Response to Review of Taking Action, Saving Lives:
Making a Sound Case against Scientific Misrepresentation of Pollution Harms
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy
Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana
Citation: Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. (2008). "Response to Review of Taking Action, Saving Lives: Making a Sound Case against Scientific Misrepresentation of Pollution Harms." Children, Youth and Environments 18 (2). Retrieved [date] from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/
Suppose a biologist wrote a book, mainly to show specific, erroneous techniques that polluters use to manipulate science—and thereby underestimate pollution, mislead people about its hazards, and impose the worst pollution on children and minorities. If the biologist wanted to convince both scientists and the public about these scientific misrepresentations, what methods should be used? Should the biologist take an empirical approach and use precise scientific arguments that clearly document actual pollution cases and their scientific errors? Or, should the biologist take a theoretical-social approach and use general, “text-based formats” (review paragraph 7) and discussions of the “relationship people (citizens) have with capital (industry) and the production of material goods” (review paragraph 5)? The biologist/philosopher of science (Shrader-Frechette) who wrote Taking Action, Saving Lives takes mainly the first approach. The non-scientist reviewer (who says scientific arguments “can make for tough reading”) takes mainly the second approach.
This response to the flawed review of Shrader-Frechette’s book shows why the reviewer’s proposals for eliminating the book’s supposed “shortcomings” are neither intellectually coherent nor practically feasible. Even worse, although the reviewer does not intend it, the review’s misguided, neo-Marxist jargon opens the reviewer to the same criticisms that polluters (who manipulate science) receive. Both are vulnerable to charges of politicizing science and compromising objectivity.
Some of the review’s problems arise from lack of analytic precision and erroneously describing the book merely as “a discussion of public health.” Rather, Taking Action, Saving Lives defends two precise theses, one scientific (i) and one practical (ii). The scientific thesis (defended in chapters 1-3) is that (i) pollution threats are severe (chp. 1) but have been misrepresented or suppressed, largely because pollution-industry scientists often control media, lobbyists, and government regulators (chp. 2); because polluters fund most environment-related scientific research; and because polluters often manipulate science (chp. 3). The practical thesis (defended in chapters 4-6) is that (ii) many citizens unfairly benefit at the expense of poor people, minorities, and children who bear a disproportionate share of the pollution burden; consequently, regulators, citizens, and polluters should all help address pollution (chps. 4-5), particularly because many excellent strategies exist for doing so (chp. 6).
Despite misrepresenting the scope of the book, the review praises its “utilizing [of] extensive data and research to provide a deeper understanding of just how dangerous environmental pollution can be,” its “detailed analysis” of environmental injustices, and its use of “extensive data and scientifically-based research” to support the argument. The review lauds the book’s “compelling evidence,” “powerful” message, and inclusion of “evocative vignettes” and “deeply compelling personal narratives” of how ordinary citizens have acted to stop pollution and its scientific misrepresentation. Praising the book’s “compelling arguments” and “special attention to minorities and children,” the reviewer says the book “lays the groundwork for fighting against” pollution coverups.
Despite such praise, the review lists three alleged “shortcomings” of the book: it underemphasizes sustainable solutions to pollution problems, overemphasizes science, and overemphasizes citizen responsibility. Subsequent paragraphs, however, show that all three complaints ignore the book’s specific content and make unsubstantiated, inconsistent, or politicized claims.
Regarding the first alleged “shortcoming,” the reviewer says: “the argument almost completely overlooks sustainability and green building, two fields that are quite relevant when discussing public health and environmental justice.” This claim errs in two ways. First, lacking analytical precision, the reviewer implies that all discussions of “public health and environmental justice” should analyze “sustainability and green building.” Why? Scientific journals are full of articles on public health and environmental justice, most of which never discuss “sustainability and green building.” Reviewers’ personal preferences (e.g., green-building discussions) are inappropriate review criteria. The second, more serious, problem is that the reviewer apparently has not read the book. The entire final chapter—one-sixth of the book—analyzes scores of sustainability proposals designed to avoid pollution. These range from reducing greenhouse gases to passing the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
The second supposed “shortcoming,” says the reviewer, is that in emphasizing “science-based arguments,” the book “overlooks the context responsible for such [pollution] inequities,” e.g., “unemployment, crime, and neighborhood blight” (review paragraph 5). Instead of emphasizing scientific arguments “that can make for tough reading,” the reviewer says Shrader-Frechette could have used a “text-based format” and discussed “relationships people (citizens) have with capital (industry) and the production of material goods” (review paragraph 4).
There are at least three problems with the review’s unsubstantiated rejection of the book’s scientific emphasis. The first problem is that the reviewer proposes using two nonscientific methods—text-based formats, and neo-Marxist discussions of relationships among “people,” “capital,” and “material production.” Yet these methods are literary-social-political, and thus flagrantly inappropriate ways to defend the book’s scientific thesis (i). Besides, why can’t biologists write largely scientific books about misrepresentations of science? Why should biologists also have to use neo-Marxist jargon about “capital,” and “material production”? Does the reviewer really think people will be more convinced of polluters’ scientific manipulations through such jargon, instead of precise scientific argument? Good scientific argument speaks to everyone, regardless of political persuasion. The same cannot be said of neo-Marxist and other ideological discussions. They speak only to the converted.
Inconsistency is the second problem with the review’s rejection of the book’s science emphasis. Paragraph 5 of the review (which says the book “overlooks the context responsible” for pollution) contradicts both paragraph 2 (which says the book “establishes the context” for the pollution discussion), and paragraph 3 (which points out that one-third of the book, chapters 2-3, analyzes the context responsible for pollution misrepresentation: “political operations,” “regulatory capture of government agencies,” “information suppression, campaign donations, and lobbying ….media complacency, public relations, hired research,” etc.).
A third problem with the review’s science-emphasis criticism (and with claims that the book should have discussed “unemployment, crime, and neighborhood blight”) is that this analytically-imprecise criticism again ignores the specific scope of the book. The book is not a vague, unfocused discussion of general public-health problems (like unemployment), but a precise, largely scientifically documented argument for the book’s two theses outlined above.
The third alleged “shortcoming” of the book is “the author’s emphasis on the role of the citizen” in helping stop pollution and its scientific manipulation. The reviewer writes: “to blame them [citizens] for injustices related to purchasing products” that cause unfair pollution burdens “is misguided. This argument ignores the very real impact of state-driven, market-based processes that, by design, discourage awareness and facilitate complacency.”
There are three main problems with this citizen-responsibility criticism. The first problem is again inconsistency. Paragraph 6 of the review (which says the author “ignores” impacts of state/market processes that mislead consumers) contradicts paragraph 3 (which admits that book chapters 2-3 analyze “political operations” and “unethical strategies employed by private and governmental entities” to mislead consumers about pollution).
A second problem with the review’s unsubstantiated criticism of Shrader-Frechette’s citizen-emphasis is lack of argument. If the reviewer is correct and consumers are not responsible for their consumption choices, then logically the reviewer must accept many obviously false conclusions, e.g., consumers who choose to walk, bicycle, and ride mass transit are behaving no better than consumers who always use SUVs.
A third problem with the review’s unsubstantiated criticism of citizen responsibility is its self-fulfilling prophecy. Rejecting citizen responsibility leads precisely to more citizen apathy, corporate dominance, government corruption and, ultimately, the demise of democracy. Yet in a democracy, “the buck stops” with citizens—who must police corporations and governments. Democracy is not a spectator sport. In a democracy, apathetic people usually have the governments they deserve. Besides, if citizens in a democracy do not assume ultimate responsibility for citizen welfare, how does the reviewer expect pollution problems to be solved? Will polluters regulate themselves?
Insofar as people reject scientific argumentation and defend unsubstantiated, inconsistent, incoherent, analytically imprecise, ideologically-slanted positions—they are unlikely to be effective in protecting children and the environment. Muddled thinking hurts the cause.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette is the O'Neill Family Endowed Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and the Department of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, where she also directs the Center for Environmental Justice and Children's Health. The Center does pro bono work with minority and low-income communities. She has written 350 scholarly articles and 15 books, the latest of which is Taking Action, Saving Lives (OxfordUniversity Press, 2007). Her scientific research has been funded for 25 years by the U.S. National Science Foundation, and her work has been translated into 13 languages.