This is a big book on a big subject, written prior to the election of Donald Trump and the intensified war on science that has resulted. The author does not concern himself specifically with national parks but with the overriding effects of the rejection of science on politics, policy, and democracy. I will first provide an overview of Otto’s arguments, then relate it to current national park issues.

Otto begins with the contention that, “Science and engineering are providing us with increasingly clear pictures of how to solve many of our challenges, but policymakers are increasingly unwilling to pursue the remedies that scientific evidence suggests. Instead, they take one of two routes: deny the science, or pretend the problems don’t exist.”

This situation is certainly familiar to anyone following the current American government’s stance on global climate change. He describes how rejection of science today is enabled by the media and the unwillingness of scientists to engage in education and advocacy about their work. He contends that democracy itself is at stake, arguing that, “Without a well-informed voter, the very exercise of democracy becomes removed from the problems it is charged with solving.”

The second part of the book summarizes the history of “modern science politics.” Otto describes how science has always been affected by politics, explaining how this was so from the very beginning of scientific thinking. He moves quickly to the modern situation which he traces back to World War II. Many people once thought science would solve all of our problems, but with the atomic bomb, this faith began to erode.

Over the course of four decades of disconnection, specialization, environmental and health disasters, and tunnel vision, science had transformed in the eyes of the public from noble savior to troublesome spoiler – or, worse, a tool of oppression. Science – its values, priorities, methods, and the effects of its advance – was perceived to be out of touch with shared values and priorities, and beholden instead to the interests of a small but powerful minority.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine that had required those with broadcasting licenses to present “controversial issues of public importance – and to present them in a way that was, in the FCC’s view, honest, equitable, and balanced.” Consequences of this by the FCC were the rise of anti-science media (Rush Limbaugh, for instance), and a new journalistic “balancing” of opinion and knowledge. At this point, according to Otto, a three-front war on science was launched.

One front, highly academic, was comprised of postmodern scholars who denied that there was any such thing as objectivity. This philosophically supported the second ideological front fought by religious fundamentalists who objected to “scientific mastery of reproduction and the life cycle” and considered science merely another opinion or belief rather than knowledge based on evidence.

The third front, served by this ideology, was the industry and public relations front that manipulated the media “thereby shaping public opinion using ‘uncertainties,’ deception, personal attacks, and outrage to move public policy toward an antiscience position that supports the funders’ business objectives.” This “war” has led to climate change denial and today, under the Trump administration, to proposed reduction of science programs across the board, which brings us to national parks.

As historian Richard West Sellars thoroughly documented in his Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History, the National Park Service has throughout its history struggled to balance its missions of recreation and preservation, the latter mission relying on science for guidance. Since 1963 much NPS natural resource and stewardship policy has been guided by the Leopold Report (officially Wildlife Management in the National Parks), a set of ideas and recommendations that by the first decade of the 21st century was in many ways obsolete.

President Obama’s Park Service director, Jon Jarvis, charged the Science Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board to revisit the Leopold Report and answer three questions. “What should be the goals of resource management in the National Park System? What policies for resource management are necessary to achieve these goals? What actions are necessary to implement these policies?”

The Science Committee submitted its report in August 2012, and not surprisingly stated that, “The need for science – to understand how park ecosystems function, monitor impacts of change (even from afar), inform decision makers and their decisions, and enrich public appreciation of park values – has never been greater.” It recommended a set of goals, advocated that the operating guide for stewardship be the Precautionary Principle, and that the role of science in setting and implementing policy be expanded.

Director Jarvis issued Director’s Order #100 on December 20, 2016, and it reflected the Science Committee’s report, echoing its language. It recommended incorporating the Precautionary Principle (when outcomes of measures are uncertain, use caution) and Adaptive Management (adapt management when monitoring suggests a need for it), and directed that the NPS pursue stewardship based on the “best available sound science and scholarship.” It called for increased “scientific literacy” of Park Service personnel, especially park superintendents. In the “Background” section it stated:

Climate change is creating and will continue to drive dynamic environmental shifts that affect natural and cultural resources, facilities, visitation patterns, and visitor experiences. Additional pressures such as biodiversity loss, invasive species, land use changes, and pollution are accelerating. New scientific information and new disciplines of science have expanded our understanding of natural and cultural systems, and revealed that much is still unknown about how these systems function.

The order emphasized integrating natural and cultural resource stewardship and stated that, “This integration recognizes the impact of humans on the environment and the impact of the changing environment on humans.”

Eight months after the order was issued, under the auspices of the newly installed Trump administration, Acting NPS Director Michael Reynolds rescinded the order, offering no explanation. He did this without any consultation with the National Park System Advisory Board or its Science Committee. Mr. Reynolds' boss, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, ignored requests from the Board chairman to discuss this action or any other issue within the board’s purview. On January 15, 2018, nine of the 12 members of the board resigned, citing frustration that they were being ignored. No explanation has been offered for the rescinding of the Director’s Order except vague reference to the prospect of policy that would reflect the priorities of the new administration.

This administration has taken the most anti-science position of any since science began to significantly affect public policy in the 20th century. Evidence of this is extensive, and Otto’s book explains how this came to be. He deals extensively with how climate change and the human influence on it came to be denied, and though Otto wrote The War On Science before Trump’s election, his discussion of this issue explains how Trump’s position on the issue (It’s a hoax!) caught on and helped his candidacy.

A document such as Director’s Order #100, in this context, is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, guaranteed to get a strong reaction. The order is the product of years of deliberate thought about what should guide national park stewardship in the face of myriad problems. Rescinding it without consultation or discussion is an egregious affront to science, scientists, to many in the Park Service, and to Americans who want the National Park System protected and sustained. It also forecloses a much-needed discussion of how the Park Service should address myriad challenges it faces in stewarding the resources in its care.

Otto’s book helps us understand how we got into this situation where rejection of science hampers park management, interferes with our ability to cope with climate change and other challenges, and even threatens democracy. It is an excellent historical and political analysis.

Not content to just describe the problems, he offers 14 “battle plans” for how, individually and collectively, Americans can defend and advocate science. He is hopeful the tide may be turned if action is taken, his first battle plan calling for us to “Do Something.” The “something” those of us concerned about the National Park System can do is familiarize ourselves with the challenges of managing park resources revealed by scientific analyses and remedies suggested by such analyses, and study and advocate for the measures called for by the Science Committee and Director’s Order #100.

Late in the book Otto summarizes the challenge, and it is so good I will quote it at some length in concluding this review. I recommend this book to all concerned about science and the future of parks and society at large.

We’ve also looked at the issues that form the conditions – the intellectual soil, if you will – of the whole debate: that science has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, and that, in so doing, it has torn away some of the spiritual mysteries of life and disrupted our sense of place in the cosmos. But more importantly, it has enabled us to increase our population and our environmental impact beyond the capacity of our one small planet to support us. This, above all else, is breaking apart the foundation on which modern society has been built – that individuals, acting in their own self-interest in a free marketplace, can deliver the highest and most efficient good to society, and that such economic activity can expand without limit. Population plus individualism plus technology may be our ultimate undoing.

Science informs us of the limits and perils of its own success, whether we be concerned on a macro scale about democracy, or on a micro scale about parks and protected areas.