Mann and Hotez share similarities beyond being criticized extensively online. Despite being trained in different areas, their disciplines are increasingly intersecting (as if they weren’t already quite alarming independently). Climate change is shifting the habitats, movements, and breeding behaviors of wildlife that carry pathogens, such as bats, mosquitoes, and various insects. It is also triggering human migrations. Our growing closeness to these organisms in both geographical and temporal contexts can heighten the risk of disease transmission from them to us.
However, Mann and Hotez assert that a third menace poses an even greater threat than the first two combined. In their own words:
Currently, it is unattainable for global leaders to undertake the immediate measures required to tackle the climate crisis and pandemic risks due to a shared adversary—antiscience—which consists of politically and ideologically driven resistance to any science that jeopardizes powerful interests and their political goals. Unless we devise a method to surmount antiscience, humanity will confront its most significant peril yet—the disintegration of civilization as we have known it.
They identify a clear antagonist: “There is, without a doubt, a coordinated, unified offensive against science by the contemporary Republican Party.”
They have conveniently categorized “the five main forces of antiscience” into memorable groups: (1) wealthy individuals and their political action organizations, (2) oil-rich nations along with their politicians and polluters, (3) dishonest and corrupt professionals—medical doctors and academics, (4) propagandists, especially those hosting podcasts, and (5) the media. The prevailing strategy involves (1) and (2) employing (3) to craft misleading and provocative narratives, which are subsequently spread by overly eager participants from (4) and (5).
Clearly, there is significant overlap among these classifications; Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Rupert Murdoch, and Donald Trump can all fluctuate between many of these categories. Consequently, the notions and arguments elaborated in the book are somewhat repetitive, as are the terms used. An excessive number of instances are labeled “ironic” (e.g., the same individuals who reject and brush aside the concept of human-induced climate change alleged that Democrats caused hurricanes Helene and Milton to strike red states in October 2024) or “laughable” (consider Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s assertion that Dr. Peter Hotez aimed to criminalize criticism of Anthony Fauci).
