|
"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.
| 
2
Re: Book Review: Unscientific America (Introduction)
Good Answers:
"Almost" Good Answers: