Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science 1st Edition

Not a Scientist: How Politicians Mistake, Misrepresent, and Utterly Mangle Science by Dave Levitan

“Not a Scientist” is an entertaining expose of deception used by politicians to undermine science that goes against their agenda. Journalist and author, Dave Levitan takes the readers on a journey of underhanded politicians who misrepresent science for personal gain. The author explores a variety of devious tactics and helps the reader identify them. This enjoyable 267-page book includes the following twelve chapters: 1. The Oversimplification, 2. The Cherry-Pick, 3. The Butter-Up and Undercut, 4. The Demonizer, 5. The Blame the Blogger, 6. The Ridicule and Dismiss, 7. The Literal Nitpick, 8. The Credit Snatch, 9. The Certain Uncertainty, 10. The Blind Eye to Follow-Up, 11. The Lost In Translation, and 12. The Straight-Up Fabrication.

Positives:
1. A well written and well researched book.
2. A timely topic, how politicians misrepresent science.
3. Levitan’s style is very accessible, straight-forward and is not afraid to let loose from time to time.
4. Levitan doesn’t waste stating the main purpose of the book. “The “not a scientist” line is a way out of talking about actual science, but politicians don’t always have such an exit strategy when scientific topics arise. And as those examples illustrate, even when they do try to dodge the question, they end up spewing misinformation and errors virtually at every step. This book is about what happens when our elected officials talk science, and fail.”
5. The book does a very good job of describing a number of mistakes and misrepresentations. “The Oversimplification - They take a complicated scientific issue and strip it down to a sound bite, a pithy turn of phrase that might garner cheers during a speech or build support for a piece of legislation, but would also give anyone listening an incorrect impression of the science in question.”
6. A good list of hot button topics misrepresented. “With regard to fetal pain, the claim regarding 20 weeks is part of the ongoing effort by Republicans to limit and restrict abortions.”
7. Good use of charts and diagrams to complement the narrative.
8. Helps readers identify bad science on the part of politicians. “When a politician cites a singular example as a means of refuting a larger trend, take note; this is the hallmark of bad science.”
9. Many examples of politicians by name misrepresenting science. “NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. This legislation was part of a hasty attempt to respond to the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the world’s first orbiting satellite, in October 1957. The founding document actually manages to refute Cruz in the very first objective listed: “The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space.”
10. Provides the best of our current scientific knowledge. “To be extremely, urgently clear: that conclusion was false. Vaccines. Do. Not. Cause. Autism.”
11. The use of bad information to support claims. “This is the BLAME THE BLOGGER—when a politician repeats information from often terrifically dubious sources, with the knowledge that many people simply won’t know how to check the underlying science. It’s online, so it must be true!”
12. The use of ill-founded ridicule. “Here’s how Huckabee put it at an event in Iowa, in January, a few months before he declared his candidacy for the presidency: When [Obama] said: “The greatest threat this nation faces . . . is climate change.” Not to diminish anything about the climate at all, but Mr. President, I believe that most of us would think that a beheading is a far greater threat to an American than a sunburn!” “The Pentagon released a “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” in October 2014,4 calling global warming a “threat multiplier.””
13. The issue of fracking is presented. “In spite of these sorts of obstacles, it is now beyond dispute that there have, in fact, been cases of water contamination as a result of fracking and related oil and gas development activities.”
14. A politician favorite, taking credit for some sort of accomplishment just because it happened on their watch. “Christie suggested that removing his state from the RGGI (pronounced “Reggie”), which is indeed a regional cap-and-trade program aimed at lowering carbon emissions, somehow resulted in the solar power boom. Essentially, he took one decisive action—pulling out of RGGI—and claimed it as the reason for this clear example of progress. This is about as drastic and audacious a CREDIT SNATCH as one can imagine.”
15. Global warming is one the headliners of this book. “The assessments of global warming, including the fact that we have already raised Earth’s temperature by about 1°C and that we’re on track for a whole lot more in the coming years and decades, are based on very solid science. The fact that humans have caused virtually all of that warming is also a rock-solid conclusion.”
16. A look at vaccines. “The science was clear back then, and it has only become clearer since: all young people, both boys and girls, should receive the HPV vaccine before becoming sexually active, according to the CDC.”
17. A fascinating look at Genetically Modified foods (GM). “GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
18. Senator Paul’s ludicrous story about Robert Lucas and a new EPA rule. “Paul claimed that this old man was sent to prison for literally putting dirt on his own land. Here’s how the EPA described it: “The most significant criminal wetlands case in the history of the Clean Water Act.”11 What gives?”
19. Ben Carson bites the dust. “In an interview in early 2015, as Dr. Ben Carson was gearing up for his presidential run, he disputed the idea that the progress toward marriage equality mirrored the civil rights battles of the mid-twentieth century. The difference, he said, lay in the fact that people have no control over their race, but they can, in fact, choose whether or not to be gay.” “There is a general consensus that the vast majority of us do not experience our sexual orientation as a choice.”
20. Reagan’s mishandling of AIDS and the impact. “In Reagan’s case, critics say his silence on AIDS (HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was not named until May 1986) greatly hindered research into its causes, potential treatments, and prevention efforts.”

Negatives:
1. A bit on the short side, I wanted more.
2. Right wingers will not like the partisan-siding book.
3. Notes included but no separate formal bibliography.

In summary, an entertaining an informative book. Levitan does a good job of highlighting the different techniques politicians use to obfuscate or deceive the public in order to protect their agenda. Conservatives may have a valid argument that the book is one sided but the truth is Republicans tend to be more often than not on the wrong side of science. It’s a worthwhile read, I recommend it!

Further recommendations: “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, “The War on Science” by Shawn Lawrence Otto, “The Truth to Power” by Al Gore, “The Weather of the New Future” by Heidi Cullen, “The Panic Virus” by Seth Mnookin, “Lies Incorporated” by Ari Rabin-Havt, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” by Michael E. Mann, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Science” by Sherry Seethaler, “The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars” by Michael E. Mann, “Reality Check” by Donald R. Prothero, and “This Changes Everything” by Naomi Klein.

Politicians, as a lot, tend to make a lot of misleading statements about a lot of subjects…in fact, they will usually try to tell their given audience what they want to hear. While what they say is not always a complete and total lie, it usually has an element of bull manure in it, particularly when they discuss science.

The author goes through the litany of ways they can deceive an audience….the "I'm not a scientist, but", the "blame the blogger" and a number of other methods used. All are various ways of deceiving you into thinking something other than the truth…in fact a number of the methods employed give the politician plausible denial. As in "I read it on a web site, so it must be true."

The book is well written, snarky, sometimes humorous and very informative. It will allow you to know when to put your bull manure detection on full alert and how to find the truth when you don't hear it. This is a quick read, but important for anyone who cares about holding politicians feet to the fire about what they say, and how they say it. Highly recommended!

When anyone starts a sentence with "I am not a scientist" you can be assured they're about to say something that proves it.

Great book that so many people should read. Delves into how we as a nation and globally are not trusting of scientific results due to politicians hands in studies and changing and manipulating for their own short term gains.
A must read.

I just love the subject of science. I have been fond of science matters going all the way back to my elementary school biology class. So when I see science under attack or suppressed for ulterior motives, I get upset. Dave Levitan provides for us an entire book on how science is assaulted, especially in politics, today. Anyone concerned about the integrity of science should read it.

Many subjects are covered in the book. Levitan first tackles the subject of a fetus feeling pain within twenty weeks, is marijuana a stepping stone to harder drugs, and Obama’s statement that 2014 was the warmest year on record (at the time). In these examples, he shows how “oversimplification” cheapens the magnificent complexity of science in pursuit of a perfect sound bite.

The author shows us the various ways in which data is manipulated in order to produce a desired effect for science deniers whom he refers to as TOADS (Those who Oppose Action/Deniers/Skeptics). There are various other ways to undermine scientific consensus. One is by cherry-picking the data. Another is what he calls the butter-up and undercut. An illustration of this is talking of the importance or science while decimating the research community, by cutting funds for example. Another technique is “blame the blogger.” An example of this is global warming, where we find a monumental pile of misleading information on the Internet. Remember Rick Santorum’s statement that 57 percent of climate scientists don’t agree with the idea that 95 percent of the change in climate is caused by carbon dioxide. Levitan shows where this information was retrieved on the Internet and clearly debunks the statement. Another tactic described is the “ridicule and dismiss” tactic. Here someone may make light of a particular study (fruit fly studies are game), and ridicule the study without really understanding what the study was trying to accomplish. Usually there are ulterior motives such as a politician wanting to slash funding for the National Institutes of Health.

There are many other examples presented in ensuing chapters, i.e., literal nitpick, credit snatch, the certain uncertainty, and so on. The author provides numerous examples in each case. One which I see frequently is the “lost in translation,” where a politician will hear a scientific claim second-, third-, or fourth-hand, and, of course, the truth of the matter becomes obfuscated. Sometime these can be hard to trace back to the source. The author provided an excellent example concerning the EPA and mercury in fish.

The author notes that “as long as there is money in politics and votes are at stake, politicians with an agenda that runs counter to the best available science will attempt to undermine it.” He continues that it is therefore crucial that politicians are called out for the mistakes they make on science.

What an eye opener. Political positions are taken to please voters or business with no regard for scientific facts. This author knows what he is saying and does it extremely well.

Detailed look at the ways in which politicians and pundits will twist the facts to their own ends.