Discovery Institute and the Strategy of Manufactured Controversy

Discovery Institute and the Strategy of Manufactured Controversy

Post #6 – Discovery Institute seeks to manufacture controversy in order to create doubts about matters of clear scientific consensus.

A central feature of Discovery Institute’s strategic approach in the debate over evolution and intelligent design has been well-documented: to manufacture controversy so that established theories and accepted findings (about which there is clear scientific consensus) appear (at least to a public that lacks a robust understanding of science) unsettled or doubtful.

Discovery Institute is hardly the only institution or industry to manufacture controversy when science and empirical evidence are regarded as unfavorable to its interests.  “The Denial Industry,” by George Monbiot (in the September 19, 2006 Guardian) illustrates this technique.  The article – which does not address evolution or intelligent design – describes how the oil industry (battling proposals to halt climate change) has borrowed techniques from the tobacco industry (which opposed restrictions on smoking) to sow doubts – in the public’s mind – and manufacture controversy where there is clear scientific consensus.

One quotation (cited in the article) from a Brown & Williamson tobacco company document crisply clarifies this strategy: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

In this instance, the science (‘body of fact’) was for all practical purposes unassailable – and the facts were unwelcome to the tobacco industry.  So the B&W strategy was to create a diversion that cast doubt: to manufacture a controversy; to create a false impression in the minds of the public (and political cover for congenial politicians) that doubts about the scientific evidence were widespread.  Mr. Monbiot reports that ExxonMobil, in channeling the tobacco industry’s methods, has even borrowed phrases invented by Phillip Morris’s consultants in its campaign to mislead.  Other gambits: sponsor research (not subject to peer-review); highlight actual scientific findings – when it serves the industry’s purposes. When a contradictory study is found, cite it relentlessly – even after it has been discredited by further research.

In yesterday’s post, I mentioned the semblance of scientific discourse depicted on the Discovery Institute / Center for Science and Culture website.  Add to this scientific veneer an abundance of indignation and exasperation.  The Center for Science and Culture consistently portrays itself as an underdog battling the scientific establishment.

After a quarter century of dispute on familiar terrain, few scientists have much interest in the endless diversions of intelligent design proponents; Discovery Institute proclaims every apparent slight and perceived rebuff as the bias of an arrogant foe.

But at this stage, scientists are only a foil.  Discovery Institute no longer concentrates on changing the scientific consensus.  Plan B is to “teach the controversy.”  More likely audiences for the manufactured controversy are pliable school boards, an inattentive public, and donors among Discovery Institute’s base.  So the controversy shifts from the realm of science to a host of outrages (as a quick review of Discovery Institute’s website reveals):

This endless cycle of controversy explains why the American Freedom Alliance, a stalking horse for Discovery Institute, “has no position on Darwinism and intelligent design but is concerned that debate is being stifled by the scientific establishment.”  The indispensable purpose this dispute serves is to manufacture controversy.  And DI’s Center for Science and Culture is having a field day with it.

In this light, it is apparent why the California Science Center – which has no interest in furthering a contentious dispute – has taken a low visibility posture.  In a prepared statement [sent via email correspondence] about the legal case, Science Center President Jeffrey Rudolph said: “The private American Freedom Alliance event was cancelled because of issues related to the contract. We don’t discuss contract issues with the public and we are limited in the information we can provide due to pending litigation.”  This quite polite and marginally more forthcoming version of ‘No comment’ is hardly noteworthy.  It’s just the response that attorneys at big institutions often counsel organizations to offer.

In contrast, the AFA’s attorney had this to say:

“Certain museum officials and their cronies in academia and throughout the scientific community are part of a subtle but effective movement to marginalize a scientific theory that challenges their world view,” said AFA’s attorney, William J. Becker, Jr., of The Becker Law Firm in Los Angeles. “The public should be allowed to make up its own mind whether intelligent design has any merit. Any time public officials stand in the way of legitimate debate, they reveal their hostility toward intellectual freedom, which the Constitution is designed to safeguard.”

He’s reading from a familiar script.

Tomorrow I’ll wrap things up with a final post on the legal disputes being played out in Los Angeles Superior Court: American Freedom Alliance v. California Science Center Foundation, and Discovery Institute v. California Science Center.

(Image courtesy of Jeremy’s Teach the Controversy website offering T-shirts and other apparel.)

Next post: Last Post: Nonprofits Clash Over Evolution and Science

Previous posts in this series:

Leave a Reply