Michael Specter

I like the author's approach to tackle the rising problem of 'denialism' of scientific evidence while crediting 'comfortable lies' (be it ideologically motivated or, resting upon superstitions). Indeed, for him it's mainly the gap between what science is expected to deliver and, what it really delivers that is in part to blame for a large misunderstanding and mistrust of science among many people. Thus, to better illustrate that gap, not only he debunks some widespread nonsense (anti show more vaccination movement, alternative medicine, organic food etc.) but, he also confront science with its past mistakes and shameful derives (the behaviour of some pharmacological companies when testing and selling drugs, racism in biology etc.). It's a very interesting and balanced book, especially since the author goes beyond a simple criticism to demonstrate that, such 'denial' regarding the scientific approach and what it can accomplish (unlike other approaches, then) has a serious negative impact on society as a whole. True, he could have included more topics to debunk (I was surprised of not seeing a chapter on the benefits of nuclear energy). However, from the reject of genetically modified crops to the danger of not vaccinating enough children or, synthetic biology, not only his argument for science remains powerful but, his questioning of how we want to assess risk for the sake of progress is strikingly relevant too. A very good and interesting read. show less

Denialism, as author Michael Specter defines it, 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." He deals with several kinds of denialism in this book, mostly involving medicine in some form or another. The premiere example is the anti-vaccine movement, whose adherents cling firmly to the belief that a heartbreaking medical condition has a simple cause and thus a simple show more solution that can and will save a generation of children, just as soon as anti-vaccine crusaders win their fight against the bad guys. It's a very compelling thing to believe, especially if it's an issue in which you have a personal stake, but the problem is, it's just not true. Those who engage in denialism, though, are not easily swayed by scientific evidence, and often reject science entirely, especially when it's telling them things they don't want to hear. Science is dismissed as too impersonal, too authoritarian, too much to blame for everything that's wrong in the world. Specter, of course disagrees, arguing that what we need to solve the problems that face us, from disease to world hunger, is more scientific reasoning and scientific progress, not less, although we should always proceed with our eyes open to the dangers that go along with progress.

I've seen some reviews of this book suggesting that Specter is basically preaching to the choir here, and there's probably some truth in that. Certainly if you're a die-hard believer in alternative medicine or the evils of biotechnology, you're not likely to be convinced by his arguments on those subjects, just upset by them. And those who merely tend to lean in that direction are unlikely to pick up a book whose subtitle seems to be calling them irrational and dangerous (something that strikes me as kind of an unfortunate marketing strategy). Probably most of the people reading this book already consider themselves scientifically-minded skeptics, and the last couple of chapters may appeal most to people who are particularly interested in learning about discoveries in the field of genetics and what's likely to come from them. But I do think there's an in-between audience that may find this book both interesting and useful, people who are not anti-science, but who simply don't know quite who to believe on these subjects, because they don't fully trust Big Pharma or agribusinesses or conventional medicine practices. If you feel that way, Specter gets where you're coming from, and he doesn't think you're entirely wrong. While he's extremely positive about science in general, he is anything but an uncritical rah-rah defender of unethical corporations or irresponsible research. In fact, he devotes most of the first chapter of the book to a case study of a pharmaceutical company that lived down to the very worst of public expectations, deliberately refusing to acknowledge the existence of dangerous side effects that almost certainly resulted in lost lives. But he goes on to use this as the starting point for a demonstration of how to separate baby from bathwater, put stories and statistics into a useful risk-vs-benefit perspective, and distinguish evidence from wishful thinking, an approach that he then carries through all the other topics in the book. So if you're feeling a little confused and uncertain, as so many people are, about questions like "Is it really safe to vaccinate my baby?", "How worried should I be about Frankenfoods?" or "Do I really need to take all the herbs and vitamins that this website I found recommends?", you could do a lot worse than this book as a place to start sorting through it all. show less

Michael Specter is one frustrated and fiery man. He's fed up with people's mistrust of science and affection for homey remedies. Take the latest raw milk craze, for example. Before pasteurization, milk was a major source of food-borne illness in the world. Now people are beginning to mistrust the wisdom of pasteurization, longing for the good old days when their milk came unsullied from the cow. There is no evidence of people being harmed my the pasteurization process, but there's plenty of show more evidence about the dangers of raw milk. That's just one example he uses to make his case: denying scientific progress harms the human race as a whole.

His crusade against the anti-vaccination cult is particularly vehement. Humans have short memories. If we knew the terror of unrestrained cholera, tetanus, and even measles, we would think twice before refusing vaccines to our children.

I found myself agreeing with most of Specter's. I fully agree, for example, that most of the natural homeopathic "remedies" that clutter health food stores and farmers markets across the Country are little more than 21st century snake-oil.

With all that said, even though I agreed with most of the book, I didn't trust him. His passion comes off as arrogance all too often. Here's an analogy. I'm a preacher. 99% of the people in front of my every Sunday morning are believers. I could rant and rave about the importance of being "born again", but it would do not good to have every head nodding—I'd only be preaching to the choir (so to speak). Specter's preaching to the choir. He's given scientific-minded people fodder to help them feel superior to the brainless masses of humanity—but this sort of zealotry will do nothing to persuade those who desperately need to heed his message. show less

With this book I'm torn. I find that the author took great care in picking out his topics but in many circumstances failed to deliver the final message.

Case in point is Vioxx...so was the company the denier or was it those that tarred and feathered the company the deniers? Was it pure greed on the pharmaceutical side or was it the tiny fraction of incidents that is the concern?

There is also the political context here that seems to be out of alignment. Through out the book the author seems to show more imply that it is the conservatives that are the deniers (praising Obama numerous times in the book) even going so far as to call out "Orin Hatch, the Utah Republican" but ignoring the word "Democrat" when calling out Tom Harkin instead using "populist liberal" as a political tag. The book is full of the deniers being Democrats but not once does the author take up that as an issue.

These topics are near and dear to my me since science is close to my heart and I hate seeing it bastardized by those that "once heard something" or that "read it online" rather than allowing science to run its due course. show less