Unscientific America

I've been meaning to write up my thoughts on Unscientific America for awhile now. In it, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue (a) that science has declined in prominence and influence since its post World War II heyday, (b) that this decline in influence is detrimental, and (c) that scientists are partly to blame for the decline because we've paid too little attention to sharing the wonder and beauty of science with a broader public. I'd planned to give you my impressions of the book and my analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. After reading Janet Stemwedel's review and her later thoughts about whether scientists are all on the same team, I realized that I don't have much to add. I agree with most of what Stemwedel wrote.

So what do I have to add? Three things.

First, Stemwedel wonders who the "we" is in passages like this one from p. 18 of the book:

[W]e need a nation in which science has far more prominence in politics and the media, far more relevance to the life of every American, far more intersections with other walks of life, and ultimately, far more influence where it truly matters -- namely, in setting the agenda for the future as far out as we can possibly glimpse it. 

She concludes that "it's hard not to think that the main beneficiaries of the scientific America Mooney and Kirshenbaum desire would be scientists." I didn't get that at all. It seems to me that the "we" Mooney and Kirshenbaum refer to is the same "we" that a politician refers to when (s)he says "we must reform healthcare" or "we must provide better schools" or "we must reduce the threat of global climate change." The "we" they're referring to, in other words, is all of us -- or at least American society. Their fundamental concern is that a nation in which science is marginalized is bad for everyone, especially because so many of the challenges we face require scientific and technological expertise for their solution. That's a concern that I share, which leads to the second thing I have to add.

My disappointment with the book is that I share Stemwedel's skepticism that the solutions Mooney and Kirshenbaum propose can be implemented. As Stemwedel puts it:

Throwing these additional communication, outreach, and lobbying tasks on every scientist's shoulders seems a little nuts (unless we can give them each eight more hours per day to accomplish these additional tasks). And if you really wanted it to happen, this would require changing the official standards against which the job performance of scientists is judged (e.g., in their tenure and promotion cases). Making such changes -- not only in official policies but in the work cultures that implement them -- would require significant effort, coordination of a lot of decision makers, and probably resources (like funding and release time).

Those are big issues, and it's difficult to see how we overcome them. That's not to say that we shouldn't seek ways, only that Unscientific America doesn't provide them. I was hoping that it would.

And the third thing I have to add? Just an observation that reinforces Stemwedel's point that maybe scientists (and those who care about science) aren't all on the same page. Consider this short list of people who like Unscientific America: Michael Mann, Joe Romm, Peter Kareiva. Now consider two people who didn't like it: P. Z. Myers and Jerry Coyne. See a pattern? No. Well let me help you.