Buy new:
$9.49$9.49
$3.99 delivery January 8 - 9
Ships from: billjen54 Sold by: billjen54
Save with Used - Good
$2.68$2.68
$3.98 delivery January 10 - 11
Ships from: glenthebookseller Sold by: glenthebookseller
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
The Republican War on Science by Mooney, Chris (2005) Hardcover Hardcover – January 1, 2005
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length342 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherBasic Books
- Publication dateJanuary 1, 2005
- ISBN-101567319459
- ISBN-13978-1567319453
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together

Customers who viewed this item also viewed
The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and RealityPaperbackFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Tuesday, Jan 7Only 12 left in stock (more on the way).
Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our FuturePaperback$6.99 shippingOnly 1 left in stock - order soon.
The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American ConservatismHardcoverFREE Shipping on orders over $35 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Wednesday, Jan 8Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Product details
- ASIN : B011SJAO1Q
- Publisher : Basic Books; First Edition, First Printing (January 1, 2005)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 342 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1567319459
- ISBN-13 : 978-1567319453
- Item Weight : 1.4 pounds
- Best Sellers Rank: #6,721,459 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist, blogger, podcaster, and experienced trainer of scientists in the art of communication. He is the author of four books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science and most recently The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality (April 2012). He blogs for Science Progress, a website of the Center for American Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund, and is a host of the Point of Inquiry podcast.
Products related to this item
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book well-written and well-documented. They find it informative and worth reading, though some feel it undermines science and is biased against Republicans.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book well-written and informative. They appreciate the clear writing style, well-researched content, and thorough documentation. The author is described as articulate and well-prepared with facts and statistics. The book is also annotated, which some readers find reassuring.
"...It's also heavily annotated, which may reassure some readers that the book is basically full of dry but disturbing facts, instead of dry but..." Read more
"...Well written, easy to read and very informative ( Laws, acts, foundations, back stories etc) I read this book and ordered his other book" Read more
"...It was a hard book for me to read, as I had to keep putting it down until I could stop shaking with anger." Read more
"...everything I have been saying for two years, but the author was much more articulate and was well prepared with facts and statistics...." Read more
Customers find the book worth reading.
"...Well worth it. Some of the players in the mess are still playing, and using the same toys...." Read more
"...To me, this is the scariest part of Cris Mooney's excellent book...." Read more
"Great book for those looking to understand the evolution of science policy on the federal level in the United States...." Read more
"This is excellent. A must read now with the GOP in charge of all three branches of the government." Read more
Customers find the book informative and entertaining. It provides ample evidence and facts to support its arguments. Some readers consider it an important account of conservative anti-science and anti-intellectualism. However, others feel the book undermines the fundamentals of science and provides scientifically false health information. The book rarely ventures into social sciences.
"...at inhibiting regulatory reform directly, it became effective to attack the science that might lead to any unwanted regulatory action...." Read more
"...This is an important book, of interest to anyone who is concerned about the future of science in America." Read more
"..."provides scientifically false health information--for instance, that condoms "offer virtually no protection" against herpes or HPV...." Read more
"...I believe that this book is informative, however I also believe it is an attack on the Republican view of scientific claims...." Read more
Customers have different views on the book. Some find it a must-read for Republicans and an essential read for any citizen. Others feel it's an indictment of their anti-intellectualism and harmful policies. The biggest drawback is that the book has an anti-republican bias that sometimes overshadows the content.
"...This fellow has got some great points against the Republicans, but comes from a too Democratic slant despite some attempts to "open his right eye."..." Read more
"A must read for any Republican with an IQ of at least 85" Read more
"...However, the biggest drawback is that the book has an enormous anti-republican bias that sometimes overshadows and undermines some of the arguments..." Read more
"This is absolutely essential reading for any citizen...." Read more
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on December 4, 2013I read Chris Mooney’s book "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality" and was very intrigued by it. So it was with eager anticipation that I looked forward to reading this book. First, let me say that I love science, and relish the hunt for truth about the world and the cosmos we live in. In reading this book, I became quite frustrated as I learned about the assault on science by right wing interests. Science is dynamic; it provides a constant onslaught to the old orthodoxies challenging the more static worldviews. Part of the problem is modern conservatism’s distrust of “big government,” which increases tension with science since much science depends on government funding or takes place in government agencies. “The conservative faith in industry and unrestrained capitalism seems to fuel a parallel assumption that industry-sponsored science – like the free market itself – stands above reproach,” says Mooney.
He starts with a discussion of what he calls the politicizing of science, which results in an abuse of scientific truth. He provides a catalog of politicized interferences with science such as attempts to undermine science, suppression of scientific reports, targeting individual scientists, magnifying uncertainty, ginning up contrary “science,” and more.
The ideological merger between religious conservatives and business interests began in the 70s and 80s. Also at this time, notes Mooney, alarmed by the new wave of environmental, health and safety rules, big business developed powerful lobbying groups, (PACs) and a new way of thinking about how to spend their money in sponsoring research and intellectual inquiry. In 1972, Nixon even dissolved the President’s Science Advisory Committee and abolished the office of the science advisor. The attack was well underway! The assault on science continued. In the 1990’s the Gingrich Republicans dismantled the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, which had been created in the wake of the supersonic transport controversy (1972) to provide the Congress with an independent source of scientific analysis. The mantra came to be “sound science.” This term had little to do with scientific rigor; it had “everything to do with blocking government controls on industry by raising the burden of scientific proof required to justify action,” according to Mooney.
The attacks involved the science of acid rain, CFCs and the ozone, and, by the 1990s, global warming. Today we see so much “dubious science and outright nonsense” in respect to climate science – thanks to, at least in part, the “Gringrich Congress” of the 1990s. The political misuse of science did not begin with the 104th Congress in 1995, but the Gingrich Republicans represented a new level of abuse. With these attacks came new terminology, such as “sound science” and “junk science.” The term sound science, for the right, actually was an ideological term connected to a science-abusing regulatory reform agenda resulting in “paralysis by analysis.” The term “junk science” became frequently attached to any research that didn’t mesh with the laissez-faire policy of regulated companies. If you can’t beat them, confuse them became the mantra. Concerning the global warming denial campaign, which Mooney elaborates on at length, he noted very incisively that “climate change has become an issue on which conservatives have elected to fight over science at least as much as over as over economics, relying on stunning distortions and a shocking disregard for both expertise and the most reputable sources of scientific assessment and analysis.”
Not content at inhibiting regulatory reform directly, it became effective to attack the science that might lead to any unwanted regulatory action. Through the efforts of people like lobbyist Jim Tozzi, legislator Jo Ann Emerson, and White House administrator John Graham, we see programs such as the Data Quality Act, the Shelby amendment, and a “peer review” system of Graham’s design – all efforts to quash any attempt to pass industry despised regulations.
Mooney now considers the Endangered Species Act. He devotes an entire chapter to showing clearly how Republicans engaged in a disturbing quest to use science to gut the ESA, and presents evidence of Bush administration tactics to suppress scientific information coming out of agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Services and the National Marine Fisheries Service. This suppression of science continued with stem cell research, where the quest to “generate arguments sympathetic to a religiously conservative moral agenda” was fully explored. Next we are confronted with the Christian right’s war on sexual health. Here we learn about the false claims concerning abortion – it causes breast cancer and psychological illness, as well as the false claims that condom use is ineffective, or that abstinence programs actually work.
Mooney concludes by providing some insight on what we can do. Perhaps the conservatives can be reasoned with – “begging that they step back from the abyss before it’s too late.” We can restore the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the Office of Science and Technology Policy can be restored to its previous strength, eliminate the political litmus test for committee membership, roll back the “sound science” regulatory reform movement which is designed to create paralysis by analysis, and so on. These political attacks on science succeed, in part, because they confuse everyone by making us think that a controversy exists when actually there is none. We need journalistic balance, that is, report the facts rather that give equal weight to true science and it nemesis – false science. Mooney laments that “we cannot escape the reality that we face a political problem, one that requires explicitly political solutions.” Let’s hope they’re forthcoming.
- Reviewed in the United States on May 5, 2017I love science and have been involved in it (not as a researcher) for years. Lately it has utterly dismayed me how those who lead us seemingly either have little understanding of it. And or little regard. Why? I read this book looking for answers.
Focusing a bit on the Bush years (so this has nothing to do with this Administration, or at least not in detail), Mooney explores just how it is that the very thing that fuels our economy, saves our lives and informs our existence can be disregarded by the powerful.
Short answer: It's all for the money, honey.
The long answer--which is very eye-opening indeed--is well worth this read. Well worth it. Some of the players in the mess are still playing, and using the same toys.
I found Mooney's writing to be fairly streamlined--here and there a little dull--but rather full of abbreviations for committees and associations...but that was truly the only annoying thing.
It's also heavily annotated, which may reassure some readers that the book is basically full of dry but disturbing facts, instead of dry but disturbing opinion.
- Reviewed in the United States on October 14, 2005In the middle of the 2004 presidential election campaign a report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists, endorsed by thousands of respected academics, accused the Bush administration of an unprecedented pattern of distortion and censorship of important scientific evidence. In typical fashion, the administration responded only when the UCS report gained media attention, and then only to dismiss it as a partisan attack from the left.
Chris Mooney's book documents in plain and incontrovertible fashion why the UCS report was not only non-partisan truth, but significantly understated the case. The current political abuse of science is only the culmination of a consistent strategy fostered by a "hard right" alliance of corporate and religious conservatives that has gained control of the Republican party since the 1960's.
Corporate attacks on science started with tobacco industry efforts to undermine studies on the health effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The pattern laid down by the tobacco industry has been consistently followed since: the terms "sound science" and "junk science", meaningless in any scientific sense, originated with tobacco lawsuits and have been parlayed by conservatives into codewords for science that respectively supports or threatens "conservative" ideology.
Mooney categorizes the attacks on science as falling into two main categories. The first of these is an undermining of the processes of science by suppression of information, targeting individual scientists (many of whom work for the government or rely on government grants), or rigging review and advisory committees. The second form these right-wing attacks take is through the communication process to the public after reports are released. This includes "spinning" the science through misrepresentations or distortions, magnifying uncertainty, relying on and promoting fringe scientists and "contrarians", and putting scientific clothing on "values" and ideology.
"Manufacturing uncertainty" was a key to the tobacco industry strategy that has been repeated again and again on issues from global warming to evolution. Finding a token scientist to magnify "contrarian" claims isn't hard: science's health comes from the weathering of constant attacks by those who choose to think differently. But sadly there are also too many scientists willing to distort their own research to conform to the ideologies of funding sources, and a disturbing number of government scientists working for regulatory agencies have been encouraged to alter conclusions of their reports. Mooney notes the sharp distinction in conclusions on the effects of second-hand smoke between industry-funded and independent scientists.
It is one thing to argue and make political decisions based on all the best facts available. That's what we expect our leaders to do. But the right wing attack on science is not satisifed with the facts as they are on the environemnt, biology or medicine. Rather they seek to distort those facts, imposing ideology at an earlier stage, so that decision makers and the public don't even have the truth available to them to make good decisions.
Many of the "contrarian" scientists who have been selected by the Bush administration to sit on major oversight and advisory panels have very little research background at all. Unfortunately, science's ivory tower makes it far too easy to "play scientist" for the public - there are no external credentialing mechanisms that effectively separate real experts from impostors. Tellingly, for these political hacks the arguments change with time as the facts on the ground become increasingly inconvenient to their ideology. Denial of global warming becomes denial of human causation, now morphing into assertion that global warming will be good for us. Creationism becomes "intelligent design".
The broad range of regulatory and scientific areas where the same anti-science tactics have been used forces the conclusion that this is more than separate isolated incidents. Similar issues with failed intelligence on 9-11 and Iraq's WMD, and other apparent efforts to conceal the facts on the ground by the administration imply this pattern of ideological decision making extends far beyond the areas where science is the central source of facts.
There are examples of liberal science abuse too, where individuals are tempted to spin the facts to fit their ideology. Mooney cites a few cases, but the only systematic pattern seems to be one of exaggeration of direct effects and perhaps denial of uncertainty. Of the examples in question, almost all show liberal statements to be much closer to the scientific facts than the right-wing spin on the same issues. Even so, neither side should try to twist science to their benefit, and to his credit Mooney does criticize both.
The book has a few flaws: there are occasional jarring repetitions of previous arguments that suggest chapters were rewritten several times in mid-stream, without reconsidering the book as a whole. Mooney also seems reluctant to state as baldly as possible what's going on here: some people are lying about the facts, and as a result, other people are dying needlessly. Isn't there legal recourse for such fraud, as happened in the case of tobacco?
Mooney makes a number of sensible suggestions beyond legal action: reinstate the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, pass legislation to bar political litmus tests for committees, roll back the "sound science" regulatory reform that has done so much harm. More skepticism and understanding of the processes of science from journalists would be a big help, as would some reforms in the science community itself. But as he also points out, significant change will be impossible in our democracy as long as the current ideologues hold all the strings of power. Getting the information out somehow and persuading the public to vote for moderates instead of ideologues is the most important thing we can do - will it be enough?
Top reviews from other countries
-
Luis Monroy Gómez FrancoReviewed in Mexico on March 4, 20175.0 out of 5 stars The Republican War on Science
Es un excelente libro que relata los mecanismos mediante los cuales el movimiento conservador del Partido Republicano trata de disminuir la participación de la ciencia (y de la evidencia empírica) en los debates sobre políticas públicas. Si bien se centra en lo que ocurrió en el gobierno de Bush II se trata de un buen antecedente de lo que vemos en la administración de Trump.
Jim BowenReviewed in the United Kingdom on February 25, 20143.0 out of 5 stars A really depressing read
This is a horribly depressing book about how the American Republican Party twists and mangles science to its' own ends.
The book was a fairly easy read, if a little disjointed in places (I couldn't quite see why Mooney moves from one topic to another on occasion.
My biggest grumble now would be that it's a bit dated (I read the book in 2014). I focusses on the Bush White House, and its' associated congress.
Thomas A. RegelskiReviewed in the United Kingdom on July 30, 20183.0 out of 5 stars Three Stars
A bit polemical and the examples covered are out of date and no longer relevant to the Trump era.

