I'm pleased that the renowned Yale science historian Daniel Kevles has reviewed The Republican War on Science in the latest issue of The American Scientist. Here's the upshot, criticisms of yours truly fully included:
The Union of Concerned Scientists has a point in that during the administration of George W. Bush the politicization of science can be found in numerous areas of public policymaking far beyond defense. Chris Mooney informatively develops that argument in The Republican War on Science. A young political journalist, he is at times snide and polemical, but he has done a lot of homework and has produced a book that is disturbing by reason of its steady, and for the most part sober, accumulation of evidence and indictment.
Snide and polemical? Moi?
Seriously, though: What I appreciate about Kevles' review is his recognition that while everyone politicizes science to some extent, that doesn't mean we're powerless to say that something new and disturbing is happening now with the Bush administration. It's particularly noteworthy that Kevles is the second major science historian among my reviewers to agree with this perspective (the first being Naomi Oreskes in Science; I hope I haven't forgotten anybody). It's instructive, I think, that these folks who study science in its historical context, and who of course find it in constant interaction with politics, nevertheless find something uniquely worrisome about the present moment.
That is a very nice review. "Snide and polemical" is a compliment in this day and age of "balance" - it means "saying it as it is".
I think that you should be more affronted by the "for the most part sober" comment--don't young journalists have a reputation to uphold? :-)
I'm not a science historian, just a scientist who has reviewed Republican War among other books (www.scienceshelf.com/RepublicanWaronScience.htm). I liked Kevles' review for the same reason you did.
For those who don't feel like following the links to see what I wrote, I called "war on scince" a useful model to describe what the current administration is up to. Evidence supporting Chris' hypothesis may not quite reach the Sagan standard of proof for extraordinary claims, and it certainly doesn't reach the absurd standard demanded of "sound science" set by those (mainly Republicans) who disagree with its implications. But it certainly merits plenty of attention.
My blog (www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/fred_bortz) has plenty of references to the book and to Chris' work in general.