~ Qui-Gon Jinn

(Image by C.Letenneur)

New discovery, ancient whale: Meet Leviathan melvillei (Is that a great name or what?!)  Ed’s got the details and you can read the full article in Nature. Spectacular!

Ok, I’m now officially overwhelmed by the volume of response to the Washington Post piece and the American Academy paper. Over at DotEarth, for instance–and under the marvelous headline “Scientists From Mars Face Public From Venus”–Andy Revkin has solicited expert responses, and so we hear from Randy Olson, Matt Nisbet, Mike Hulme, John Horgan, Tom Bowman, Sheila Jasanoff, and Robert Brulle. They all have a lot to say. I like this from Nisbet:

The highlighted points of emphasis in the report have been the dominant focus of research in the field of science communication and science studies for the past 15 years and the basis for recent innovative projects such as the World Wide Views on Global Warming initiative.  It is therefore deeply encouraging that these same points of emphasis emerged from the  meetings convened by the American Academy. It’s a major sign that research in the field has contributed to a cultural shift in how leaders in U.S. science view public engagement.

I agree, but I don’t think the research alone has done this. I think that the timing was right for hard scientists to look across at social scientists and see what they had to say.

Sheila Jasanoff of the Harvard Kennedy School, meanwhile–my recent collaborator on the “Unruly Democracy” conference about science blogging–puts the point a bit more sharply:

Chris is right. People often have different underlying reasons when they are arguing about science. But this is a point that students of scientific controversies have documented over more than thirty years. Why has it taken so long for insights from science and technology studies to travel to the American Academy and the scientific community at large? Why is this being treated as news now? Could it be that science has trouble hearing certain kinds of messages, whether they come from publics or from other academic disciplines?

Can we agree on better late than never?

In my experience as a journalist–and Dr Jasanoff knows this, since I ventured into her office 6 or 7 years ago pretty clueless about the field of science and technology studies, and had some catch up work to do–you just don’t hear these science studies/social sciences perspectives on a first pass through contested science issues. Rather, the initial narrative encountered is the scientific illiteracy/deficit model narrative. It just has a strong cultural grip. It requires going a lot deeper before you get to that scholarship.

So, I certainly agree that the work in Jasanoff’s field (and Nisbet’s field) needs to be better publicized. I also agree–as some blog responses have shown–that there remains a lot of resistance to it. But again, that’s changing, and perhaps the American Academy’s work will be a landmark moment for reconciling hard scientists with social scientists and science studies folks.

Meanwhile, we had a packed event at the AAAS yesterday, where CEO Alan Leshner and Bob Fri of Resources for the Future were both strongly supportive of the attempt to cease blaming the public in science controversies and start understanding said public. Afterward, a lot of questions came in about science communication, public opinion, and how to get different kinds of experts working together. I believe the whole thing will be webcast. We’ll see.

I feel honored that the American Academy allowed me to be so prominently involved in its very important research initiative (which was funded by the Sloan Foundation). At this point, I’m going to keep reading what comes out, and sit back and compose a longer response to it all. Stand by on that.

P.S. Chad Orzel has a good post and I’ve replied a bit in the comments….

Last week, I began writing about the relationship between energy and food – a topic that I intend to explore in detail over the coming months. That post dealt with limited micronutrients in other parts of the world, but just because they are more readily available here in the US does not mean that our children are getting what they need.

Today the Food Research and Action Center–an anti-hunger group that tracks summer meal programs–released a report called Hunger Doesn’t Take A Vacation (pdf) which looks at national trends. Using data from the Agriculture Department and state nutrition officials, they show that regional governments around the country are not adequately funded to feed low-income kids during the summer. The states most in trouble are California, Louisiana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Hawaii and Utah.

Consider: In 2009, 73,000 fewer children participated in summer meal programs than in 2008–even though the number of those in need skyrocketed due to our troubled economy. Among the students who ate free or reduced-cost lunches during the regular school term, just 16 percent were fed adequately when out of school. Back in 2001, that figure was 21 percent.

In other words, a lot more children in the United States will be going hungry this summer, which can impact development, concentration, health, and more. Surely we can do better.

Download the full report here.

Update: The American Academy paper is now live. Download it here.

My Washington Post piece is receiving a truly unexpected blog critique. It is basically being criticized for being relatively brief, and not getting into that much detail. In other words, it is being criticized for being what it is by definition–a short newspaper commentary.

Thus Orac, PZ Myers, and Evil Monkey all fault the piece for not providing more on solutions. The irony is that the byline of the Post piece mentions that I’ve done a more in depth paper on all this for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. And that 15 page paper, in turn, is based on a reading of hundreds of pages of transcripts for four expert workshops put together by the Academy. There is more talk of solutions in the transcripts than the paper, and more in the paper than in the Post piece…and so on. As you’d expect.

In any event, the paper releases today, whereupon it will be available at this link. Thus far, the link isn’t working, but it should pretty soon.

So for those who want more detail, please download the paper. Or, if you prefer, criticize the Post piece and then download the paper!

[Note: There are other points to respond to in these critiques, especially from Orac. I'm busy preparing my talk about the paper for an event this afternoon at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but hope to address those tomorrow.]

Update: Just learned the American Academy paper will be available for download at this link tomorrow. But don’t go now, it just gives an error message….

Well, the piece yesterday prompted a lot of commentary on the blogs, on Facebook, on the Post website (214 last time I checked), and through emails directly to me. I want to make some remarks on some of the more interesting–and less interesting–reactions that I received.

First, though, a factual point: A lot of folks have asked when the American Academy of Arts and Sciences paper that all of this is based on will be available. The answer is Tuesday, and while this paper is being printed in hard copy–technically an “occasional paper” of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences–an online PDF will also be available. I will link as soon as that occurs. (Tuesday is also day the paper is being rolled out at the other AAAS–American Association for the Advancement of Science–and once again, details on the event are here.)

So, on to the responses. (more…)

When the search engine Bing celebrated Father’s Day 2010 with this heartwarming kiss involving another primate species, so many of you sent over the link that I had to feature it in The Science of Kissing Gallery at first opportunity:

Submit your original photo or artwork for consideration. The more creative, the better.

I’ve got a piece in this weekend’s Sunday Outlook section in the Post, entitled “If scientists want to educate the public, start by listening.” The argument is that although people often seem to resist science and argue back against it, they’re frequently motivated by nonscientific considerations at the core–nonscientific considerations that scientists themselves often don’t really understand. But alas, this means that arguing with them scientifically often doesn’t yield the desired result. Example:

Or consider the long-running controversy over plans to dispose of the nation’s nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Although many technical experts have long argued that the repository would be safe, this has hardly convinced frightened and angry Nevadans. In 1991, the American Nuclear Energy Council even launched an ad campaign to educate the public about the Yucca Mountain plan but it backfired. Nearly a third of viewers became more resistant to the repository, and among those who were already opposed, their resolve strengthened. (Just 15 percent had a more favorable opinion of the repository after seeing the ad, and half of viewers did not change their minds.)

The piece also makes a similar point with respect to climate change and vaccination.

So then what is the solution?

Initiatives that engage the public about science policy in a two-way conversation — before controversies explode — show great promise. In Canada, for instance, the national Nuclear Waste Management Organization spent three years listening to the public’s views about how to handle nuclear waste disposal and promised that no dump or repository would be sprung on a community without its consent. Throughout the process, even critics of waste storage efforts remained engaged and supportive of attempts to come up with the best possible solution. In the United States, meanwhile, the federally funded National Nanotechnology Initiative has sponsored a great deal of social science research to explore possible public concerns that may arise as this new field of technology advances.

In sum, work with experts who understand the public to figure out what is driving concerns and resistance–and ideally, do so before you have a long running controversy with lots of bad blood and entrenched positions.

The Post piece mentions in my byline that I’m “author of a paper on the relationship between scientists and the public to be released Tuesday by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.” Indeed, there is a much more detailed and lengthy paper that will be coming out shortly–as well as a public event on Tuesday at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to present the paper and engage in a discussion about it. You can register here to attend. Also appearing: American Association for the Advancement of Science President Alan Leshner, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Executive Director Leslie Berlowitz, and Resources for the Future scholar Robert Fri. For more details, click here.

This morning I fly out to Buffalo, and then ride on to Amherst, New York, home to the Center for Inquiry — the hub of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Free Inquiry, and much else, including the Point of Inquiry radio show and podcast. This is the place I worked, for my very first job out of college, along with Matthew Nisbet in the summer of 1999. Also present back then: Derek Araujo, now Vice President and General Counsel of the Center for Inquiry, director of CFI’s legal programs, and CFI’s Representative to the United Nations; and Austin Dacey, a writer in New York and author of The Secular Conscience.

The occasion is the Center for Inquiry On Campus Leadership Conference — and, well, I’m reminiscing. It is hard to believe that ten years ago, I was in a secular humanist rock band with Araujo, Dacey, and a few other young skeptic/freethinkers called the House Judiciary Committee (it was the time of impeachment). I was the rhythm guitar player, though I didn’t have any rhythm. One of our hits? An instrumental called “Hook, Quine, and Pinker.”

My goals in Amherst are several. (more…)

Here we go again… From the AFP:

BEIJING — A floating expanse of green algae floating off China’s eastern seaboard is growing and spreading further along the coast, state-run media has reported.

* * * * *

Algae blooms are typically caused by pollution in China and suck up huge amounts of oxygen needed by marine wildlife to survive and leave a foul stench when they wash up on beaches.

* * * * *

According to a 2008 State Oceanic Administration report, raw sewage and pollution from agricultural run-off has polluted 83 percent of China’s coastal waters, leading to algae and other problems.

I begin with a full disclosure: As many readers know, Vanessa Woods is one of my very best friends. I love spending time with her because she’s insightful, outrageous, brilliant, and funny. And I can sincerely say I love her new memoir, Bonobo Handshake for the very same reasons. But most of all, I’m recommending this book because it’s so important.

At the start of Bonobo Handshake, we’re introduced to Vanessa as she sets off rather haphazardly on an adventure to Africa with her new husband, Duke anthropologist Brian Hare. By the end, she–and we–are not the same. Woven in between is a beautiful and complex narrative about people and other primates that slowly unravels what’s really at stake.

There were times I laughed out loud reading about the challenges of working with a species that–yes–famously approaches sex as easily as humans would a handshake. But there is a lot more to bonobos than their sexual behavior. Just as Jane Goodall documented the unforgettable antics of chimpanzees like Flossie and David Greybeard, Vanessa brings us into the world of ‘Empress’ Mimi, mischievous and lovable Malou, and my favorite bonobo of all, sweet little Lodja. It’s easy to fall in love with all of them as you’re both charmed and heartbroken along the way.

That’s only one part of a very complex story. Bonobo Handshake also exposes a very tragic side of Congo. Throughout the book, Vanessa shares devastating personal accounts of war, murder, rape, and torture. She gives voice to people who are often forgotten and need desperately to be heard. You also realize how they are connected to all of us through our politics, as well as the limited resources that power our technologies. In other words, we are part of the story.

I could go on and on about why I feel this memoir is so powerful and how it finally brought Congo to life for me in a way that all of the detached TV news stories over the years could never do. Or about how I’m inspired by heroes like Claudine Andre, who sacrifice so much to make the world a better place. Or about how incredibly well Bonobo Handshake succeeds in covering such a heavy topic, while providing reasons for hope. And of course, about how much I admire Vanessa for her courage, independence, and compassion. I could do all of those things… but instead, I’ll keep it simple:

I love this book. Go read it.