From my CBR5 Review...

I should know better than to ever go into Powell’s without a firm agreement with myself that I will NOT buy any books that aren’t already on my Goodreads list. I mean, I’ve got 138 waiting for me – do I REALLY need to walk up and down the aisles of this massive indie bookstore, pulling off books that catch my eye?

Yes, yes I do. Unfortunately, I wish I hadn’t picked up this one.

Subtitled “How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,” Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s book purports to explore why the lack of interest in or understanding of science is a threat to the U.S. While I appreciate the sentiment, there were a few negative things that really stood out to me as I read this book, resulting in a pretty low rating.

First, this book was published in 2009, and spends a good part discussing how scientists need to be better versed in how to discuss their findings and research with the media. Better communications training for all scientists is one of their main solutions to the problem referenced in the title, and overall it’s a good one. They point to Carl Sagan as a great scientist who the average person trusted and was interested in learning from; they also point out that he was essentially shunned by “serious” scientists. That’s a problem and needs to be fixed. However, one of the author’s biggest concerns is that we don’t have anyone like that these days.

Say what? Has he never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson? That man is amazing. He got The Daily Show to (for the day at least) fix their opening credits so the world spins the right way. He got James Cameron to FIX THE SKY when he released the anniversary print of Titanic. This is a man people know, a man who is trying to bridge the unnecessary gap between science and policy, and he’s not even mentioned in the book. That alone gives me pause.

Second, the book has a disturbing chapter called “The New Atheists” that seeks to vilify PZ Meyers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Now, I don’t know much about Meyers, and I know that Sam Harris seems to be EXTREMELY islamophobic, and Richard Dawkins seems to be quite misogynistic. However, those were the issues these authors had. They attempt to make the case that atheists like them, who suggest that religion today is incompatible with reason, are making the situation worse. I actually get the argument they are trying to make, but they make it so poorly that it’s a bit challenging to get on their side.

Additionally, while I see they have a larger goal in mind, they also seem to be doing the ‘give both sides equal time” thing they eviscerate just a few chapters earlier when discussing climate change. As an atheist (of the ‘there’s no evidence for a diving being now but if you gave me some obviously I’d change my mind’ variety) I am clearly more prone to sensitivity around discussions of this nature, so it is possible that I am either misreading that section or just disagree, but either way it left me with a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

Finally, while the title was clear enough to me that this was about the specific problem of science literacy in America, the nationalist undertones were ever-present and unsettling. I’d like to see the discussion about why it’s important for people to understand science and find it interesting from a policy perspective without ending the chapter with “BECAUSE AMERICA MUST BE NUMBER ONE!!!!1!1!!” I take issue with the U.S. not fostering financial support around issues like climate change, but not because we are the best yay U.S.A.! There seem to be constant appeals to that competitive, egotistical spirit in a lot of the promotion of the STEM areas (science, technology, engineering and math), often to the detriment of the humanities, which ironically these authors correctly point out are a necessary part of even science education. A focus on why this is a problem in our country without the ‘because WIN’ argument would be refreshing.

I appreciate (to a degree) what these authors were going for, but I think they missed the mark. The book was certainly an easy read (and very short, and only 130 pages of text with an additional 100 or so pages of references), and well written, but the arguments left me wanting something better. ( )

The subtitle of this book is something of a misnomer: the authors (rightly, in my opinion) take it for granted that the high (and, arguably, rising) rate of scientific illiteracy -- among the public in general but most importantly among politicians -- is damaging our society and, through the corresponding muddled thinking about such matters as AGW, threatening our future. Really, the subject of their book is what can be done to cure, or at least ameliorate the effects of, this dire situation.

While they point at some of the usual culprits as having brought us to where we are, over and over again they hammer home their point that really the fault is of scientists themselves, who have failed to take seriously the importance of communicating scientific discovery, and its importance, to politicians and the public. If only scientists would make a bit more effort in this regard, Mooney and Kirshenbaum appear to be saying, our problems would be solved.

I don't buy all of this. Yes, there are plenty of cases of specialists being tone deaf to the public -- a recent case involved the CRU's head Phil Jones saying in a BBC interview that the rise in global temperatures during the 1990s was "statistically insignificant" (he meant that, though the figures showed a rise, the time period was simply too short to draw firm conclusions; add in the 2000s, thereby doubling the time period, and the trend was undeniable), blithely unaware that this expression was opaque to the scientifically illiterate and would thus be reported as CLIMATE CHIEF SAYS WARMING HAS STOPPED. But for every top-notch frontline scientist who just happens to be a blithering idiot when it comes to communicating with the public, there are plenty who're only too eager to make the effort, and many of these are actually good at it. My house is packed with first-rate popularizations of science done by scientists (for all I know, some may use ghostwriters, but this doesn't affect the overall case). And those are only the lucky few whose works make it into print. Anyone who works in publishing will tell you world is full of good scientists who want to write books for the popular market. We have to remember that, leaving aside the specialist and semi-specialist presses, most proposed book projects will be judged not by folk with a science background but by folk whose qualifications are likely to be in the arts/humanities or in business. This means that, however worthy a science popularization might be (and, in fact, however big the potential public demand for it might be), it has a steeper mountain to climb than, say, a new Hollywood bio. In other words, to belabour scientists for a perceived lack of effort is to ignore the fact that others have vital and often determining roles in the result of any effort the scientists make.

Mooney's solo The Republican War on Science was a salutary work, one that every responsible citizen should read, and I was expecting something similarly forceful here. In the event, I kept wondering if someone had told the authors they should maintain that kind of journalistic "balance" which is so bedeviling our public discourse at the moment. There's lots of good stuff in this short book, but overall I was disappointed. ( )

Essentially an essay on how/why America is not scientifically literate. By science literacy, the authors don't mean able to recall various facts, explain various theories, or get caught up with pseudoscience and skepticism of well-established paradigms (think evolution, climate change). The authors are really focused on the more important issue of "citizens' awareness of the importance of science to politics, policy, and our collective future." Yes, the book describes the failings of education, politics/policies, science institutions, etc, and how science reasoning is in many ways a separate culture from politics, religion, Hollywood, and mainstreamism. But really, the heart and soul of this book is a cry out to American scientists to come down out of the ivory tower, learn to engage, communicate, and relate to their fellow Americans to bridge these divides, re-energize and re-focus the country to support today's demands for innovation and global competition.

However, one of my problems with the authors' argument is that they point to efforts like ScienceDebate2008 as a way forward. But if you can't recall ScienceDebate2008 from the presidential election, there's a reason for it, and it doesn't bode well if that's the future.

So maybe motivational/ inspirational. Maybe junk. But:

Recommended. For thinking people of all professions ;-P 4 stars. ( )

A well-written, readable treatise on the lack of science interest in American politics and education. ( )

7/9/22