Blogs / The Intersection

After being on the road for over two weeks, it’s good to be home. I met so many passionate scientists, students, and science advocates along the way that it brought me a sense of great hope for what’s to come. A highlight was the past weekend stopover in North Carolina for ScienceOnline2010 where I was delighted to meet dozens of interesting science writers and new media folks in person while getting the opportunity to spend time with my favorite science bloggers from around the world. It was a lot of fun to share a panel on fact-checking with Rebecca Skloot and David Dobbs–and if you haven’t already picked up the most recent issue of O Magazine, make sure you do! Rebecca has a fascinating excerpt from her upcoming book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks inside! I also had the pleasure of participating in a second session with Isis and Janet; two women who constantly amaze me both in and out of the blogosphere. Our session on civility got a bit too uncivil at times, but it also brought up very important discussion points that I’d like to see explored more online.

I had my two favorite allies by my side most of the meeting–CM and Vanessa Woods. I am also pleased to report back that Ed Yong is just as awesome in person as at Not Exactly Rocket Science. Bora, Anton, and David did a terrific job pulling the conference together and it was fantastic to see so many friends who inhabit the blogosphere from Sci to Brian, Greg to Carl, Darlene to Dave, Miriam to Kevin, Arikia to Nate, Eric and Eric and on and on… I could not begin to list everyone, so instead, I will just say this: Everyday it is a delight, privilege, and honor to share the science blogosphere with the incredible, inspiring, and wonderful individuals that participate here. I am already looking forward to next year’s event!

by Joel Barkan

Over the past three days, our class has shifted gears to a discussion on the role of ethics in science.  Dr. Craig Callender of UCSD’s philosophy department and Dr. Jay Odenbaugh, a professor of philosophy visiting from Lewis and Clark College, have joined us to offer a philosophical perspective to the topic of marine biodiversity and conservation.  

The discussions have been both meditative and downright wacky:  today, the subject of distributing “reproduction permits” to capable couples for the right to have children—a sort of cap-and-trade system of controlling the world’s population problem—was brought up (as a purely hypothetical, of course).  You can imagine what the rest of our philosophical discussions were like.

One topic that provoked a lively debate was that of scientists using their professional achievements and status to advocate personal values.  For instance:  is it ethical for an accomplished fisheries biologist to advocate for widespread marine protected areas, which may have significant economic effects, but would protect the fisheries valued by the biologist? 

Scientists are responsible for producing results that shape public policy, but should scientists also take on the role of advocating for that policy?  Where do scientists draw the line between their role as researchers and as a citizens?

During this discussion, our course coordinator, Dr. Jeremy Jackson, brought up Dr. James Hansen of NASA as an example of a scientist who has dared to test the imaginary boundary between scientist and public advocate.  Dr. Hansen, who was profiled extensively in Chris Mooney’s Storm World, has famously campaigned for action to limit human-induced climate change.  Dodging a barrage of resistance from global warming skeptics and censorship by his own government, Dr. Hansen remained unwavering in his beliefs.  Dr. Jackson—never one to be muzzled himself—referred to Dr. Hansen as a personal hero in this respect.

When science and politics intersect, roles and boundaries are often muddied.  As Scripps graduate students, our own roles as both scientists and advocates will undoubtedly come into focus as we address issues in marine conservation.

In this post, we continue our response to PZ Myers’ review of our book, Unscientific America. For those who’ve just arrived, we previously laid out the course our response would take here, and began to respond here. This is the third post, and there will be one more after it.

5. American Anti-Science. Myers claims the book “entirely neglects the anti-scientific forces.” This is false.

First, Chris wrote an entire book dealing with this problem. That book, The Republican War on Science, dealt very extensively with the anti-science forces and put them in their place.

Unscientific America tries not to reinvent the wheel, but rather to go beyond its predecessor–and indeed, we’ve been describing it as the sequel to The Republican War on Science. This time around, we don’t structure the book by scientific topic, so you won’t find chapter-length refutations of the creationists, the global warming deniers, and so on. However, Chris has refuted them all at great length elsewhere, and they get more than adequate licks in the new book as well. (Indeed, we’ve added some smackdowns of the anti-vaccinationists this time around!)

Perhaps Myers would have preferred a book that contained nothing more than entertaining skewerings of anti-science idiocy–but Chris wrote that book already. Unscientific America tries to take the next step and explore the reasons for the disconnects between science and society, because understanding the true nature of anti-science sentiment and its causes is no less important than debunking it. They’re both important.

6. Root Causes. Myers claims the book “demands we avoid addressing the structural roots” of the problem of science in society. That’s false.

A more charitable reading would be that we differ with Myers about what the root causes are, or place different emphases upon them. Clearly, he thinks religion is a much bigger root cause–if not the only root cause–than we do. But why then doesn’t he just say that we differ, instead of mischaracterizing our position?

We too want to address root causes–we just don’t think religion is the root of all our problems. It is one cause of anti-science sentiment, to be sure–a very prominent one. But not the only one. Our book also deals with many others: The nature of the media; the nature of politics; the nature of the scientific community, and so on. It may be easier to simply single out religion, but we’re not convinced it gets us where we need to be.

7. Science in the Entertainment Industry. Chris spent a month out in LA meeting with experts on the entertainment industry or talking with them by phone, trying to work out why science often gets such a bad shake in film and on television. The result was a report on how the entertainment industry works, and why scientists are often unhappy with the result–and what can be done to change this. (Some of this content is now reiterated in our Salon.com adaptation from the book.)

From this chapter, Myers finds a single sentence about Richard Dawkins to quote [his emphasis]:

Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount—that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot.

This Myers dubs “exasperating nonsense, in which Mooney and Kirshenbaum are discussing how to get science into the popular media.”

Myers is quoting out of context in order to criticize us. Here’s what he (and all of his readers who have not read our book) are missing.

Dawkins was quoted in the New York Times saying that the film Jurassic Park didn’t even need to have human characters in it, because the dinosaurs were so stunning. His words were: “The natural world is fascinating in its own right. It really doesn’t need human drama to be fascinating.” We provide this quotation, and the accompanying context, in the book. Myers does not.

Assuming Dawkins was quoted accurately, these words shows how little he understands about mass entertainment. A film with just dinosaurs running around would never have been so successful (and would never have been made). That was our point. Dawkins’ statement about Hollywood and Jurassic Park epitomizes the type of mindset that has kept scientists from having more productive encounters with the entertainment industry.

Now look at how Myers strives to defend Dawkins against us:

What Mooney and Kirshenbaum fail to grasp is that to a scientist, factual accuracy must be paramount; it is not a matter on which we can compromise. Further, what they fail to recognize, and what they excuse for Hollywood, as that accuracy does not have to compromise narrative, drama, and character! They berate Dawkins as if he has no awareness of the basics of what makes a good story, which makes me wonder if they’ve read any of his books at all — do they think he simply drily recites a body of abstract thoughts at the reader? Perhaps they should take a look at The Ancestor’s Tale^{(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)} to discover that he actually has addressed this imaginary deficit.

But of course, in context, it is absurd to think that factual accuracy would be paramount in a movie like Jurassic Park.

And for that matter, what can Myers possibly be saying about Dawkins’ admittedly very good writing? That The Ancestor’s Tale could be made into just as successful a movie as Jurassic Park, which grossed nearly $ 1 billion worldwide? Again, that’s pretty hard to believe.

8. Solutions. Myers claims the book “offers no new solutions.” That’s false–the book is brimming with solutions. Chad Orzel even found one we couldn’t fit into the main text–the idea of forming a Science PAC to get more scientists elected to Congress–buried in an endnote, and built an entire discussion around it.

There are solutions in each chapter of the main body of the book, broken down by sector–politics, media, entertainment, religion. And then there is the grand solution in Chapter 10–which emerged from our collaboration, and which we don’t think either of us would have come up with on our own. So far as we know, it really is new in its particular way of analyzing the academic pipeline and finding, in it, a solution to our problems at the science-society interface.

Again, we would ask that readers consult the book, rather than Myers’ review, to determine whether it really offers “no new solutions.” And we’d also direct them over to the review at RealClimate, where a productive discussion about solutions has, indeed, been sparked by the book.

This difference in perceptions in these reviews is certainly remarkable. It’s clear that those who are invested in the “New Atheism” have a strong negative reaction to the book–but is that surprising, in that the book strongly criticizes the “New Atheism”?

But for those who do not have such a strong investment, yet care about the promotion and communication of science–like Michael Mann of Real Climate, Darksyde of Daily Kos, and many others–the book has prompted much valuable thought, response, and commentary. We’re very honored to see that it is having this effect.

In our final post, tomorrow, we will conclude our responses to the claims in PZ’s review.

We now commence, as laid out earlier, our rebuttals to PZ Myers’ review of our book:

1. Getting Personal? Myers claims that our book contains “very direct and personal attacks on me and on Pharyngula, atheists in general, and anyone who fails to offer religion its proper modicum of respect.”

It is hard to know precisely what he means by “very direct and personal attacks,” as he doesn’t back up the charge with any evidence. Certainly we do directly mention Myers. We describe the infamous desecration of the communion wafer, which we criticize. Later, we also talk critically about Myers in the context of discussing the face of science on the Internet.

Even if these constituted “personal attacks”–and we don’t see how–they still wouldn’t be attacks on “atheists in general, and anyone who fails to offer religion its proper modicum of respect.” Chris is an atheist. We’re quite sure he did not attack himself in the book.

As for Myers, he is a very public figure, and never was he more public than in what he refers to as “Crackergate.” Does he not expect to be criticized when he puts a desecrated communion wafer on the Internet? Was everyone who criticized him on that occasion attacking him personally?

(more…)

We’ve thoroughly read, and now plan to respond in detail to PZ Myers’ review of our book.

But first, some throat clearing. It may seem odd for authors to respond so extensively to their critics. In the olden days, such exchanges happened very slowly, if at all, through letters to the editor, and usually they weren’t very long. But this is the Internet age, and there are very different circumstances here:

The People Want It. Hordes of commenters are demanding that we respond to PZ.

PZ Asked For It. Myers did not write a balanced review, an indifferent review, or even a negative review. Rather, he misrepresented our book, got its arguments wrong, assaulted its authors (”their hypocritical and ignorant paean to mealy-mouthedness”), and finally ended by concluding that our labor of over a year is “utterly useless.”

We may not be capable of objectivity judging our own work. But we’re also receiving many supportive emails from people who like the book, are seeing it spark constructive dialogue about solutions on places like Chad Orzel’s blog or RealClimate.org, and are witnessing the careful weighing of its arguments’ strengths and weaknesses at places like Neurotopia. How could a book that is prompting thought and dialogue be “utterly useless”? Myers may disagree with our book in many respects, but debate itself is useful, is it not?

We Wrote a Contempt-Free Book. Myers’ charges come from someone who is directly criticized in the book, and who admits that his opinion “is colored by the palpable contempt [its authors] hold for me.” But there’s no “contempt” here–just entirely fair criticism of Myers based on his freely chosen actions.

But we’ll get to that.

In answering Myers, we will proceed in 10 points, spread across 3 posts to control their length. We will first summarize them here, and then elaborate in the next three posts until we’re done:

1. Getting Personal? Myers claims that our book contains “very direct and personal attacks on me and on Pharyngula, atheists in general, and anyone who fails to offer religion its proper modicum of respect.” We do not agree that we have launched any personal attacks.

2.  Pluto. Myers doesn’t appear to understand our argument here, as we will show.

3. What the Book Actually Says. Starting with Chapter 1, Myers gives little if any sense of the book’s real contents and argument.

4. Carl Sagan. This is virtually the only thing Myers seems to agree with us on. But he doesn’t grasp the nature of Sagan’s uniqueness, or why Richard Dawkins is no Carl Sagan.

5.  American Anti-Science. Myers claims the book “entirely neglects the anti-scientific forces.” This is false.

6. Root Causes. Myers claims the book “demands we avoid addressing the structural roots” of the problem of science in society. That’s false.

7. Science in the Entertainment Industry. By taking a single sentence about Richard Dawkins vastly out of context, Myers misrepresents our chapter on this subject.

8. Solutions. Myers claims our book “offers no new solutions.” This is false.

9. Bigotry. Myers flings this baseless, inflammatory charge at us.

10. The Problem with PZ Myers. Curiously, Myers doesn’t even address our criticisms of…him. But they’re serious and fair, and we will end by elaborating upon why, in the wake of the communion wafer desecration, we decided we had to speak out about them.

That’s how we’ll proceed, and we’ll begin with the first post in a few hours. The entirety of what we’ve written will carry over into tomorrow–but never fear, it is already drafted, and you will see it all soon enough.

While we welcome comment here, we ask that you do not pre-judge our rebuttals on the points above until they have actually been posted.

The first post is now up and can be found here.

A couple weeks back, I composed a post entitled ‘Science Reveals How To Lose Weight And Keep It Off‘. The results weren’t surprising… research out of Harvard found that calories are the most significant part of the equation. However, what really resonated with a number of readers turned out to be a different topic related to this point:

Weightwise, my take is that we humans have an interesting habit of coming in all shapes and sizes and the most beautiful tend not to fit a particular mold. That said, being healthy–inside and out–is everything.

I received several emails in agreement, and especially enjoyed hearing some of your own stories and challenges. A young woman named Marguerie requested that I post this video to support her ‘commitment to improving the self-esteem of girls everywhere.’ Sure sounds good to me!  So without further ado, from Dove’s fantastic Campaign For Real Beauty:

The Evolution Of Beauty

Last week we told you about the NYAS Two Cultures Conference coming up on May 9, 2009 in celebration of the 50 year anniversary of C.P. Snow’s famous Rede lecture. Politicians, academics, writers, and the media will converge to discuss
science and society–including keynote addresses by E.O. Wilson, John
Porter, and Dean Kamen.

Today we’re pleased to announce that the website for the event featuring the full schedule is now available here. Tickets are going fast so we encourage readers to take a look at the agenda and register soon.  We hope to see you there!

I’ve been thrilled at the comments I’m getting in response to my posts on Nicholaus Copernicus. See for example here. So I’ve thought of a plan to invite blog readers to join me throughout the next several months as I push through a large number of other texts like De revolutionibus.

For the remainder of this week, the primary reading will be Copernicus. (I still have a ways to go to finish.) Secondary readings will be Owen Gingerich’s The Book Nobody Read and Thomas Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution.

After that, here’s the schedule I’m working from, and will strive to keep to–with Amazon links to the book versions I’m using wherever possible, and some questions included as well:

(more…)

The week, the NYTimes interviewed conservation biologist Stuart Pimm–or ‘Indy Pimm‘ as I like to call him–who works to save endangered species and places around the world from tracking elephants in South Africa to restoring Florida’s Everglades. He holds the Doris Duke professorship of Conservation Ecology at Duke University and won the Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences in 2006 aka ‘the Nobel of the ecology world‘.

But what’s most extraordinary about Stuart is that he’s doing real conservation that matters. Beyond studying population structure and movement, Pimm’s planetary family works in some of the last great wild places with indigenous tribes and across levels of government. (And yes folks, they have a blog). Stuart is part of the Union of Concerned Scientists, regularly meeting with members of Congress to communicate why protecting biodiversity is vitally important in a clear and very effective way. He also founded savingspecies.org which restores forests, thus soaking up CO2 from the atmosphere in the most threatened parts of the world called hotspots.

In short, ‘Indy Pimm‘ epitomizes the type of third culture science ambassador that Chris and I celebrate and our planet so desperately needs. Here’s an excerpt from his interview with Claudia Dreifus:

I realized that extinction was something that as a scientist, I could study. I could ask, “Why do species go extinct?” and “How fast does it happen?” Once armed with that information, one might do something about it.

I now spend a fair amount of time in Washington, working for laws to protect species. I train young people to do the same. I often tell my students that if they want to become environmental biologists, they have to be prepared to go out into the field at dawn to collect their data and then dress up in a suit in the afternoon to meet the visiting politician.

Exactly. Read their full conversation here and make sure to listen to the audio discussions on five species at risk.

Readers may have noticed that we’ve gotten a bit of a slow start to blogging in 2008. Sure, Sheril’s been traveling and Chris has been, well…slacking, but we weren’t actually being lazy. We’ve been plotting and scheming and setting an agenda for this blog in the new year and beyond! One that connects closely to the ScienceDebate2008 project, and we’re finally ready to share our plans…

Introducing our new project called (gasp) “The Intersection.” But it’s a different beast than what you might expect. You see, when Chris originally created a blog with that name in 2003, he was referring specifically to the intersection between science and politics. But there’s just so much more to understanding our world.

The new “Intersection” that we plan to cover here fosters many, many more collisions. Eighteen car pile-ups…that kind of thing. We’re talking about the intersection between science and everything–politics, literature, the arts, music, law, business, culture… Life.

We think there’s something wrong with science today because too often, it fundamentally fails to connect with the rest of American society. Science needs ambassadors, Intersection personalities, if you will, who combine science with something else–some other type of endeavor–making it much more broadly relevant. These individuals foster science that resonates across American society.

Just consider ScienceDebate2008–a fundamental “Intersection” endeavor–originally organized by a lawyer, a philosopher, a physicist, two screenwriters and, well, us.

American science ought to be systematically supporting Intersection personalities rather than just watching them sprout up spontaneously now and again. And now the direction of this blog in 2008 and beyond will be both to celebrate the “Intersection” and the people who occupy it. We’ll continue covering politics and science, and we’ll also be making the case for why we need more folks bridging gaps between worlds.

We also plan to launch an “Intersection” award–highlighting particularly innovative combinatorial personalities who combine science with something else. And we plan to blog constantly and make our argument publicly–beginning with our back to back presentations at the North Carolina Science Blogging Conference this coming Saturday.

Whew.

So that’s what we’re up to. We’re going to leave this post up top for a while, so we welcome your thoughts on this new blogagenda!