Blogs / The Intersection

Miller-McCune has a new review up this morning about how Unscientific America and Cornelia Dean’s Am I Making Myself Clear? compliment well. Our book is described as ‘a call to action,’ while Dean’s details how to achieve results. Here’s an excerpt:

When scientific discoveries conflict with either our religious beliefs or personal prerogatives (as when climatologists point out that our lifestyles are straining the limits of our planet’s resources), we find them easy to ignore or dismiss. Our minds have not been molded to respect the scientific process nor to take the warnings of its practitioners seriously.

Two new books approach this dilemma from different perspectives. In Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future (Basic Books; $24), Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum provide a detailed diagnosis of the problem and how it developed over the decades. In Am I Making Myself Clear? (Harvard University Press; $19.95), Cornelia Dean offers practical advice to researchers who are interested in making things better.

–

One can only hope that researchers — and the academic administrators who decide what the scientists of tomorrow need to know — read these concise, sharply written volumes and take their message to heart. The process of reconnecting science and society cannot start soon enough. Presuming the climatologists are correct, our planet and the species that live on it are in a lot of trouble if we don’t start taking science seriously soon.

We couldn’t agree more. Read the full piece here.

Rebecca Skloot has a book coming out next year… and it sounds spectacular! There’s already a lot of buzz surrounding the publication of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and this morning Rebecca and her book appeared as the cover story of Publisher’s Weekly behind the heading ‘The Making of a Bestseller 2010‘. Congratulations to our former SciBling! Here’s what PW has to say:

Science journalist Skloot makes a remarkable debut with this multilayered story about “faith, science, journalism, and grace.” It is also a tale of medical wonders and medical arrogance, racism, poverty and the bond that grows, sometimes painfully, between two very different women–Skloot and Deborah Lacks–sharing an obsession to learn about Deborah’s mother, Henrietta, and her magical, immortal cells. Henrietta Lacks was a 31-year-old black mother of five in Baltimore when she died of cervical cancer in 1951. Without her knowledge, doctors treating her at Johns Hopkins took tissue samples from her cervix for research. They spawned the first viable, indeed miraculously productive, cell line–known as HeLa. These cells have aided in medical discoveries from the polio vaccine to AIDS treatments. What Skloot so poignantly portrays is the devastating impact Henrietta’s death and the eventual importance of her cells had on her husband and children. Skloot’s portraits of Deborah, her father and brothers are so vibrant and immediate they recall Adrian Nicole LeBlanc’s Random Family. Writing in plain, clear prose, Skloot avoids melodrama and makes no judgments. Letting people and events speak for themselves, Skloot tells a rich, resonant tale of modern science, the wonders it can perform and how easily it can exploit society’s most vulnerable people.

- Publishers Weekly, Starred Review

An excerpt is available online as well as details on the Immortal tour. I’m so excited for Rebecca and already anticipating her book’s debut!

Two months have passed since the prominent journal Science published a highly misleading review of our book, Unscientific America, by Jerry Coyne. From the very first sentence, Coyne misrepresented the text, charging that according to Unscientific America, the problem of American scientific illiteracy “derives from two failings of scientists themselves: their vociferous atheism and their ham-handed and ineffectual efforts to communicate the importance of science to the public.” This is not what we argue, nor what we think, nor a position we could possibly defend.

When the review first came out in August, we were surprised to see it, as Coyne had already attacked our book online, and we had felt compelled to blog a response that corrected several of his errors and misrepresentations.

However, we did not immediately respond to Coyne’s Science review, both because we didn’t want to blog our response to something published in a journal and also because we were very busy. Chris got married. Sheril completed a manuscript. But we were not the only ones surprised by what Coyne had written; Joshua Rosenau, who had read our book and reviewed it, felt compelled to rebut Coyne’s Science review at length, observing the following:

A review in the top scientific journal is a fairly rarified entity, one with various rules and expectations. Not least among those expectations is that the reviewer will give an honest account of the book as written, and will take issue with the authors’ actual claims, not with imagined enemies. I took classes with Coyne as an undergraduate at Chicago; I know him to be an honest and honorable man, a scrupulous researcher, and dedicated to thoughtful and open discourse. Thus, my expectations for his review were rather high. I hoped he would rise out of the muck which has surrounded the book online, and give a fair look at it, however assuredly critical it might be.

Instead, I cannot characterize his review as anything but bullshit [note: Rosenau is using the word “bullshit” in the sense made famous by Harry Frankfurt, e.g., not lying, but simply not caring about the truth or accuracy]….

Rosenau detailed the many ways in which Coyne misrepresented our book on fundamental matters–e.g., what is the problem it identifies, what are the causes of that problem, and so on. We encourage readers to go through Rosenau’s entire post, which contains numerous rebuttals, followed by more accurate descriptions of what Unscientific America argues.

And that’s just the beginning. On Friday, Science published two eLetters in response to Coyne’s review, one by a doctor and professor who has read our book and a second by us. Let us quote from the former first, for it parallels Rosenau’s reaction. The letter is from Donald Marcus, who is at Baylor College of Medicine and who opens with the following:

J. Coyne’s Book Review of Unscientific America by C. Mooney and S. Kirshenbaum (”Selling science,” 7 August 2009, p. 678) doesn’t serve the basic function of describing the scope and contents of a book. His review is a dismissive rant that misrepresents the text.

Marcus then substantiates his assertions; please read his own words. (Indeed, anyone wishing to really follow this matter should ideally read not only our book, but all of the links in this post.) Marcus concludes as follows:

The book [Unscientific America] is clear and lively, and it includes 66 pages of notes containing references and citations. In addition to providing little information about the book, the review is an example of an intemperate style that is an obstacle to civil discourse. It is unworthy of Science.

Finally, there is our own reaction. You can read it at the same link. It starts like this:

The late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once remarked that “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.” A similar rule applies to book reviews: Every reviewer is entitled to dislike a particular book, but not to misrepresent its arguments and contents.

Unfortunately, J. Coyne has taken the latter course with our book Unscientific America (”Selling science,” Book Reviews, 7 August 2009, p. 678). He calls our work “shallow and unreflective,” but virtually every time he tries to describe it he makes an error–either attributing to us views and positions we do not hold, or claiming the book lacks content that it actually does contain.

We then proceed to correct Coyne on many points, but here is a typical example:

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Coyne’s review is his use of our own arguments to attack the positions he incorrectly attributes to us. For instance, take Coyne’s observation that “The public’s reluctance to accept scientific facts may reflect not just a lack of exposure but a willful evasion of facts due to conflicting economic agendas (e.g., the case of global warming) personal agendas (vaccines), or religious agendas.” Yes, but how is this a strike against our book? We deal with such factors from the outset; Coyne even quotes our observation that “college-educated Democrats are now more than twice as likely as college-educated Republicans to believe that global warming is real and is caused by human activities.” Coyne writes that “the problem of an ‘unscientific America’ may be far more complex than the authors let on,” but in truth, we describe the problem with far more complexity than Coyne lets on.

You can read our full letter here. We regret having to respond at such length, but we felt that the need to set the record straight was that compelling.

Indeed, we are not the only authors who have felt compelled to respond in this manner to one of Coyne’s book reviews. As Robert Wright has put it:

Here is a partial list of false or misleading things Jerry Coyne says about my book The Evolution of God in his review of it in The New Republic. I want to emphasize that I think these are innocent mistakes…If Coyne wants to write a devastating review of my book—and there can be little doubt that he wants to—he’s going to have to start over.

Like Wright, we do not know why Coyne misrepresented our book so badly. But again: we had already corrected several Coyne’s misrepresentations online before his Science review appeared. Secondly, Coyne has been in a very heated debate with us (and was before the Science review came out); and has called our work “shallow, unreflective, and not worth buying or reading,” among other denunciations contained in the Science review and elsewhere.

In a forthcoming post, we plan to say more about the broader context in which Coyne’s attack on Unscientific America needs to be understood. For now, let us close by saying that we’re saddened at the need for these responses, but we’re also fortunate that others have come to our defense, unasked, and have been willing to further set the record straight.

One of my favorite things to do is wander around used bookstores, filtering through the collections that have their own mysterious stories to tell. In the age of electronic literature, I’m beginning to feel as outdated as some of the centuries old memoirs in these shops. Students on campus purchase ebooks and ‘vooks,’ and yet I sense that all this new technology looses something in translation–or rather digitization. I love the smell of an old book, the way the corners of the pages crinkle, the feel of its weight in my hand. But paramount, it’s these tangible books that turn authors into old friends in a way I just cannot imagine an online text could. My oldest and dearest such friend is Kurt Vonnegut Jr. You probably know him too.

Now I only allow myself one of his stories a year. I will be terribly disappointed when I’ve read every one and will probably begin again when the time comes. He weaves a special magic between an otherwise ordinary jacket using simple words to convey something profound. He turns ideas over and creates characters that are both ordinary and extraordinary. Put simply, my love of Vonnegut will endure as long as I do. So it goes.

Together, we shared the past weekend on Cold Mountain (yes, there is such a place). It was my first time away from work in I don’t know how long. Under the October sky, he told me the story of Howard W. Campbell Jr. in Mother Night. There is perhaps no greater pleasure in the world than getting lost in the pages of a good book. Real pages. The kind that turn and bend, fold and tear. Those that envelop you into the story. I hope such books persist. For as long as they survive, the old friends who composed them live on as well.

I was delighted for the opportunity to deliver a talk about Unscientific America at my local bookstore in Durham, North Carolina. There’s something extra special when you recognize so many familiar faces in the audience. They didn’t even mind my cold and I was particularly touched when one sweet gentleman in the front row gave me his handkerchief before the Q&A. Gosh I love this town, its bookstore, newspapers (The Herald Sun and The Independent), and so much more.

Thanks to everyone who came out and participated in a terrific discussion about science, education, the Internet, politics, and literacy in America. I left re-energized to finish the final edits on my next book and even managed to turn in the manuscript on time today.

I gotta feeling that tonight’s gonna be a good night…

Last night I had the pleasure of listening to Nicholas Kristof speak to a packed auditorium here at Duke about ‘the cause of our century‘: The plight of women around the world.

In one of the most moving and inspirational public lectures I’ve heard, Kristof shared stories from the new book he composed with his wife Sheryl WuDunn called Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Copies were already sold out before I could purchase one, but based on his words, I cannot wait to read what sounds like an extraordinary book. I’m sure I’ll have more to say once I get started, but in the mean time, here’s a glimpse of the review from The Washington Post:

“Half the Sky” is a call to arms, a call for help, a call for contributions, but also a call for volunteers. It asks us to open our eyes to this enormous humanitarian issue. It does so with exquisitely crafted prose and sensationally interesting material. It provides us with a list of individual hospitals, schools and small charities so that we can contribute to, or at least inform ourselves about, this largely unknown world. I really do think this is one of the most important books I have ever reviewed. I may be wrong, but I don’t think so.

Read the full review here.

With less than five weeks to the kissing book deadline, I’ve just printed the entire manuscript for the first time. Until now I’ve been looking at limited sections as necessary to save paper, mostly working on the laptop.  Its composition has been a very different process from Unscientific America with Chris because this time around, I’m responsible for every interview, staying on schedule, and balancing the project with other commitments. Tomorrow I’ll head north to concentrate on editing, fact-checking, and overall structure. Blogging will continue and CM also returns next week.

It’s a bit strange to finally hold something that represents the culmination of countless hours of research and writing: A rather surreal experience when time and keystrokes suddenly become tangible. Metamorphosis. It’s been quite a journey so far and the subject is vastly more intriguing than I could have imagined. And yet, pouring over the manuscript feels a bit like ‘stopping by woods on a snowy evening‘…

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

We’ve had many more reviews of the book, including three very positive ones from Bud Ward of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, Joe Romm of Climate Progress, and Josh Rosenau of ScienceBlogs. (Jim Giles of New Scientist also reviewed here, but it’s one of those reviews that you just don’t know how to characterize–mildly negative?)

Anyways, let’s listen to Ward first. The whole review is positive–he calls the book “a timely bromide for the science blues”–but this part was notable:

But it is in their “Is Our Scientists Learning?” (sic.) chapter and in their conclusion chapter that Mooney and Kirshenbaum offer what may be the book’s most valuable contributions. Here, they outline the woes, but also the promises and potentials, of the science community, and they issue a veritable call to action not just for more scientists, and certainly not for more scientists working “in isolation” from the society so badly needing them. Instead, they call for better scientific training of “more well-rounded scientists,” familiar with and comfortable dealing in policy, politics, society, and the media. They call for career paths supportive not only of scientific innovation, but also of scientific outreach.

Joe Romm, for his part, says of Unscientific America: “Buy it and read it.” He also takes our argument about training scientists to communicate and runs with it:

I do think that every scientist-in-training today should be required to take a course in communication, a course in energy, and a course in climate science.  The smart ones will specialize in some discipline related to sustainability because when the nation and the world get desperate about global warming in the next decade or two, the entire focus of society, of scientists and engineers, and of academia will be directed toward a WWII-scale effort to mitigate what we can and adapting to the myriad miseries that our mypopic dawdling has made inevitable.

Josh Rosenau’s review is long and very sensitive–it characterizes our argument in great detail and with the utmost accuracy. He begins like this:

“Americans are dumb.” This is the reaction I get most often when talking about the creation/evolution conflict, and it’s the premise of many actions by the scientific community (which includes both scientists and a broader group of science advocates – science-ists if you will). If we could only educate people better – teach them about the fossils, tell them more about stem cells, explain the physics of light striking a carbon dioxide molecule – America’s trouble assimilating scientific findings would be resolved.

As Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum point out in their breezy Unscientific America, those solutions miss the point.

Yup. Rosenau agrees with us about the problems with the “deficit model”: “The solution,” he writes, “is not merely to better educate the public about what science says or how scientists know what they do, but to improve people’s appreciation of why science matters to what we all do in our lives.” Josh also goes on to point out that we really should have mentioned Mythbusters (point taken), and makes some fair-minded criticisms, while also defending us from other critics. Read the whole thing here.

And now I’m off to Seattle….

Thanks to everyone for a warm welcome back to the District! Chis and I really enjoyed our lunch conversation with the bright and enthusiastic “New Voices” at Research!America.  This group of motivated young scientists certainly keeps us optimistic about the future!

Our book talk at Politics and Prose was terrific! There were some excellent and thought-provoking questions that followed from a great audience and we had fun meeting everyone afterward.  We were very honored to have Jonathan Moreno of the Center for American Progress and Mary Woolley of Research!America introduce us at the event–two individuals who already do so much to bridge the science-society divide and continue to inspire us. And special thanks to Zuska, Jason, Benjamin, Manil, Al, and so many other friends who joined us for the evening.  I only wish we had more time to spend together and it meant a great deal to see you there!

Throughout the day, we also did several interviews that we’ll link as they become available. And with that, posting will be light as we continue traveling…

It’s terrific to read about Unscientific America in my local paper, The Independent Weekly:

A new book argues that scientists need to do more to promote their work to the public

Last month, at an Arizona state senate hearing, a Republican legislator named Sylvia Allen casually tossed off a statistic that, if true, would unravel the last 200 years of painstaking progress in geological research.

Speaking on a proposal for a new uranium mine, she asserted matter-of-factly that “the Earth’s been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn’t been done away with.” The hearing was videotaped, and a clip of her remark was posted on the Internet, exposing her ignorance of basic science to a predictable chorus of mockery and disdain. None of which, of course, has the slightest chance of causing Allen, or other believers of the so-called young Earth hypothesis, to change their minds.

In their new book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum say it’s time to switch from the standard, tired prescription for solving the problem of scientific illiteracy: more, or better, science education in the schools. After all, many proponents of “intelligent design” are well educated in the language and methods of science. Instead of blaming the public for their inadequate knowledge (or, in the case of Allen and other creationists, willful ignorance) of science, Mooney and Kirshenbaum blame the scientific community and its press agents for the poor job they’ve done promoting their brand.

Read the full article here.