In Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway show how a few scientists raise doubts about scientific findings in order to advance political and economic agendas.
This Frontline program illustrates how this works in the case of climate change:
These merchants of doubt are portrayed as wrongdoers. But what is it exactly that is reprehensible about what they are doing? Are they in the wrong for going against the consensus? Are they in the wrong for holding beliefs that are taken to be false? If these merchants of doubt are indeed motivated by political and economic considerations, then are they doing something wrong as scientists?