Introduction
Summary of the Book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway. Before moving forward, let’s take a quick look at the book. Picture opening a newspaper and seeing experts argue fiercely over problems that seem too big to ignore. You read about the science behind smoking, climate change, or chemical pollution. Then, suddenly, another voice insists the evidence is not settled. Confused, you set the paper down. This book invites you to understand the hidden forces behind such uncertainty. It leads you through past decades, revealing how certain industries, politicians, and influencers constructed doubt around smoking’s harm, acid rain, the ozone layer’s depletion, and global warming. By grasping these patterns, you become a more careful observer, aware that not all disagreements are honest. Instead, some are orchestrated to keep you stuck, doubting what you’ve learned. Armed with that insight, you can navigate these storms of confusion and find a clearer path forward.
Chapter 1: Unveiling a Secret Web of Misinformation: How Tobacco Giants Shrouded the Truth.
Imagine living in a time when the dangers of something as common as a cigarette were not clearly understood, let alone widely accepted. In the middle of the twentieth century, people truly had little idea that smoking could poison their bodies. Instead, cigarettes seemed like a perfectly normal part of adult life, often enjoyed indoors, at parties, and even sometimes advertised by smiling doctors. At that time, the tobacco industry—a powerful group of major American cigarette companies—knew something the public did not. They were fully aware that their product could seriously harm people’s health, yet they were desperate to keep this knowledge locked away. These industry leaders feared that if the truth came out, profits would drop, reputations would be ruined, and the grand empire they had built would begin to crumble under the weight of undeniable facts.
Back in the 1950s, doctors and independent researchers started making disturbing connections between cigarette smoking and various illnesses. Although this was not yet common knowledge, some early medical studies hinted that cigarettes were closely linked to lung cancer. Instead of coming clean, the tobacco tycoons chose a clever and deceitful path. They gathered their resources and hired professional public relations firms to spread confusion about the research. By doing this, they ensured that the general public would remain unsure and skeptical. After all, if ordinary people doubted the validity of scientific findings, they would keep buying cigarettes. The tobacco giants played a high-stakes game: rather than confronting the truth, they committed themselves to planting tiny seeds of uncertainty in the public mind, hoping these seeds would bloom into full-grown forests of doubt.
To achieve this, tobacco companies rallied behind well-known advertising and PR groups, commissioning them to shape public opinion. They launched campaigns emphasizing that there was no clear proof smoking caused cancer, or that further studies were needed. Such language was cunning—by stressing uncertainty, they cleverly guided people away from solid conclusions. They went as far as funding their own research programs at top universities, handing out generous financial grants to scientists who were known to be sympathetic or at least not openly hostile. Under the guidance of certain recruited experts, the tobacco industry arranged for handpicked evidence to appear in academic journals and brought scientists to testify in court, all claiming that cigarettes were not conclusively linked to illness. This was how they disguised their toxic product in a cloak of manufactured doubt.
Over time, more and more evidence piled up, and it became harder to deny the health risks that came with every puff. People started demanding honesty and transparency. Government agencies stepped in, and medical groups raised their voices. Yet, even as the truth inched closer to the light, the tobacco industry persisted. They clung to the idea that if they could just confuse the issue long enough, the public would lose interest or give up trying to separate fact from fiction. Through decades of persistent manipulation, these corporations managed to delay the acceptance of the medical truth. Many people paid for this deception with their health. The first chapter of this story sets the stage: a powerful industry deciding that profit and image mattered more than human lives, and the world beginning to learn that lesson the hard way.
Chapter 2: Crafting Confusion Over Secondhand Smoke: How Industry Attacks Science to Delay Change.
When most people finally accepted that smoking caused lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease, a new question arose: what about the smoke nonsmokers were forced to inhale? This secondhand smoke, drifting through homes, restaurants, and airplanes, was a hidden menace. As scientists started investigating the effects of breathing smoky air without even holding a cigarette, the tobacco industry realized it faced another serious blow. If it turned out that even bystanders were being harmed, stricter bans and regulations would surely follow. By the 1980s, major studies from Britain and Japan confirmed that being around smokers reduced a nonsmoker’s lung capacity. Soon, official U.S. reports declared secondhand smoke to be as deadly as lighting up oneself. Yet again, the tobacco corporations refused to surrender. They simply changed their tactics and targeted the science itself.
The tobacco industry was already skilled at muddying the waters. This time, they argued that the techniques scientists used to study secondhand smoke were flawed, calling the approach junk science. They claimed the data had been lumped together incorrectly or that the standards of evidence were too low. By dismissing carefully reviewed reports as untrustworthy, they hoped to convince the public that nothing was certain and no changes were necessary. They hired scientists who were willing to say the research on secondhand smoke was questionable, thereby introducing the idea that secondhand smoke’s harm was not proven beyond doubt. This cynical maneuver aimed to prolong debate, enabling cigarette companies to carry on selling their products to smokers and allowing smoky indoor environments to remain the norm.
These campaigns of doubt did not simply target specific findings; they struck at the heart of how science works. Rather than arguing against one particular result, tobacco promoters claimed that the entire scientific process was unreliable. They insisted that respectable authorities like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had relaxed standards, that they were too quick to declare secondhand smoke harmful. By doing so, they hoped to undermine trust in any scientific evaluation that threatened their profitability. They pushed the narrative that scientists cherry-picked data or were too eager to blame tobacco without proper proof. Of course, actual peer reviews and careful evaluations backed the scientific conclusions. But the tobacco companies knew if they shouted loudly enough, some people would hear their message of doubt.
So, as serious health regulations hung in the balance, the tobacco industry performed a kind of PR juggling act. With every new warning sign about the dangers of secondhand smoke, they offered slick counterarguments designed to delay or derail policy changes. If they maintained that uncertainty existed, politicians and the public might hesitate to take action. Over time, public health authorities and independent journalists began to see through these stalling tactics. Eventually, smoke-free environments became more common and accepted. Yet, the tobacco industry’s ability to question not just the facts, but the very nature of scientific inquiry, would serve as a playbook for other industries and interest groups that did not want to face the truth about the dangers they unleashed into the world.
Chapter 3: Stretching Nuclear Fears: How a Trio of Scientists Twisted Defense Debates for Decades.
In the mid-twentieth century, as nuclear weapons emerged, people everywhere worried about the possibility of catastrophic war. Scientists, too, felt the weight of these fears. Some wanted to ease tensions and find ways to prevent atomic destruction. But not everyone agreed. Certain influential scientists, emotionally tied to the idea that the Soviet Union remained a terrifying enemy, worked tirelessly to keep Americans suspicious and afraid. They believed that any effort at peace was naïve and dangerous. Their solution? Expand defensive measures, pour money into space-based weapons systems, and keep the public alarmed. This environment allowed a few determined figures to manipulate the scientific debate around nuclear strategies, making it seem like the Soviet threat was always just around the corner.
President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), often called the Star Wars program, proposed putting weapons in space to knock out enemy missiles. This bold idea stirred a huge scientific controversy. Many scientists strongly opposed it, seeing it as not just technically risky but also a step toward normalizing nuclear war. But one well-funded group, the George C. Marshall Institute, stepped forward to support the SDI. Founded by three influential scientists—Fred Seitz, Edward Teller, and Robert Jastrow—this institute aimed to keep the debate alive by suggesting that there were legitimate scientific reasons to believe in the necessity and feasibility of missile defense. The truth, however, was that the mainstream scientific community had largely concluded such a system would not work reliably and might even encourage an arms race.
By insisting that the science supporting SDI was uncertain and that more discussion was needed, the Marshall Institute took advantage of the Fairness Doctrine in the media. This rule required broadcasters to present both sides of issues equally, even if one side was a tiny minority. As a result, the public often saw a balanced debate on TV: one scientist warning about the dangers of weaponizing space, and another, often from the Marshall Institute, saying it was a vital defense measure. This gave the appearance that scientists were evenly split, when in reality, most experts were united in opposing SDI. By prolonging the debate, the Institute helped delay any clear consensus and policy change, keeping fear and uncertainty in the public mind.
In the end, while actual policies and treaties shifted as global politics changed, the strategy of using a handful of credentialed experts to fight against scientific consensus proved remarkably effective. This same approach—highlighting a tiny minority opinion and amplifying it through media—would be deployed again on other issues. The goal was always to make the public doubt mainstream scientific conclusions. By doing so, policymakers might be hesitant to take action. In the nuclear debate, these tactics helped stall progress toward more stable peace agreements. Even after the Cold War ended, the Marshall Institute’s style of sowing confusion endured, migrating to debates about the environment and public health. Their manipulations taught future generations of misinformation merchants how to keep arguments alive long after the facts were known.
Chapter 4: Eroding Trust in Environmental Science: The U.S. Government’s Masking of Acid Rain Research.
In the 1970s, as scientists began to focus on environmental harm caused by industrial activities, one alarming issue rose to public attention: acid rain. Created when factories and power plants released sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, acid rain damaged forests, lakes, and wildlife. Canadian researchers found that huge portions of their acidic precipitation came from American smokestacks, drifting across borders with the wind. Meanwhile, fish populations died off, trees weakened, and precious natural habitats were stripped of their vitality. Although scientific studies repeatedly confirmed the connection between fossil fuel emissions and acid rain’s damaging effects, the U.S. government resisted taking responsibility. Instead of acknowledging the evidence, officials formed committees and reassessments to re-check settled science, hoping to generate doubt and avoid costly environmental regulations.
In 1980, the United States and Canada joined forces in study groups to address acid rain, hoping to find solutions and possibly form policies that could reduce emissions. A year later, the respected U.S. National Academy of Sciences reviewed the findings, further reinforcing the link between emissions and environmental damage. Yet, the White House took a suspicious step: it asked for another separate review led by William A. Nierenberg, a scientist known for his conservative views. This repetition signaled a pattern: when confronted with results it did not like, the U.S. government simply started over, assembling new panels to question old conclusions. This made the science appear uncertain or not settled, even though top scientists had already made the link clear.
But that was not all. Nierenberg’s final committee was tampered with at the highest levels. He lost control over one of his committee appointments to White House officials, who inserted Fred Singer, a figure who would later become notorious for disputing various forms of environmental science. Singer put heavy emphasis on the cost of cleanup and measures to prevent acid rain, rather than the straightforward scientific fact that reducing emissions was necessary to protect ecosystems. Additionally, behind-the-scenes notes show that the final published review was heavily edited to soften its conclusions. This editing process made the final document look uncertain and vague, giving politicians cover to resist taking tough regulatory steps.
By repeatedly challenging and re-challenging established science, the U.S. government gave ordinary citizens the impression that experts were still locked in debate. Journalists, policymakers, and voters might reasonably think that if so many panels were being convened, then perhaps scientists were unsure of the problem’s cause. This confusion worked in favor of industries that did not want to reduce their emissions. They benefited from delays, hoping that by prolonging the conversation, no serious policy changes would occur soon. Acid rain persisted, harming vast swaths of nature, while politicians pretended that the question of its cause remained murky. This pattern—demand more studies, re-edit findings, confuse the narrative—would pop up again in future environmental battles, revealing a strategy of using doubt as a weapon against inconvenient truths.
Chapter 5: Darkening Skies Above: Industry Pushback Against the Evidence of Ozone Depletion.
The story of ozone depletion begins with tiny but powerful chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. Used in hairsprays, refrigerators, and other common products, these compounds drifted into the upper atmosphere, where they broke down protective ozone. Ozone in the stratosphere shields us from dangerous ultraviolet radiation. Without it, skin cancer rates would rise, crops would suffer, and delicate ecosystems would face grave threats. By the mid-1970s, scientists had sounded the alarm. As more evidence rolled in, the picture became clear: human activities were thinning Earth’s ozone layer. Yet the industries producing CFCs saw a frightening future if strict regulations were imposed. Just like the tobacco giants, they recognized that challenging the science, accusing researchers of overreacting, and pointing to natural variations could buy them valuable time.
In 1985, the discovery of a massive ozone hole over Antarctica confirmed the worst fears of climate researchers. Governments and environmental groups grew alarmed, and pressure for action mounted. International agreements like the Montreal Protocol required countries to cut back on CFC production. But manufacturers of these chemicals were not ready to surrender. They claimed that the science was still evolving and that perhaps volcanoes or other natural phenomena caused ozone depletion. They used public relations campaigns to assure people that no immediate action was necessary. They found allies in certain scientists, like Fred Singer, who publicly criticized the research. Although peer-reviewed studies upheld the connection between CFCs and ozone loss, these industry-backed voices insisted that the matter was not settled science.
As newspapers and television networks attempted to cover the ozone story, they sometimes followed a pattern of balanced reporting, giving equal weight to minority views. This gave the illusion that many experts doubted the role of CFCs in ozone depletion, when in fact, the majority of researchers agreed on the basic facts. The resulting confusion slowed the pace of strong regulatory action. While some restrictions were passed, the ongoing debate lulled parts of the public into thinking the threat was exaggerated. Just like with tobacco smoke and acid rain, those whose interests were threatened by scientific findings found a way to cast shadows over the truth.
Over time, as more satellites and ground stations tracked the thinning ozone, it became nearly impossible to maintain the charade. Governments eventually phased out CFCs, and the ozone layer began a slow recovery. But the pattern of resistance had established itself: when confronted with solid evidence of environmental harm, powerful interests did not immediately surrender. Instead, they raised questions, funded friendly experts, and argued that natural forces, not human actions, were to blame. They aimed to shape public opinion, not through honest debate, but through distorted portrayals of scientific uncertainty. The ozone story stands as a lesson in how special interests delay vital protective measures, hoping that people will grow tired or confused before demanding effective action.
Chapter 6: The Slow Burn of Global Warming Awareness: How Climate Science Was Muddled and Dismissed.
If the struggles over tobacco, secondhand smoke, and ozone depletion sound familiar, it’s because a similar pattern shaped the conversation around global warming. By the late twentieth century, it was clear to most climate scientists that rising carbon dioxide levels from burning fossil fuels were warming the Earth’s atmosphere. This warming could lead to melting ice caps, rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, and numerous other ecological and societal crises. But powerful interests—mainly in the fossil fuel industry—saw heavy regulations and drastic reductions in oil, coal, and gas use on the horizon. To protect their profits, they borrowed tactics from earlier battles: they questioned the methods, accused scientists of alarmism, and financed studies that sowed doubt about the reliability of climate models.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, expert panels concluded that increased greenhouse gases would create a warmer world. Yet governments ordered more and more reviews, hoping to find reasons to avoid expensive changes. One key moment came when James E. Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, famously testified in 1988 that global warming was already under way. This sparked public concern and media coverage, pushing climate change into broader debate. But right on cue, a group of doubt-spreading experts stepped in. Among them were individuals we’ve seen before, like Fred Singer, working through organizations like the George C. Marshall Institute. They wrote articles and appeared on talk shows claiming climate science was not settled, that warming might be caused by the Sun, or that it wouldn’t harm humans significantly.
Policymakers were caught between the pleas of scientists urging swift action and the persistent voices of those questioning climate models. Some economists and industry-linked advisors argued that even if the planet warmed, human ingenuity and new technologies would help future generations adapt. They claimed that it was more cost-effective to wait and see than to curb emissions now. This reasoning conveniently delayed strong government policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel use. Meanwhile, emissions continued to rise, and so did global temperatures. The careful scientific consensus—that human activity was triggering climate change—was complicated by the constant insertion of doubtful opinions into the public discourse.
In time, the vast majority of climate scientists formed a united front. They collectively agreed that global warming was real, serious, and caused primarily by human emissions. However, the seeds of doubt sown in earlier decades still influenced many people’s perceptions. Even as climate reports grew more certain and alarming, some citizens and politicians clung to the idea that the science remained uncertain. This was not an accident; it was the intended outcome of relentless campaigns to blur the lines between sound scientific findings and marginal, unproven ideas. The fossil fuel industry and its allies had learned from the tobacco playbook, employing similar tactics of delay, confusion, and denial to keep the world hesitating on the brink of meaningful climate action.
Chapter 7: Reviving Old Battles: The Re-Emergence of DDT Debates to Discredit Environmental Protections.
By the early 2000s, something unexpected happened: old arguments about a banned pesticide called DDT resurfaced. DDT was once used widely to kill insects that spread diseases and damaged crops. But in 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring revealed that DDT poisoned wildlife and lingered in the environment, eventually leading the United States to ban it in 1972 for agricultural use. Decades later, supporters of deregulation searched for a way to attack environmental policies. They pointed to DDT’s ban and falsely claimed that this had caused unnecessary deaths from malaria, since DDT could have controlled mosquito populations. Conveniently ignored were the facts that DDT was still used in emergency health situations and that insects quickly developed resistance to it, reducing its long-term effectiveness.
This revival of the DDT debate wasn’t about genuine concern for human life. Instead, it was a crafted narrative aimed at undermining trust in environmental safeguards. If people could be convinced that the environmental movement had unfairly banned a life-saving substance, then perhaps all environmental regulations could be painted as harmful, misguided, or even deadly. Newspaper editorials and opinion pieces in influential outlets like the Wall Street Journal suggested that environmental rules, inspired by Carson’s warnings, had condemned millions to disease. In truth, the issue was far more complex. Public health agencies never stopped countries threatened by malaria from using DDT. The real challenge was that overuse had reduced its effectiveness, and more sustainable and strategic solutions were needed.
This tactic reflected a larger pattern: when faced with inconvenient scientific conclusions that demanded policy changes, some groups looked backward for ammunition. Reviving the DDT debate allowed them to claim that environmentalists, scientists, and regulatory agencies were not always right. If they could show one instance—no matter how distorted—where a supposed green policy led to negative outcomes, they could raise doubts about other accepted scientific issues, like climate change. By doing so, they intended to create confusion and mistrust in the minds of the public, making people wonder if all these environmental threats were overblown.
Yet, careful examination reveals how hollow these arguments were. The alleged millions of malaria deaths caused by DDT bans did not stand up under scrutiny. Organizations fighting malaria had never fully relied on DDT alone, and it was never banned for public health emergencies in the regions where malaria was a serious problem. Critics of the pesticide restrictions took data and stories out of context to spin a misleading tale. By the early twenty-first century, it was becoming clear that not only industries, but also ideologically motivated think tanks and commentators, were willing to twist historical episodes to fit their narratives. Through this, they hoped to discourage strict environmental rules and keep society from fully trusting scientific findings that demanded urgent action.
Chapter 8: The Mechanics of Manufactured Uncertainty: A Strategy Repeated Across Issues.
Reflecting on the various cases—tobacco, secondhand smoke, nuclear defense, acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, and DDT—the same strategy appears again and again. Whenever scientific evidence threatens powerful interests, a cluster of voices emerges to question the research, its methods, or its conclusions. They don’t need to prove the mainstream science wrong. Instead, all they must do is introduce doubt. Doubt is a powerful tool: it can slow the formation of policies, split public opinion, and allow industries or governments to avoid costly changes. Even if the facts are solid, simply suggesting that perhaps the data is incomplete or the results uncertain can freeze progress. Over time, this approach forms a pattern that people who study these events can easily recognize.
In each case, a common cast of characters emerges: think tanks with official-sounding names, carefully selected scientists with credentials that lend authority, and public relations firms skilled at shaping media narratives. Often, the same few individuals show up repeatedly, shifting from one topic to the next. They may start by defending tobacco, then appear decades later questioning climate change, and finally weigh in on controversies about pesticides. Their expertise does not lie in a deep understanding of the fields they criticize; rather, it lies in presenting themselves as credible while placing subtle question marks around established truths. By doing so, they encourage reporters to give both sides of the story. This is not a quest for truth, but a carefully managed campaign to promote indecision.
The tactics include cherry-picking studies that support a contrarian view, financing research that might sow confusion, and using language that emphasizes uncertainty—words like controversial, unsettled, or disputed. They highlight tiny disagreements within the scientific community, which are natural in any evolving field, and blow them out of proportion, making it seem as if nothing can be concluded for sure. This approach benefits from the public’s limited time and attention. Many people don’t have hours to dig through detailed research, so they rely on media summaries and headlines. If those headlines present a debate rather than a conclusion, it is easy for a person to assume that action can wait.
Over decades, this learned pattern of handling inconvenient truths grows stronger. As one generation of lobbyists and spin doctors sees success with tobacco, the next tries the same on ozone depletion, acid rain, or global warming. The lesson taken from these campaigns is that real scientific consensus can be obscured by persistently magnifying the minority’s voices, no matter how thin the evidence behind them. The broader public might come away believing that the truth is unknowable or that scientists are bickering endlessly. Meanwhile, the clock ticks on, problems worsen, and real solutions are deferred. Understanding how uncertainty is manufactured is key to seeing through these foggy debates and pushing society toward honest, evidence-based decisions.
Chapter 9: The Long Shadow of False Controversy: Consequences for Society, Policy, and the Future.
By now, it should be clear that sowing doubt is more than a clever trick. It can profoundly shape what society believes and how it acts. When misinformation spreads, public health measures are delayed, people continue dangerous behaviors, and environmental problems intensify. Policies that could prevent pollution, slow climate change, or reduce the risk of nuclear war are postponed or watered down. This happens because uncertainty dulls the sense of urgency. If people are unsure, they are less likely to support strong corrective actions. Over time, problems that could have been easier to handle become enormous challenges. Think of it like ignoring a leak in a dam; if you keep questioning the measurements and tools used to detect it, the dam might burst while you are still debating.
In addition, these tactics damage trust in science and expertise. If people constantly hear that scientists disagree, or that any uncomfortable discovery might be flawed, they might lose confidence in all scientific findings. This distrust makes it harder to rally around major challenges, from improving public health to responding to global crises. Moreover, a culture of doubt encourages bad actors to keep repeating these strategies. Seeing how tobacco and fossil fuel industries got away with it, other groups realize that spending money on questioning science pays off. It’s often cheaper to hire a handful of contrarian voices than to genuinely address the root cause of a problem.
The inability to move forward with agreed-upon facts leaves communities divided. While some people trust scientists and want swift action, others remain unsure. Politicians face pressure from all sides and may settle for half-measures or no action at all. This back-and-forth battle consumes years, sometimes decades, of precious time. By then, the damage done may be irreversible or far more expensive to repair. In some cases, lives are lost, ecosystems crumble, and the window to prevent serious harm narrows drastically. The cost of waiting is paid in human suffering and environmental degradation.
Yet, awareness of these tactics also gives hope. If people understand how a few scientists and well-funded groups manipulate public debates, they can become more critical readers, listeners, and voters. Education and media literacy can help communities recognize when claims are grounded in carefully reviewed evidence and when they are the product of a spin campaign. Ultimately, resisting the allure of manufactured doubt begins with shining a bright light on it. Once exposed, these tactics lose much of their power. Knowledge that doubt can be engineered encourages a healthier skepticism: not skepticism toward evidence-based science, but toward those who cry uncertain! while refusing to acknowledge the wealth of data at hand. Only then can society step beyond confusion and move toward progress.
All about the Book
Explore the profound influence of disinformation in ‘Merchants of Doubt, ‘ revealing how a small group of experts misled the public on climate change, tobacco, and more—exposing a hidden agenda that impacts consumers globally.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway are renowned historians of science, acclaimed for their incisive insights into the manipulation of science by politics and industry, enlightening readers on crucial contemporary issues.
Environmental Scientists, Public Health Officials, Policy Makers, Educators, Journalists
Reading non-fiction, Advocating for climate action, Participating in debates, Studying public policy, Engaging in community activism
Climate Change Denial, Public Health Risks, Corporate Misinformation, The Role of Science in Society
The truth is, we have a moral obligation to acknowledge the challenges posed by climate change and act on them.
Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Al Gore
American Book Award, Los Angeles Times Book Prize, Green Prize for Sustainable Literature
1. What strategies do industries use to sow doubt? #2. How do scientists challenge misinformation effectively? #3. Why is climate change skepticism so prevalent today? #4. What role do think tanks play in doubt campaigns? #5. How can the media influence public perception of science? #6. What historical examples show doubt in science’s progress? #7. How do personal beliefs shape scientific controversies? #8. Why is understanding uncertainty crucial for public policy? #9. What tactics make misinformation convincing to the public? #10. How can experts better communicate scientific findings? #11. What impact does doubt have on public health decisions? #12. How do corporations manipulate scientific research outcomes? #13. What lessons can we learn from tobacco industry strategies? #14. How can citizens critically evaluate scientific claims? #15. What ethical responsibilities do scientists have in advocacy? #16. How do cultural values intersect with scientific understanding? #17. What are common fallacies in arguments against science? #18. How does the concept of manufactured uncertainty arise? #19. Why does intellectual freedom matter in scientific research? #20. What can be done to promote scientific literacy widely?
Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway, climate change denial, science communication, public policy, environmental science, misinformation, corporate influence on science, critical thinking, debunking myths, historical analysis of science
https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Naomi-Oreskes/dp/1617261691
https://audiofire.in/wp-content/uploads/covers/2527.png
https://www.youtube.com/@audiobooksfire
audiofireapplink