The Engineer's Book Club

"The problem with the Internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it," write Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in the final part of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. "There's tons of information available, but much of it is crap".

The Bloggers Cannot Save Us

According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), blogs are now the second most popular source of information about science - at least for the average American. Television shows about science are still more popular, but Americans are turning increasingly to the Web instead of going to the library. Yet "science blogging", Mooney and Kirshenbaum claim, "can rarely serve as a substitute for in-depth, considered professional science journalism of the sort that is now in demonstrable decline".

Part of the problem is with the bloggers. The other part is with their audience. Blogging, Unscientific America claims, is informed by "a set of pressures that inevitably leads to much quick writing and posting rather than deep, sustained thought. Like journalists in print media, bloggers try to avoid being "scooped" and may struggle to meet deadlines. Then there's the matter of blog appeal. "Anti-religion and anti-science polemics are both very popular," as PZ Myer's second-place showing at the 2008 Weblog Awards reveals.

Yet the success of "New Atheist" bloggers such as the University of Minnesota biology professor isn't necessarily due to their catholic (universal) appeal. Rather, as Mooney and Kirshenbaum claim, "the single biggest blogging negative . . . is the grouping together of people who already agree about everything." True-believers such as the atheists who congregate at Myer's Pharyngula blog "proceed to square and cube their agreements, becoming increasingly self-assured and intolerant of other viewpoints".

This argument of Unscientific America has merit, of course, but perhaps the authors should visit a science-related Web site (and one with plenty of blogs) such as CR4. Here, they'd find spirited debate on a great many subjects rather than a "grouping together of people who agree about everything."

Are Our Scientists Learning?

If the bloggers cannot save us, then who can? "America doesn't merely need non-scientists to better understand the details of science," Mooney and Kirshenbaum claim. Rather, "we need them to see why science matters to their lives and their careers". The data indicates that this will be a tough sell, however, especially during an economic downturn that some economists have dubbed The Great Recession.

According to a 2007 (and now outdated) study by the Urban Institute that Unscientific America cites, the U.S. "produces more than three times as many four-year college science and engineering graduates as there are corresponding science and engineering job openings". America also educates and employees more professional scientists than any other nation. Yet just as graduates of four-year colleges struggle to find employment in their fields of study, newly-minted Ph.D.'s must also work to find work. According to Unscientific America, a Ph.D. recipient under the age of 35 has just a 7% chance of landing a tenure-track position in America.

Most Americans don't hold doctorates, of course, and not every adult attends a four-year college (or even a two-year one). Nor will most Americans put science front-and-center at a time when pocketbook issues are paramount. So when Mooney and Kirshenbaum write that "our high schools turn a lot of smart people off to science – smart people who instead go on to study, law, finance or business", it's not hard to see how this trend will continue. Again, according to the 2007 Urban Institute study, only 45% of those who earn a bachelor's degree in science or engineering work within those fields within two years of graduation.

Conclusion

Unscientific America was published in 2009, but the spirit in which it was written may require revision now that the job losses of The Great Recession have become evident. In order for Americans to heed the book's call "to see why science matters to their lives and careers", they must first perceive a relationship between scientific research and economic prosperity. Research for research's sakes won't win science many allies, especially when that research is government-funded and thus politically polarizing.

Explaining the relevance of science isn't just an intellectual or political activity then, but also an economic one. A scientist-communicator in the mold of Carl Sagan might help, but talk of "billions and billions of stars" would be far less appealing than "millions and millions of jobs". America would benefit from the well-rounded "Renaissance scientists" that Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum celebrate, but the perceived benefits of science must extend far beyond a scientific elite that is all-to-easy too demonize for political gain.

Author's Note: This blog entry is the fourth in a series. Here are the links to the other entries, which correspond to the parts of the book.

Book Review: Unscientific America (Introduction)

The Rise and Cultural Decline of American Science

Unscientific America: Different Rifts, Still Divided

In 2007, two Hollywood screenwriters launched a grassroots, nonpartisan initiative called ScienceDebate2008 to encourage America's presidential candidates to publicly debate science policy. Scientists thought this was a "great idea", Unscientific America explains, "because they assumed that the rational airing of policies and differences should lead to better decision making".

But politicians, including the nominees of both major political parties, "viewed it as a lose-lose proposition". In the words of ScienceDebate2008's CEO, Shawn Otto, a televised science debate "would require lots of prep time and huge political exposure in order to move a relatively niche audience".

Editor's Note: This is the third part in a four-part book review. Click here if you missed the introduction. Click here for the previous entry in this series.

Science Escape 2008

Ultimately, ScienceDebate2008 secured written answers to 14 questions from the presidential nominees of both major parties. Yet "it was two screenwriters – mass communicators – and not scientists themselves," Shawn Otto adds, who secured this limited achievement.

So why didn't America's citizen-scientists drive the debate from the start? "Effective communication isn't rocket science," Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum explain, but "most scientists are source-oriented communicators" who would rather speak to their peers in "scientist-speak" than address politicians, the public, and television reporters.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum use the history of ScienceDebate 2008 to encourage American scientists to embrace a style of "receiver-oriented communication" that considers the needs of a larger, national audience. In dealing with politicians, scientists "should establish long-term relationships that are multi-directional in nature" rather than limiting their outreach to requests for research funding. In dealing with the media, scientists must also adjust their approach. Specifically, scientists "will have to accept that their advice is being judged not on its substantive content – at least not at first – but explicitly on the utility of its packaging."

The Crisis in Science Communication

But can scientists rely upon the media to get a science story straight, if it's even covered at all? In Unscientific America, Mooney and Kirshenbaum also claim that "there's a crisis today in the realm of science communication," a crisis that will only deepen "as market forces continue to dismantle public-interest-oriented, informative journalism of all types and supplant it with entertainment, blogging, or nothing at all." In the newspaper industry, declining profits have led to sharp cuts in science coverage. On the Internet, "the typical blog mode is to find an individual piece of science reporting with some particular failing and blast it." On cable TV, "fragmentation" and the rise of "partisan media" prevail.

Science and Stereotypes

Science and scientists don't fare much better in Hollywood, Unscientific America continues. Part of the problem is "a sense that science is inimical to storytelling" because "it quashes creativity, which be allowed to breathe". Scientists are creative, of course, but "the scientific method, as a process" is a lengthy one that doesn't lend itself to an hour-long film or television program. Then there's the matter of how TV shows and movies depict scientists themselves. As James Cameron, the director of films such as Aliens and The Terminator, has observed, these forms of entertainment generally "show scientists as idiosyncratic nerds or actively the villains".

"We don't see many films about evil literary critics," Mooney and Kirshenbaum note, so "it's safe to infer there's something about scientists that triggers a particular type of stereotyping." The origins of this bias run deeper than an American "disdain of intellect," a phenomenon that the historian Richard Hofstadter described in his 1962 classic, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. According to the authors of Unscientific America, the public's attitude towards scientists reflects "our society's uneasiness with the power they can sometimes wield." Unfortunately, some members of the profession respond in kind with unfair depictions of real or imagined adversaries.

The Great Desecration

Paul Zachary Myers, a University of Minnesota biology professor, provides a case in point. In 2008, "PZ" Myers asked readers of his popular Pharyngula blog to "score me some consecrated communion wafers" from a Catholic Church so that he could desecrate the Eucharist and post pictures of this "profound disrespect". Myers' example is an extreme one, but the authors of Unscientific America cite "a large number of 'New Atheist' voices" who contribute to this renewed tension between science and religion in America. Still, some of the most prominent names that the authors cite (e.g., Christopher Hitchens) are not those of scientists at all, but of journalists and other academics who write about science-related subjects.

Unscientific America's analysis may be overly broad here, but its conclusions are bold. "The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists", Mooney and Kirshenbaum claim. "America is a very religious nation", they add, "and if forced to chose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will choose the former".

Author's Note: Click here for the fourth and final part of this series.

"In the heady years following the Allied victory in World War II", Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirschenbaum write in Part 1 of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, "American scientists enjoyed great cultural authority and access to the corridors of power". This Golden Age continued during the 1950s, with the Sputnik Scare leading to "a much closer integration of scientific expertise and political decision making".

Note: This is the second installment in a multi-part book review. Click here if you missed the introduction.

The Golden Age of Scientists

Called upon to revise the nation's academic curriculum, American scientists benefited from increased R&D funding and access to President Eisenhower's "inner circle," where Ike sought "their unfiltered advice". But this Golden Age of Scientists didn't last. During the 1960s, "the prominence of the scientific elite in advising our leaders" declined. When the American public began to question established authority, scientists also came under fire. First, the environmental and consumer movements portrayed a dark side to science and, by extension, scientists. Next, the creation of new regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) politicized scientific debate.

Divided We Fall

By the 1970s, "science ceased to serve as a bulwark for common goals and purpose; instead, its findings came to divide us". Then a political earthquake widened the growing gap between scientists and a significant part of the public. "The emergence of the Religious Right onto the political stage in the 1970s – motivated in part by its adherents' resentment of the nation's intellectual and scientific elites – was also a major factor in curtailing the role of science in public policy," Unscientific America claims. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan and astronomer Carl Sagan personified this conflict.

Reagan vs. Sagan

Backed by his political base, President Reagan sought to build a space-based defense against Soviet missiles – one that many scientists decried. Meanwhile, Sagan turned his attention skyward in a different way, publishing a best-selling book called Cosmos and hosting a popular TV series by the same name. While Reagan pursued what Mooney and Kirschenbaum call "a sci-fi fantasy" at "the center of his foreign policy", Sagan rose and fell like a rocket booster. Before provoking Regan's political allies with warnings about "nuclear winter", however, Carl Sagan lost the support of his own constituency. The scientists turned against him.

Sagan vs. The Scientists

According to Unscientific America, Sagan's success appeared unseemly – at least to many academics. "There is little to be gained within science by engaging in the public dissemination of information," many scientists agreed when polled in a national survey. Carl Sagan's wife, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) member, characterized the opinions of her peers in more personal terms. "They are jealous of your communication skills, charm, good looks and outspoken attitude, especially on nuclear winter," Lynn Margulis claimed.

Culture Wars and Third Culture Czars

By the 1990s, America had moved beyond Cosmos to The X-Files, the Internet, and "pseudo-documentaries that strategically blurred the line between fact and fiction." The Cold War was over, government spending on science was down, and a self-proclaimed group of "third culture czars" sought to bridge the gap "between the academic intelligentsia and the general population". Now, scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel C. Dennett made "frequent attacks on religious belief", thus fanning the flames of what Mooney and Kirschenbaum call "the false dichotomy between science and religion".

Ignoring the Enemy at the Gate

Meanwhile, Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act with broad bipartisan support. This landmark legislation, enacted during a decade of partisan rancor, "should have been seen as a disaster for American intellectual life", Unscientific America claims. By removing regulations that were designed to "ensure that the public airwaves weren't fully flooded with lowest common-denominator programming", Congress averted its eyes from the "real enemy at the gate – the dumbing down of American culture." Now, while media companies removed already scarce science content, consumers were treated to more celebrity news and infotainment.

Editor's Note: Click here for the next installment in this multi-part review.

"The serious appreciation of science could become confined to a small group of already dedicated elites, when it should be a value we all share," warn Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirschenbaum in Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future (2009, Basic Books).

Mooney, the author of a previous New York Times bestseller, is a journalist who now writes about how scientists need to "communicate their knowledge in ways that non-scientists can relate to and understand". Kirschenbaum, a marine scientist who once worked on Capitol Hill, knows "how difficult it can be to integrate science into the public policy process" – and how scientists and elected officials often fail to communicate.

Full Disclosure

Last July, I contacted Chris Mooney to request an advance copy of Unscientific America on behalf of CR4 and "The Engineer's Book Club". Graciously, he agreed. What follows is the first installment of a four-part book review. Today's blog entry sets the stage by examining the book's two introductory chapters. The other three entries in this review will discuss the book's Parts 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

Why Pluto Matters

The United States stands on the threshold of scientific discoveries that "could redefine who we are and even upend our society", Mooney and Kirschenbaum claim. But the gap between the scientific community and the rest of American society continues to grow. Consider the case of Pluto, which lost its status as a planet in 2006. After astronomers "voted to excommunicate the ninth planet from the solar system," people donned T-shirts with slogans such as "Stop Planetary Discrimination".

The astronomers who "excommunicated" Pluto had sound reasons for their decision, of course, but their arguments were ignored by their critics. Americans may live in the Information Age, but information isn't the same as science. "The Internet," Mooney and Kirschenbaum explain, "has simultaneously become the best and the worst source of information on science." Then there are the blurry lines between entertainment and infotainment. All too often, "scientists in film and television tend to be depicted as villains, geeks, or jerks." In other words, they're not trustworthy.

Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirschenbaum are well-educated, of course, but their criticisms aren't meant to be condescending. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the authors don't drop it all at the doorsteps of those who would never read a book with such as staid title such as Unscientific America. Rather, the authors worry more that "too many smart, talented, influential people throughout our society don't see the centrality of science in their lives; and too many scientists don't know how to explain it to them".

Rethinking the Problem of Scientific Illiteracy

Critics of America's educational system often complain that its high school graduates are scientifically illiterate. The nation's scientists seem all too eager to agree, blaming "the public" for failing to accept global warming and evolution. As Unscientific America notes, however, citizens of other nations (including the European Union) "don't fare much better on scientific literacy surveys". Opponents of global warming and evolution may be wrong (in the opinions of Mooney and Kirschenbaum), but they are neither ignorant nor intellectually disengaged.

Ultimately, "the lack of scientific knowledge probably isn't our main problem", the authors note. "We don't need average citizens to become robotic memorizers of scientific facts or regular readers of the scientific literature". Rather, the authors argue for repositioning science in a way in which it has "far more relevance to the life of every American". Such as "scientific America" would require its scientists to fill the role of "friendly instructor" rather than "condescending detractor and belittler".

Author's Note: The other three parts of this book review will run soon.

"A lot of car guys shy away from upholstery because they think it's woman's work," explains Dan Strohl, a blogger for Hemmings Motor News and frequent contributor here on CR4. Men who build 600-hp engines won't touch a seat cover because they worry they'll have to learn how to use a sewing machine. Guys who don't think twice about rebuilding a transmission won't even touch the tools for repairing a leather seat.

Fortunately, Dan Strohl isn't your typical car guy. In Muscle Car Interior Restoration Guide, the AMC aficionado applies a "no sew" approach to the art of interior restoration. "This book," dstrohl told CR4's Moose during a recent interview, "is basically automotive upholstery 101".

Strohl's first book is also the best book on the subject. Aside from some service manuals and technical articles, there's precious little information in print about how to finish the job of restoring a muscle car.

The Right Book at the Right Time

For Strohl, the Muscle Car Interior Restoration Guide was "the right opportunity at the right time". When CarTech approached him with some ideas for a book, this student of hot rod history saw an opportunity in the unoccupied space on his automotive bookshelf. In addition to his work as a blogger, Strohl reviews books for Hemmings – a task that helps him know which roads have been traveled a few too many times.

But writing a book in your spare time, with no leave of absence and a full-time job, is no Sunday drive. During the course of 10 months, Strohl gathered information and visited repair shops in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey "to see how different people do things". He also did his own work, repairing the carpet and headliner and completing the plastic interior restoration for his HMX project (1979 AMX Spirit).

Ultimately, writing the book was the easiest part. The photo shoots were the hardest, mainly because so few shops in the northeastern U.S. specialize in muscle car auto interiors. Still, while pounding away on his laptop and spending "lots of time on the couch", Dan Strohl found the time to write a book. And that's not something a lot of car guys – even ones who aren't afraid of upholstery – will ever do.

More than Seat Covers

The Muscle Car Interior Restoration Guide covers a lot more than just seats, however. With expert insights into the tips, tools, and techniques for restoring a muscle car like the pros, Strohl's book includes instrument panel, dashboard, and pedal restoration as well as steering wheel and steering column repairs. There's also information about electrical system restoration, and plenty of advice about restoring carpets and headliners, doors and door panels, and even automotive glass.

Resources:

Muscle Car Interior Restoration, CarTech Auto Books and Manuals (2009)

CR4 Interview with Dan Strohl, 09/24/09