ŒUnscientific America¹:

ŒUnscientific America¹: A Review

Author Chris Mooney (of ³Storm World² fame) and fellow ³Intersection²
blogger, scientist, and writer Sheril Kirshenbaum have written an
extraordinary, if rather sobering book entitled ŒUnscientific America¹. What
I found most refreshing about the book is that it not only isolates the
history behind, and source of, the problem in question‹the pervasiveness and
dangerousness of scientific illiteracy in modern society*but it offers
viable solutions. This book is a must read for anybody who cares about
science, and the growing disconnect between the scientific and popular
cultures (the problem of the so-called ³Two Cultures² first discussed by
C.P. Snow).

ŒUnscientific America¹ explores how we¹ve come to the point we¹re now at,
examining the historical factors behind the diminishing prominence of
science and scientists in the popular culture of the U.S. since its heyday
in the years following WW II. The authors uncover more than enough blame to
go around. They find fault with the media, both in how it portrays science
and scientists (e.g. the icon of the Œmad scientist¹), and in the decreasing
news coverage devoted to issues involving science and technology. They find
fault in the way policy makers often abuse science (cherry-picking those
particular scientific findings which suit their agenda), and in the behavior
of corporate special interests who, in areas such as our own area of
Œclimate change¹, have often deliberately manufactured false controversy and
confusion to dissuade the public from demanding action be taken. At this
point, the scientists among you might begin to feel absolved of any
responsibility for the problem. Don¹t*Mooney and Kirshenbaum won¹t allow us
to escape blame, and with good reason. As they point out, we Œeat our own¹,
when it comes to colleagues engaged in public outreach and science
popularization. Case in point: Carl Sagan*a hero to many of us who value
science outreach. One of the darker episodes in modern U.S. science history
was the blocking by Sagan¹s fellow scientists of his entry into the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences. Evidently, a majority of his colleagues
resented his having become a household name*something they presumably
considered unbecoming for a scientist. What sort of message does it send
when the most effective science communicator in modern history was shunned
by his colleagues for his efforts? Certainly not a good one. This is just
one example, and there are many others*it is not surprising that so few
scientists to choose to pursue the path of outreach and public education.
The reward systems in academia and the scientific world typically do not
favor scientists who choose to expend considerable time and effort engaging
in public discourse. And here of course, it is as much that system, as the
scientists themselves, which is to blame.

Given that we (scientists) are part of the problem, it must stand to reason
that we are also part of the solution. And indeed, this is a primary thesis
advanced by Mooney and Kirshenbaum. The authors argue that we must
fundamentally reinvent the way that scientists are trained, so as to
encourage and reward those who choose to serve as much-needed science
liasons and science communicators. Indeed, the reward system must be
reworked in such a way as to facilitate the establishment of a whole new
class of scientists, so-called ¹science ambassadors¹ who are rigorously
trained in science, but have the proclivity and ability to engage in the
broader discourse and to help bridge the growing rift between the Œtwo
cultures¹. We can no longer rely on pure serendipity that figures such as
Sagan will just come along. We must be proactive in establishing a pipeline
of scientists who can fill this key niche. In the absence of such
intervention, the authors argue, the current rift between the ³two cultures²
will continue to grow, and the chasm between science on the one side, and
popular culture and public policy-making on the other, will grow ever more
dangerously wide. Such was Carl Sagan¹s great fear, as revealed in his
classic ³The Demon-Haunted world², published shortly before his untimely
departure in 1996.

To some, the authors could potentially come across as a bit overly
prescriptive here. One might interpret them as arguing that science needs to
be taught in a fundamentally different way, with the new generation of
science students fully immersed in the social sciences as part of an
entirely rethought curriculum. Were the authors arguing this, one might
indeed expect quite a bit of push-back from the scientific community. After
all, the course work required to prepare today¹s science students for
careers of advanced research in cosmology or genetics (or climate modeling
for that matter) is extensive, and slapping a whole bunch of additional
course requirements in, say, communication and sociology, on top of their
current requirements would be onerous to say the least. But this is not what
the authors are saying (I can say this with confidence, having confirmed
this in my discussions with them). To allow science to continue to flourish,
it will of course be necessary to allow those scientists with neither the
interest nor inherent aptitude for communication to continue to do science
in the old fashioned way. It would be an unwise use of our resources and
theirs to push these reluctant individuals towards outreach.

What does make sense*and what the authors are indeed arguing for*is that we
adapt the current system to facilitate the development of those individuals
who are well suited to careers as ¹science ambassadors¹. An appropriate step
might be requiring science majors to take a course in college (perhaps a
so-called Œcapstone¹ course taken in the senior year) that focuses on the
broader societal context within which the scientific topics they¹ve studied
resides. Some, perhaps even most, of these prospective future scientists
will decide that they want no more of this*and that¹s fine. Once again, we
should not force those who are reluctant to follow this new path. But
hopefully the experience will identify, in a self-selecting manner, those
scientists who do have broader interests and abilities in this area. And for
those who do, there needs to an entire academic infrastructure, ready to
absorb them and to help prepare them to join the ranks of those much needed
science ambassadors. We need to be realistic in this venture of course.
These innovations may not yield another Carl Sagan. But they will certainly
move us in the right direction. For those who believe that such dramatic
changes in our way of doing things are not necessary*that the burgeoning
litany of science blogs, such as RealClimate (which does get several
mentions in the book!) will help to insure the penetration of science back
into popular culture, the authors have a disquieting message: an entire
chapter entitled ³The Bloggers Cannot Save Us². And to those who hope that
the more forwarding-thinking attitude towards science within the current
U.S. government signals the long-awaited stemming of the anti-science tide,
the authors caution that the current crisis*such as the disappearance of
science and technology journalism from our media*is far more fundamental and
structural in nature.

ŒUnscientific America¹ is extremely well written, which is no surprise to
those of us who follow Chris and Sheril¹s insightful blog postings. Its also
remarkably error free (something I wish I could say about our own book ³Dire
predictions²*we still caught a few typos going into the 3rd printing). Every
review must find some fault, and so here¹s mine: There is a very minor
mistake. The authors at one point refer to an exciting new venture known as
³Climate Central² as being a Princeton University-affiliated effort. Its
not. Other than being physically located in Princeton, and having some
Princeton folks on board, there is no formal relationship with the
university. I doubt Princeton is going to sue however.

If it were up to me, this book would be required reading for all
undergraduate science majors, along with Sagan¹s ³The Demon-Haunted World².
Only when we begin training scientists to understand the relationship
between science and society, and their crucial role in that relationship,
will be begin to solve the dilemma so eloquently described in ŒUnscientific
America¹.

RealClimate!!! The AGW cult blog that does allow non-believers to respond to their slander!
Anyone writing a book on anti-science MUST devote most of it to the green religion.

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message ...
OUnscientific America¹: A Review

Author Chris Mooney (of ³Storm World² fame) and fellow ³Intersection²
blogger, scientist, and writer Sheril Kirshenbaum have written an
extraordinary, if rather sobering book entitled OUnscientific America¹. What
I found most refreshing about the book is that it not only isolates the
history behind, and source of, the problem in question dangerousness of scientific illiteracy
in modern society*but it offers
viable solutions. This book is a must read for anybody who cares about
science, and the growing disconnect between the scientific and popular
cultures (the problem of the so-called ³Two Cultures² first discussed by
C.P. Snow).

move us in the right direction. For those who believe that such dramatic
changes in our way of doing things are not necessary*that the burgeoning
litany of science blogs, such as RealClimate (which does get several
mentions in the book!) will help to insure the penetration of science back
into popular culture, the authors have a disquieting message: an entire
chapter entitled ³The Bloggers Cannot Save Us². And to those who hope that

Eric Gisin wrote:
RealClimate!!! The AGW cult blog that does allow non-believers to
respond to their slander!

What you mean is, they don't buy the bull**** you do. lol

Anyone writing a book on anti-science MUST
devote most of it to the green religion.
"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
OUnscientific America¹: A Review

Author Chris Mooney (of ³Storm World² fame) and fellow ³Intersection²
blogger, scientist, and writer Sheril Kirshenbaum have written an
extraordinary, if rather sobering book entitled OUnscientific
America¹. What I found most refreshing about the book is that it not only
isolates
the history behind, and source of, the problem in question
dangerousness of scientific illiteracy in modern society*but it
offers viable solutions. This book is a must read for anybody who cares
about science, and the growing disconnect between the scientific and
popular cultures (the problem of the so-called ³Two Cultures² first
discussed by C.P. Snow).

move us in the right direction. For those who believe that such
dramatic changes in our way of doing things are not necessary*that the
burgeoning litany of science blogs, such as RealClimate (which does get
several
mentions in the book!) will help to insure the penetration of
science back into popular culture, the authors have a disquieting
message: an
entire chapter entitled ³The Bloggers Cannot Save Us². And to those who
hope that

Okay, Earl, I'll bite: why are there so many squiggles and numbers and odd
notations in your writing? Is it something that doesn't carry over to usenet
and so the form is changed to make it nearly unreadable? For it is. Nearly
unreadable. I, for one, didn't have the stamina to try and decode the entire
screed.

Pat in TX

Pat wrote on Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:34:24 -0500:

Okay, Earl, I'll bite: why are there so many squiggles and numbers
and odd notations in your writing? Is it something that
doesn't carry over to usenet and so the form is changed to
make it nearly unreadable? For it is. Nearly unreadable. I,
for one, didn't have the stamina to try and decode the entire screed.

I don't think Earl's latest post was too hard to read with Outlook
Express set to "plain text" but I can't imagine what the OE ligature is
supposed to mean.


--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not