Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo


Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

{ action.text }

For the last decade, industry groups opposed to governmental regulations have often claimed the mantle of “sound science”–implying that those who insist on, say, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or restrictions on smoking in restaurants, or bans on dioxin emissions, are wooly-headed quacks who are operating on something other than scientific evidence. That the accumulation of evidence has, time and time again, undermined the arguments of industry apologists seems not to have deterred them from continuing to deploy this piece of rhetoric. And for the last several years, they have had the White House in their corner. Writing in the online magazine The Gadflyer, Chris Mooney examines the origins and implications of what he calls this “conservative term of art.” Mooney, who is writing a book on the politicization of science, says that:

…on issues ranging from mercury pollution to global warming, today’s political conservatives have an extremely peculiar–and decidedly non-mainstream–concept of what science says and how to reach scientific conclusions. Conservatives and the Bush administration claim to be staunch defenders of science, of course; but close attention to the very language they use suggests otherwise.
In one sense, this is a familiar story about seizing on sweeter terminology to represent your side in the argument. One of the best examples, of course, is the abortion debate, where partisans call themselves “pro-life” (who isn’t?) and “pro-choice” (ditto). But there is something particularly unsettling about the corruption of science for nakedly political ends. As Mooney concludes, “When conservatives today call for ‘sound science,’ the evidence suggests that what they really want is to hold a scientific filibuster–and thereby delay political action.”

0 comments about this story. Start the discussion »

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives


Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me