I previously wrote a review of a book entitled Junk Science. I was disappointed with it because it did not fulfill my expectations. What I expected for such a title is exactly what this book now gives. This book shows how science proves that a lot of "scientific" ideas are not scientific at all.

The first issue dealt with is global warming. We are shown that the data to support fears of this are at best unfounded, if not actually false or falsified. The famous "hockey stick" graph of temperatures that suppposedly prove global warming is unfounded, if not an actual hoax. The evidence shows that fluctuations in temperature have been occurring all the time. It is even pointed out, that as late as 25 years ago, the concern was global cooling!

The next issue dealt with is energy, and how we are denied the numerous benefits of nuclear power because of "scaremongers." We learn that the main concern, nuclear waste (plutonium), is hardly a concern at all. We read how nuclear power proponent Bernard Cohen shows how consumer advocate Ralph Nader was proved completely wrong about the dangers of plutonium. We are shown that other "green" energy alternatives, particularly solar and wind power, can only provide negligible supply. (Personally, however, I think technologies for tapping solar energy are improving and getting cheaper. I, myself, am completely satisfied with a solar battery charger which I recently purchased. It's now all I need to recharge my AA and AAA batteries.)

From this unwarranted fear of nuclear waste, we are shown that not all poisons should be feared, and that there is even a point or level wherein things regarded as toxic or even carcinogenic can be beneficial (the concept of hormesis). Thus, the concept of completely avoiding substances known to be toxic or carcinogenic is all wrong. They can be harmless or even beneficial below certain levels. We are even shown that there are places where radiation is higher than "acceptable" levels, but whose population suffer less cancer than the rest. And the anticipated cancers of atomic bomb survivors, as well as those of nuclear plant disasters, never occurred. In fact, most survive to a ripe old age and/or die of something else. The "cleanliness" of nuclear power is also illustrated by the safety manifested by personnel of all the nuclear naval vessels, and those working in nuclear reactors, suffering no harm at all.

We then read about the DDT ban and how it had absolutely nothing to do with science. The deadly result was that millions in the world still die of malaria and other insect borne diseases. We are shown that DDT has been sprayed directly on people without any harm, and that we could even drink it (not in excess, of course) without suffering any harm. The supposed harm of softening avian egg shells was shown to be a flawed study, the birds actually suffering from calcium deficiency. With proper nutrition, eggs became hard shelled again, even with continued exposure to DDT.

From the false danger of DDT on eggs, we next learn about preservation of species. In short, while we fear extinction, the number of species being discovered has actually been increasing. And laws like the endangered species act actually are harmful to the species (a land owner would rather kill than have his land declared a habitat). All the numbers of environmentalists claims about rates of extinction have no basis.

Next discussed is the African AIDS epidemic and how it is most likely an invented disease, diverting attention away from the real AIDS which started with and is so far limited to male homosexual activity and their contacts (bisexual, drug paraphernalia, transfusions). It's surprising to learn that AIDS diagnosis in Africa is just by a point system of history and clinical signs. And AIDS tests now being applied are highly non-specific, giving positive results for unrelated conditions including pregnancy, which is where the test is mainly applied.

We then learn of the hype of cloning and the very poor success achieved. And the bad effects observed on the few successes that come out. Stem cell issues are discussed next, showing us how the issue is really a matter of funding and not science. We are told of the apparent success of adult stem cell research, and the lack of success of the use embryonic stem cells, not to mention that embryonic cells cause cancer.

Following this the still futile human genome project is discussed, announcements of completion followed still later by other such announcements. We read that so far, it was virtually useless, and merely academic, in spite of the millions spent on such projects.

Then a chapter discusses cancer, and how we're probably approaching it wrongly. It also ties up with a previous chapter showing that fear of carcinogens to the point of totally eliminating them is unfounded (see hormesis above).

Then we come to a chapter showing us that the perceived "war" between religion and science is, again, just another myth, Galileo's and Copernicus's stories notwithstanding. No one really believed that the earth was flat. And Galileo and the Catholic church had good relations, the "conflict" being something about the way he published an idea. Bruno was not burned because of his science, but because of his religious beliefs. And so on.

We then see a couple of chapters on evolution -- how unscientific it actually is. In short, let me quote a "Guess What?" item: "A senior paleontologist from the British Museum challenged experts to tell him 'anything you know about evolution... that you think is true?' The only answer he got was silence." Enough said. (See my review on an anti-evolution book, The Case for A Creator.)

In all this presentation, we have the underlying notion from the title: Politically Incorrect. Why must it be "politically correct" to believe in something, and not in another? Why should people bother to be "politically correct" instead of simply being correct? Well, it seems a big thing is the principle, "Follow the money." Espouse one thing, get millions for research or development (even if the end results are absolutely wrong or useless). Espouse another thing, it doesn't look good and no funds arrive.

The book is easy reading, filled with information backed up with data and research. It dares to be politically incorrect and just aspires to simply be correct. Each chapter has a "Guess what?" section in the first page, giving several facts related to the topic on hand. All chapters also have insets containing relevant comments, news items, quotes, and recommended readings (usually titled, "A book you're not supposed to read").

One thing important about this book is that it presents both sides, even if it has only one side -- the side of being correct.

Oct 1 2007: I just noticed an error of this review: The book is by Tom Bethell, not Jonathan Wells. I don't think Wells published a book by this title(?). I got to write a review by just searching for the title, and so I did not notice this review carries the wrong author's name.

Recommended: Yes