aspects of everyday life. NOTHING is completely risk-free. If you can't accept a small amount of risk in exchange for the indisputable benefits that science provides, you need to hermetically seal yourself up in a box and avoid any and all interactions with the outside world.

Are you a faithful linjestor of antioxidants and echinacea? Do you buy organic food for its health benefit? Do you suspect that vaccinations may cause developmental disabilities like autism? If so, you might not want to read science journalist Michael Specter's new book Denialism. It is a book meant to show that the beliefs detailed above, and several others, not only fly in the face of science, but reason and evidence also. Like many of us who believe that science is the best way to understand about, and help save, our world, Specter is concerned that there is a rising tide of folks in America and elsewhere who have taken to mistrusting science, an exercise that is likely to lead to bad results rather than good.

Of course, Specter is not saying we need to put all of our trust blindly in science. He opens his book with a chapter on the Vioxx debacle, where the pharmaceutical company Merck put a very deliberately positive spin on several studies showing that Vioxx raised patients' risk of heart attacks. (Merck's spin was to say that the study only showed that the control group's Aleve must have reduced heart attack rates.) Specter notes that such examples do serve to show us that science (especially when intertwined with big money) is not 100% trustworthy. But Specter also notes two things. First, our tendency is to emphasise the isolated incidents where it is not trustworthy and ignore all the times when it works without a hitch. And second, we must always use cost/benefit analysis when dealing with medication and sceince (is the benefit of saving x number from potential heart attacks worth the risk of denying y number the benefits that Vioxx does offer? In this case, Specter concludes that cost/benefit analysis tells us that Vioxx should have been left on the market.)

From here, Specter goes on to write about such instances of denialism as the anti-vaccine movement, anti-genetic-engineering movement, and the hostile reaction to any research involving genomic differences in race. Through it all, Specter demonstrates and laments the tendency of each of these groups to become so extreme that, oftentimes, counter-evidence is willfully ignored, lamely explained away, or denounced as "just one way of looking at things. In a very scary example, Specter cites Dr. Andrew Weill, a guru of alternative medicine, as writing very bluntly that controlled studies are no better than personal intuition and anecdotal evidence. The implication: let these fancy scientists publish all the studies they want. I can simply disbelieve them becuase I FEEL that they are wrong!

For all of this, I can only give the book two stars. There are several reasons why. First, while each chapter takes aim at a diferent instance of denialism, there were no chapters that "tied it all together." This book really could have benefitted from some more general chapters talking about why denialism exists as a genereal phenomenon and what we can do to try and combat it. As it is, the book felt like a disjointed series of long articles each devoted to a different instance of denialism. I would have REALLY liked to see a chapter exploring the idea of cost/benefit analysis as an alternative to the all-or-nothing approach that leaves many denialists to opt for "nothing" rather than an "imperfect all." He mentions in passing several possibloe reasons for denialism that would have made for interesting chapters: the rise of the internet's ability to give quacks and medical journals the same potential influence, the prefernce for simple rather than complex answers, Oprah Winfrey, etc.)

The second reason I have to give this book two stars is (as another reviewer notes) this book seems quite geared toward those who agree with the author's case. Instances of denialism are described in a way designed to enrage the reader (who is not a denialist) and little time is really devoted to speaking to denialists. (Of course, it may well be that denialists by definition would refuse to be engaged but one does have to try, right?) For instance, it would have been interesting to explore the "evidence" used by denialists to support their claims and show why they are wrong. It might have also been instructive to explain how denialists misuse statistics. This was very rarely done and, as such, it seems like the book will do little good becuase it will not convince those who it takes aim at.

These two flaws, I think, really are significant enough to warrant three stars being subtracted from an otherwise very interesting and often enraging book. Had there been some "general" chapters reflecting on what makes a denialist and what we can do to try and combat denialism, and had there been a bit more attempt to analyze the flaws of denialism, I am quite sure I would have given the book at least four if not five stars.

Some suggested readings in place of or in addition to Denialism:

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future [VERY highly reccomended!]
Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists