The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

Cover
Author	Tom Bethell
Country	United States
Language	English
Series	Politically Incorrect Guides
Subject	Politicization of science
Publisher	Regnery Publishing
Publication date	2005
Media type	Print (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages	270
ISBN	978-0895260314

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science is a 2005 book by journalist Tom Bethell, in which the author addresses issues including HIV/AIDS denialism, intelligent design, and the relationship between science and Christianity. It was published by Regnery Publishing.

The book received negative reviews, and Bethell was criticized for misrepresenting science for political purposes.

Summary

Bethell, a senior editor at American Spectator, and a former editor of the Washington Monthly discusses what conservatives have seen as the politicization of science. He addresses a number of issues, including global warming, nuclear power, DDT and control of malaria, HIV/AIDS denialism, cloning, genetic engineering, intelligent design, the trial of Galileo and the relationship between science and Christianity. On all these topics, Bethell argues that the Left have distorted scientific facts in order to advance their political agenda and to increase the size of government, often through scare campaigns like the risk of runaway climate change. He also states that the Left have tried to censor those scientists who disagree with their viewpoints, regardless of what the best scientific evidence might say.

Publication history

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science was first published in 2005 by Regnery Publishing.^[1]

Reception

The book received a positive review from columnist William A. Rusher in The MetroWest Daily News,^[2] a mixed review from Carl Grant in New Oxford Review,^[3] and negative reviews from the journalist Chris Mooney in Skeptical Inquirer and Lisa Simpson Strange in the Glasgow Daily Times.^[4][5] It was also reviewed by TB West in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons,^[6] and discussed by George Neumayr in American Thinker,^[7] Allan H. Ryskind in Human Events,^[8] and in Nuclear News.^[9] An overview of the book written by Bethell appeared in The American Spectator and Bethell was interviewed about the work in Human Events and LewRockwell.com.^[10][11][12] Bethell also discussed the work in National Review.^[1]

Rusher credited Bethell with showing that the misuse of science to reinforce political viewpoints is a major political problem and with exposing "liberal myths" such as global warming and evolution, as well as beliefs about the dangers of nuclear power and DDT. He endorsed Bethell's view that federal funding provides scientists with an incentive to exaggerate such "alleged dangers".^[2]

Grant credited Bethell with making important criticisms of the way in which science is done. He agreed with Bethell that scientists often have biases and conflicts of interest, and also expressed agreement with many of Bethell's views on the relationship of religion and science, writing that the evidence for naturalistic evolution was "underwhelming" and that, "Much evolutionary theory is only a series of ad hoc explanations to cover the poor fit between Darwin’s theory and actual fact." However, he criticized Bethell for his dismissal of theistic evolution, for sometimes failing to "provide reference where the context requires them", such as in his discussions of the AIDS epidemic and the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo Galilei, and for sometimes overstating his case, or alternately conceding too much to his opponents. Overall, he concluded that the book was "moderately useful".^[3]

Mooney argued that Bethell "misrepresents the state of scientific knowledge on issues ranging from global warming to the vulnerability of endangered species to evolution". However, he observed that Bethell's book was "getting plenty of attention" and selling well, that The Heritage Foundation had sponsored an event to promote it, and that it was "likely to be read by a lot of people". He considered its publication "a highly significant development", since it took the "war on scientific knowledge from the political right" in the United States "to a new level of intensity" and exposed the "anti-science sentiments" of many conservative Republicans. He wrote that Bethell "provides a useful service" by presenting "discredited arguments" often used to undermine well-established scientific conclusions. He accused Bethell of "compiling scientific-sounding arguments to bolster a political conclusion", misrepresenting some sources, presenting problematic "general science policy arguments", misguidedly encouraging journalists to criticize science, wrongly dismissing scientific consensus, and "whipping up resentment of the scientific community among rank-and-file political conservatives." He found the book "a very saddening and depressing read."^[4]

Strange described the book as a "tome of utter disinformation" and Bethell as "an ultra-conservative, right-wing religious zealot" who "takes the research actual scientists have worked on for years and either twists the findings to fit his own narrow-minded agenda" or "simply announces to the world that the efforts of dedicated, trained men and women in the fields of medicine, chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, etc." are nothing but "junk science." She also charged Bethell with producing "reams of type about subjects of which he has no clear understanding" and of making "no effort to educate himself on matters pertaining to actual scientific method and study." She also characterized Bethell's work as "junk".^[5]

Neumayr credited Bethell with exposing global warming as propaganda.^[7] Ryskind welcomed Bethell's discussion of Darwinian theory, and maintained that Bethell had good credentials to discuss science.^[8] Nuclear News focused on Bethell's discussion of nuclear power.^[9] In LewRockwell.com, Bethell was interviewed by Ryan Setliff, who prefaced his interview by noting that Bethell had impressive credentials, noting that he was a senior editor with The American Spectator, was "an Oxford graduate with degrees in philosophy, physiology, and psychology", and had also "contributed to magazines and writes often on the discipline of science."^[10]

References