Sheril posted yesterday about the outrageous (and breathtakingly arrogant) attack on the legacy of Darwin that is Ray Comfort’s psuedo-Origin of Species. Almost simultaneously, a copy of the Comfort book–for it is not Darwin–showed up in the office of the Knight Science Journalism Program here at MIT. Clearly, these books are being deftly circulated.
The National Center for Science Education is refuting Comfort’s staggeringly long and misleading introduction, so I needn’t say more about it. But flipping through the book, there was one highly dishonest aspect that struck me–font size.
Comfort’s introduction is in big font and nicely spaced. You can breeze through those fifty pages, almost like reading Harry Potter. By contrast, Darwin’s text at the back is in tiny, cramped font, a real trial to get through. Gee, what part of the book do you think students are intended to read?
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, even though I am. It appears creationists like Comfort will even stoop to manipulating font sizes in their arrogant and ignorant quest to undermine knowledge.
On Tuesday, the New York Times published an article on the North Pacific Gyre called “Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash.” Written by Lindsay Hoshaw, it was the culmination of a $10,000 freelance journalism project* in which she visited the gyre with the Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Unfortunately, this NYT article was far below their usual standards. Not only did it notaddanythingnew to the discussion, but it significantly misrepresented the state of the science, presenting broad estimates & conjecture as facts.
I sent a list of corrections to the New York Times, and I am republishing them here as well. They are in the order they appear in the article. Because there are so many, I have kept each explanation brief, but please ask in the comments if you would like elaboration. Thanks to my SIO colleagues Kristen Marhaver and Mike Navarro for their suggestions!
In this remote patch of the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles from any national boundary, the detritus of human life is collecting in a swirling current so large that it defies precise measurement.
In February, 55-year-old Charla Nash made headlines around the world when she was brutally attacked by a friend’s 200-pound pet chimpanzee. She decided to reveal her disfigured face on Oprah this week and I am posting a clip* because I have extremely strong emotions concerning this particular issue–foremost as a result of my conservation biology background and also due to my friendship with science writer Vanessa Woods and her husband, evolutionary anthropologist Dr. Brian Hare. Together they study sanctuary orphans in Congo and often mothers have been killed so the babies can be sold as pets.
Most people still do not seem to understand the gravity of this issue. After watching, make sure to read Brian’s original guest contribution on the science behind why chimpanzees are not pets below the fold.
(A warning to readers of graphic content.)
The Science Behind Why Chimpanzees Are Not Pets by Brian Hare, Evolutionary Anthropologist at Duke University
Last month, a 200 pound male chimpanzee named Travis mauled a woman outside the home where he has been living with his owner Sandra Herold. Charla Nash was nearly killed by Travis and now has life changing wounds to her face while Travis was stabbed by his owner with a butcher knife and shot dead by the police.
Was this incidence preventable or just a freak accident? Should chimpanzees and other primates be kept as pets? What is the effect of the primate pet trade not only on the welfare of these “pets” but on their species survival in the wild? To answer these question I consider what science has to say and draw on both my own work on domestication and over 50 years of research by primatologists on wild chimpanzees.(more…)
Miller-McCunehas 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.
Last week, this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education hit my inbox from a reader named ‘Basma’. And then from ‘Jessica’ followed by ‘Cheyanne’. The link continued trickling in over the weekend… Apparently readers are aware I occasionally have something to say about gender bias in academia (and out and somewhere in the space between). My friends ’round thesetangledseries of tubes don’t put up with that sort of riffraff either. The piece begins like this:
As a female professor, are you called rude and abrasive while your male colleagues who make similar statements are simply labeled assertive? Has your department head discouraged you from taking an assignment, saying that because you have children you might not be able to handle it?
If things like that have happened to you, yell: “Bingo!”
The Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law is unveiling a new online game on Thursday called Gender Bias Bingo. The game is intended for women, although men who have overheard biased statements or have faced bias because they are fathers can also play.
Visitors to this site are asked to choose a square and submit a representative story or quote from their experiences. The goal is to teach more of us to recognize gender bias while demonstrating the ways it can push women away from an academic career path. Director Joan C. Williams also explains the noteworthy economic angle:
“It does not make economic sense, particularly in these economic conditions, to keep recruiting women and then keep driving them out,” says Ms. Williams, who points out that a start-up package for a research scientist can cost as much as $1-million. “There had never been built, as far as I could tell, a clear explanation of why it’s cheaper to keep her.”
While it’s too early to tell how the mission of Gender Bias Bingo will play out, it’s certainly a unique new initiative. Not only does the game highlight the myriad of struggles facing women in the ivory towers, but it serves as a kind of tangible record–a visible means to display the ugly marks left across academia by such behavior. In a small way, this might reflect that gender bias is less acceptable than ever. At least, I hope so.
This morning we added six more including the means to encourage young scientists’ curiosity, foster a love and appreciation of music early (we agree this is extremely important!), and develop critical thinking skills. Donors Choose provides a way to make direct donations by allowing schools to purchase basic materials that every child should have access to. All donations are tax deductible and you get to decide how your money will be used. Support education and get those kids the tools they need to grow into tomorrow leaders.
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.
This morning we added seven more including the means to support a science fair, learn geometry, understand plant biology, and develop critical thinking skills. Donors Choose provides a way to make direct donations by allowing schools to purchase basic materials that every child should have access to. All donations are tax deductible and you get to decide how your money will be used. Support education and get those kids the tools they need to grow into tomorrow leaders.
A few weeks back I posted a piece on gorgeous Lizzie Miller, beauty standards, and the way Glamour magazine should be applauded for featuring a photo that captures the spirit of a woman who looks healthy and happy in her own skin. Now the fashion mag–which has included many ‘plus-sized’ models over the years–features seven women (including Lizzie) in an article about beauty in all shapes and sizes. They take the dialog one step further asking:
OK, let’s envision a world where women of more body types do get glamorous work in magazines and ad campaigns. Would female readers, viewers and buyers want it?
Glamour goes into detail about what it would take and of course, the answer is ultimately, us. But the reason this matters so much is bigger than determining which fashion models get work. It’s a topic taken on in recent years by Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty and others, but a message that needs to be repeated. Women and girls across the country–and beyond–face tremendous pressure to conform to an unrealistic, frequently unhealthy vision of what’s ’socially acceptable’, how we should look, and what we should weigh. Put simply, it’s pure nonsense. And yet, we perpetuate the myth by celebrating these ideals in media and popular culture. So solving the problem begins with changing ourselves.
I have observed firsthand too many college-aged women and high school girls suffering from bulimia and anorexia in a losing battle to achieve what only airbrush can. My close relationships with women seem to inevitably drift into discussions of weight, calories, and body image, while with men, these subjects come up in the broader context of health and fitness. I have listened to my friends–beautiful new mothers–tell me how much they hate their new bodies for the very shape they took to bring forth life.
Glamour’s article brought me encouragement. There is reason for hope, at least if we can stop obsessing over nonsense. In the end, overcoming the crisis is up to us.
We’re now three days into the Donors Choose initiative, and greatly appreciate the kind contributions from Emily, Martin, Marsha, and others to our giving page.
Donors Choose is a wonderful campaign that provides a way to make direct donations to classroom projects during these difficult economic times when our nation’s schools are in trouble. A projector, construction paper, calculators… gifts go to purchase these kind of basic materials that every child should have access to. So support our kids and teachers. All donations are tax deductible and you get to decide how your money will be used.
Sheril Kirshenbaum is a research associate at Duke University and co-author of Unscientific America. Sometimes she's a classicist, radio jock, or congressional staffer. For more information, visit her website.
Sheril posted yesterday about the outrageous (and breathtakingly arrogant) attack on the legacy of Darwin that is Ray Comfort’s psuedo-Origin of Species. Almost simultaneously, a copy of the Comfort book–for it is not Darwin–showed up in the office of the Knight Science Journalism Program here at MIT. Clearly, these books are being deftly circulated.
Miller-McCune
