IEEE Spectrum's Tech Talk

I consider Chrichton's Prey as accurate as his "Jurasic Park" (there were also a lot of assumptions made in that book)

There is an awful lot of misconception about science.. but for the most part, I consider it the fault of scientists, for not being exact and unanimous enough in communicating what science is.

I recommend that science have an absolutely massive convention.. a sort of "Council of Nicea" governed by a personage of the highest most powerful unimipeachable sort.. and put to rest, patent, set in stone, or whatever it takes.. to define it for all time.. and the put together a sort of Spanish Inquisition to make everyone conform to the plan.

Even the legal industry doesn't suffer this fate... I guess because everyone is conforming to the 'Rule of Law'... but its basically the same thing... "Show me the Proof!" (and make it reproducible)

Every other industry has to deal with the political and communications aspect of their work.. and no one else puts up their nose to it the way scientists do.. In the case of Law, most of them become politicians anyway. The case would be much worse without the supporting role played by the popularizers, like Asimov, Clarke, and Crichton. They wouldn't sell many books if all they did was hype science... because frankly, science is powerful, and the potentials, both positive and negative need to be understood by all.

Chris

PS. I would consider the largest landmark for nanotech to be K. Eric Drexler's "The Engines Of Creation".. but acknowledge the popularity of Crichton's book... I personally enjoyed it.. and it did not decrease my interest in nano at all.. in fact, I would say it increased it.