A HISTORIAN of science at Harvard University, Naomi Oreskes is best known for exposing the tactics of science deniers. Her first book Merchants of Doubt, co-authored with Erik Conway, chronicled how industry-funded scientists spread misinformation and doubt about tobacco smoke, climate change, acid rain and more. She has since exposed how the 鈥渢obacco playbook鈥� has become the standard corporate strategy to delay regulatory action and protect bottom lines. In her new book Why Trust Science?, she sets out what scientists must do to stem the tide of denialism.
Graham Lawton: We live in troubled times. Have you ever known science denial and misinformation to be so rampant and widespread?
Naomi Oreskes: I don鈥檛 like to overstate the situation because we鈥檝e had denial for a long time. However, two things have happened to make things worse. One is the blatant, overt, unapologetic and completely shameless rejection of science by the president of the United States.
Advertisement
The other is that people鈥檚 lives are really at stake. Climate change is here, it鈥檚 unequivocal. People are being killed by floods and hurricanes. To deny it in the face of human suffering 鈥� there鈥檚 a moral dimension to that. I can鈥檛 think of a word other than 鈥渟hocking鈥�.
Why do so many people reject and mistrust science?
I would push back on 鈥渟o many people鈥�. When we look at opinion polls in the US, UK and around the world, the vast majority of people do accept science. But we see resistance to particular scientific conclusions that people think threaten or conflict with their self-interest: that could be economic self-interest, it could be religious beliefs or it could be some kind of political position like commitment to free-market capitalism. Denial is quite specific, not the broad-brush thing that people sometimes make it out to be. And I think that distinction is important, because the solution is different.
It seems that we have gone from science denial to denial of facts and evidence in general. Would you agree with that?
Yes. What we鈥檙e seeing is the 鈥渕anufactured doubt鈥� strategy being universalised as a political tactic, because once you can undermine people鈥檚 beliefs in facts and credible authority, then you can say almost anything.
Normally in politics, one of the tools that we use to fight back against things we don鈥檛 agree with is to point out when they鈥檙e factually incorrect. Now, because there鈥檚 so much cynicism and distrust, that鈥檚 become extremely difficult.
Social media cops a lot of the blame. Is that fair?
I think it鈥檚 an oversimplification. We know from history that you don鈥檛 need social media to spread disinformation, you can do it with old-fashioned media. However, I do think social media has made it worse because it鈥檚 now possible to get disinformation out to incredibly large audiences rapidly at very low cost. A bunch of guys in a basement can now do a lot of damage and do it pretty quickly.
When corporate interests spread misinformation, it is clear why they are doing it. What motivates the guys in the basement?
People do things for all kinds of reasons. It isn鈥檛 just about money. They are often driven by free-market ideology, the idea that if the government intervenes into the marketplace, we鈥檙e on the road to socialism. Lots of people buy into this myth 鈥� and it is a myth 鈥� that government is bad, that any regulation, even to protect your health and safety, is bad. There鈥檚 a well-funded and very smart campaign to persuade ordinary people that their self-interest is the same as that of the captains of industry.
Is ideology the only motivation?
Attention-seeking behaviour is part of it too. There are a lot of people who would not be well known who are actually quite famous now because of their climate denialism.
I also think some of them are lonely. Once, this guy gave me a really hard time at a book reading. Then afterwards, he asked me out. And I think they鈥檙e scared. Climate change is scary. And when people are frightened, they lash out in all sorts of directions and they often shoot the messenger. When someone comes along and says, 鈥淒on鈥檛 listen to those geeks, they鈥檙e just a bunch of elite, arrogant eggheads鈥� 鈥� which, honestly, some of them are 鈥� some people find that an attractive message.
You think scientists are partly to blame?
I don鈥檛 want to use the word blame. But some way in which we鈥檝e structured science and our understanding of what it is to be a scientist has contributed.
A lot of scientists are really full of themselves, right? There is a certain way in which scientists 鈥� not all, but some 鈥� can be dismissive of ordinary folks. 杏吧原创s have to stop being so arrogant.
The problem is in the way we鈥檙e trained and what we鈥檙e taught to value. There鈥檚 a cultural obsession with the idea that to be a great scientist, you have to be absolutely single-minded. You get no training whatsoever in communication. But there鈥檚 plenty of evidence that to communicate is to connect with a fellow human being, and you cannot do that without some degree of emotional investment. So when scientists expunge their emotions, it doesn鈥檛 work.
鈥淥nce you undermine beliefs in facts then you can say almost anything鈥�
What can scientists do to counter public doubt?
When the doubt thing first happened, most scientists misdiagnosed it. They saw it as a problem of scientific literacy and thought that the response was to explain it more clearly. More facts, more evidence.
That doesn鈥檛 work because these people are not lacking information. This is not a knowledge deficit problem, it is a problem of ideologically motivated misinformation. What you have to do is to expose their motivation, and then you can say, 鈥淟ook, I get it. I care about freedom too. So let鈥檚 talk about solutions to this problem that we could achieve without taking away your freedom.鈥� Then you have shifted the terms of debate.
You and others have been banging this drum for years. Do you feel like you have failed?
I don鈥檛 think so. We have made people aware that this is not simply a problem of scientific literacy. However, we鈥檙e up against really, really big forces.
There is an incredibly powerful and well-funded network, organised and financed by some of the most powerful corporations that have ever existed.
Denial makes me angry, but I don鈥檛 know if that is an appropriate response. Does it make you angry?
Oh, absolutely. I think we need to be angry. We need to be outraged. I always say it鈥檚 rational to be outraged about things that are outrageous. But then we have to channel that anger and outrage into productive political action.
One of your previous books, The Collapse of Western Civilization, painted a deeply pessimistic picture of the future. Do you still feel that way?
Every single day you can find grounds for optimism. Greta Thunberg is amazing, the Gandhi of climate change. She is clearly motivating lots of people. So is Extinction Rebellion. There is rising anger, people are saying, 鈥淭his is ridiculous.鈥� I think that鈥檚 all good.
But every day, you can also find grounds for pessimism. Are we going to figure out how to dislodge these incredibly powerful forces that we鈥檙e up against? I think the jury鈥檚 still out on that.
You have yourself been targeted by denialists and misinformation campaigns.
Of course, but I try not to dwell on it. I know it鈥檚 toxic. I get much more support than I get pushback. Most people are with us. Most people understand the threat. They know it is real and want to do something about it. I try to stay focused on that.
