Merchants of Doubt, Introduction-Chapter 4

I have little doubt that I will be in the minority for my opinion about our reading for this week’s seminar. I’ve heard whispers (and sometimes shouts) of ardent love for the content and communication style of Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s Merchants of Doubt from my fellow seminar participants. While the authors tell a historically factual tale of intrigue, deceit, and conspiracy against scientific consensus, I will openly admit that I could hardly keep my eyes open while reading the first half of this book.

I am left wondering why such a fascinating story left me so sleepy and in need of caffeine or a brisk walk. The story seemingly has is all: a small group of rogue scientists have been pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public for decades on the largest environmental and health related issues of our times. Their deceit has delayed and shaped policy and transformed the public understanding of causative factors behind the human health impacts of smoking, acid rain, climate change, and the hole in the ozone layer.

But, my eyes droop every time I crack this book open. And the clack of my officemate’s keyboard becomes more interesting to listen to than concentrating on the tiny words on the pages before me. My lack of interest stems, not from the story, but from its presentation. A few pages into the introduction, we are told the story arc and that the story will be repeated over and over again in different scenarios. The rest of the book tells about these different scenarios in, what was for me, excruciating detail. The combination of an over abundance of details and repetitive story arcs was tiresome to me.

In contrast to Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction, very few characters are described in much detail in the book. When characters are described, each seems eerily similar to the other. To overgeneralize, they are “hawkish,” male, physics professors. My mind would fill with characters all resembling an aging version of Professor Snape, except in my imagination they are balding, and wearing worn sweater vests and tweed jackets with elbow patches bumbling about as they try to scheme.

The movement of the action was slow and repetitive as well. The description of the actions of committees from corporations and government took to support or negate scientific findings were overly detailed. I felt like I was reading through passive aggressive emails of a couple in the throws of a long-standing argument, given one party is manipulative and deceitful. The overall story was important to me, but the day-to-day quibbles were not.

I am going to throw historians along with scientists into the remedial class for communicating with the public. Simplifying the presentation of the story and removing unnecessary detail might help this text engage a wider audience of people.