Few would dispute that the term applies to the Unabomber, whose manifesto, published in 1995, scorns science and longs for return to a pre-technological utopia. But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest. The environmentalists, inevitably, respond to such critics. The true enemies of science, argues Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, a pioneer of environmental studies, are those who question the evidence supporting global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer and other consequences of industrial growth. Indeed, some observers fear that the anti-science epithet is in danger of becoming meaningless. 'The term 'anti-science' can lump together too many, quite different things,' notes Harvard University philosopher Gerald Holton in his 1993 work Science and Anti-Science. 'They have in common only one thing that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened.'