Creating Scientific Controversies

Subtitled 'uncertainty and bias in science and society', this is an important work bringing to bear insight from the philosophy of science to what Harker calls created controversies. We associate science with authoritative reliability, objectivity, facts and rationality, but this does not remove the less stable human element. The point of departure is the way in which cigarette companies tried to promote the impression that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of their products. These tactics have now been applied in other areas, including food and drink, using doubt and uncertainty to confuse the public and protect industry interests. Sometimes, the inherent caution and uncertainty of science is misused. The first part draws lessons from the philosophy of science in terms of understanding its nature, the empirical approach, theory-laden observations, under-determination and lessons from the history and sociology of science.

The next part looks as biases, including confirmation bias, cherry picking of evidence, overconfidence and straightforward logical fallacies. The author provides a taxonomy of created controversies and how to detect them. The situation arises when it is claimed that there is an ongoing scientific debate about a matter on which there is in fact an overwhelming scientific consensus. Doubt and uncertainty are magnified, and this is then abetted by the journalistic search for balance, which can give a platform to extreme views. The third part describes number of created controversies in more detail - principally anthropogenic climate change and the intelligent design issue. In the first case, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus called into question largely by interests supported by the oil industry. The second gives a very good account of the discrepancy between expert and public opinion where 'a personal sense of incredulity is not an objection to the evidence and arguments that favour the central components of evolutionary biology.' There are then shorter discussions of HIV and AIDS, vaccinations and autism, and GMOs. Readers will have their own views on these topics, which will not necessarily be those of the author, who I think underestimates some of the widespread problems associated with vaccinations while recognising the benefits (the pharmaceutical industry defends its interests vigorously in this respect). The controversy over GMOs is also identified as one of the deeper values and, as the author himself states, is arguably not a created controversy - I found his discussion helpful. Harker has done readers a great favour by so clearly delineating the nature and significance of created controversies.