Quote

Abstract

Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with
adverse scientific evidence often target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once.
Part of the reasoning behind this approach is that it is easier to bring down individuals than an entire group of
scientists, and it still serves the larger aim: to dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science and
its implications. In addition, such highly visible tactics create an atmosphere of intimidation that discourages
other scientists from conveying their researchs implications to the public. This ÒSerengeti strategyÓ is often
employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the worlds scientists about the under-
lying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of
DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change. The goal is to attack those researchers
whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves. This article draws upon the
authors own experience to examine the ÒSerengeti strategy,Ó and offers possible countermeasures to such
orchestrated campaigns. It examines what responses by scientists have been most successful, and how to
combat the doubt-sowing that industry has done regarding the science behind climate change and other fields.