[Vision2020] ‘Unscientific America’: Book Review

[Ted Moffett]

http://www.amazon.com/Unscientific-America-Scientific-Illiteracy-Threatens/dp/0465013058/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/unscientific-america-a-review/#more-689

Book review below from Realclimate.org website above, by "Mike" (Michael
Mann); bio at website below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-mann/

Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member of the Penn State University faculty,
holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences,
and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He is also
director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).
 8 Jul 2009 ‘Unscientific America’: A Review Filed under:

   - Climate Science<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>
   - Communicating
Climate<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/>
   - Reviews<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/reviews/>

— mike @ 7:39 am

Author Chris Mooney (of “Storm
World”<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/storm-world/>fame)
and fellow
“Intersection” <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/> blogger,
scientist, and writer Sheril Kirshenbaum have written an extraordinary, if
rather sobering book entitled ‘Unscientific
America’<http://www.amazon.com/Unscientific-America-Scientific-Illiteracy-Threatens/dp/0465013058/>.
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 “Two
Cultures”<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures>first
discussed by C.P. Snow).

‘Unscientific America’ explores how we’ve come to the point we’re 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 ‘mad scientist’), 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
‘climate change’, have often deliberately manufactured false controversy and
confusion <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute>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. Don’t–Mooney and Kirshenbaum won’t allow us to escape blame,
and with good reason. As they point out, we ‘eat our own’, when it comes to
colleagues engaged in public outreach and science popularization. Case in
point: Carl Sagan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Sagan’s 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 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 ’science ambassadors’ 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 ‘two
cultures’. 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 “two cultures”
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 Sagan’s great fear, as revealed in his
classic “The Demon-Haunted world”, 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 today’s 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 ’science ambassadors’. An appropriate step
might be requiring science majors to take a course in college (perhaps a
so-called ‘capstone’ course taken in the senior year) that focuses on the
broader societal context within which the scientific topics they’ve studied
resides. Some, perhaps even most, of these prospective future scientists
will decide that they want no more of this–and that’s 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 “The Bloggers Cannot Save Us”. 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.

‘Unscientific America’ is extremely well written, which is no surprise to
those of us who follow Chris and Sheril’s insightful blog postings. Its also
remarkably error free (something I wish I could say about our own book “Dire
predictions”<http://www.amazon.com/Dire-Predictions-Understanding-Global-Warming/dp/0756639956/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208820449&sr=8-1>–we
still caught a few typos going into the 3rd printing). Every review must
find some fault, and so here’s mine: There is a very minor mistake. The
authors at one point refer to an exciting new venture known as “Climate
Central” <http://www.climatecentral.org/> 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 Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted
World”<http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469>.
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 ‘Unscientific
America’.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090712/26150ae8/attachment.html