Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future

My rating:

add to my books

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future

by Chris C. Mooney (Goodreads Author), Sheril Kirshenbaum

3.29 · rating details · 217 ratings · 66 reviews

In his famous 1959 Rede lecture at Cambridge University, the scientifically-trained novelist C.P. Snow described science and the humanities as "two cultures," separated by a "gulf of mutual incomprehension." And the humanists had all the cultural power—the low prestige of science, Snow argued, left Western leaders too little educated in scientific subjects that were increa...moreIn his famous 1959 Rede lecture at Cambridge University, the scientifically-trained novelist C.P. Snow described science and the humanities as "two cultures," separated by a "gulf of mutual incomprehension." And the humanists had all the cultural power—the low prestige of science, Snow argued, left Western leaders too little educated in scientific subjects that were increasingly central to world problems: the elementary physics behind nuclear weapons, for instance, or the basics of plant science needed to feed the world's growing population.Now, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, a journalist-scientist team, offer an updated "two cultures" polemic for America in the 21st century. Just as in Snow's time, some of our gravest challenges—climate change, the energy crisis, national economic competitiveness—and gravest threats--global pandemics, nuclear proliferation—have fundamentally scientific underpinnings. Yet we still live in a culture that rarely takes science seriously or has it on the radar.For every five hours of cable news, less than a minute is devoted to science; 46 percent of Americans reject evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; the number of newspapers with weekly science sections has shrunken by two-thirds over the past several decades. The public is polarized over climate change—an issue where political party affiliation determines one's view of reality—and in dangerous retreat from childhood vaccinations. Meanwhile, only 18 percent of Americans have even met a scientist to begin with; more than half can't name a living scientist role model.For this dismaying situation, Mooney and Kirshenbaum don't let anyone off the hook. They highlight the anti-intellectual tendencies of the American public (and particularly the politicians and journalists who are supposed to serve it), but also challenge the scientists themselves, who despite the best of intentions have often failed to communicate about their work effectively to a broad public—and so have ceded their critical place in the public sphere to religious and commercial propagandists.A plea for enhanced scientific literacy, Unscientific America urges those who care about the place of science in our society to take unprecedented action. We must begin to train a small army of ambassadors who can translate science's message and make it relevant to the media, to politicians, and to the public in the broadest sense. An impassioned call to arms worthy of Snow's original manifesto, this book lays the groundwork for reintegrating science into the public discourse--before it's too late.(less)

Hardcover, 224 pages

Published July 14th 2009 by Basic Books (first published 2009)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

Walden and Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

Best Books To Frame Thinking

115th out of 191 books — 57 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 636)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Jul 30, 2011

Elliot Ratzman rated it

As a non-scientist, this short book was quite an eye-opener. Mooney’s first book, on the Bush admin’s scandalous relationship to Science (thinking ‘game theory’ was about sports) was well-received. This is a call-to-arms for scientists to get their act together to promote sci literacy and government funding—it turns out that most of our perceptions of science come from lame movies, savvy Creationists and inadequate high school sci ed. Science reporting, already minimal, has been cut in the paper...more

· see review

Mar 28, 2011

Frank Jude rated it

Shelves: general-science

When 46% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and for every five hours of Cable News, one minute is devoted to science, you know we've got a serious problem! Mooney and Kirshenbaum offer the thought-provoking -- and quite reasonable -- thesis that at least some of the blame for this situation are scientists themselves and the 'scientific culture' that has alienated itself from the other 'cultures' including politics.

They argue that the way scientists are taught...more

· see review

Jul 02, 2010

John rated it

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.

W...moreThe 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.(less)

like 3 likes

· see review

May 04, 2010

Tom rated it

Shelves: commentary, non-fiction, science

A short book that argues that while scientific illiteracy is a fact, there are many forces at work. It isn't just the education system or the media or government policy. Scientists themselves are encouraged to take responsibility for doing a better job of communicating complex ideas. The authors consider Carl Sagan to be the 'poster boy' for a scientist who could communicate with the public.

The book calls for communication training to be part of the education of young scientists.
...more

· see review

Jan 16, 2010

Matt rated it

An interesting book, one I thought I really wanted to read, and then was told by a friend that it wasn't so good even though I'd decided to read it anyway. When I did read it, then, I was haunted by my friend's criticism and thought of it as something I just needed to get through. I think that was a little unfair, though: this is a pretty good book, and the history of the relationship between culture and science, developed as it is, I think, in section two of the book, was lucid and interesting....more

· see review

Nov 16, 2009

Bridgid rated it

Shelves: non-fiction

Although the book scratched at the surface of compelling topics, I found it too slim to satisfy my interest. Very little is mentioned of George W Bush's policies (though that is likely addressed in Mooney's somewhat outdated 2005 title Republican War on Science). The authors tried to make an argument that Sagan was belittled by his colleagues because his public profile was too prominent, but they only devoted 2 pages to this. I agree with their central arguments that we don't need a general p...more

like 1 like

· see review

Aug 24, 2009

Bradley rated it

Shelves: current-events-politics, popular-science

This book wasn't exactly what I expected, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. It made some good points about how little we as a society understand science.

I liked the non-polemical nature of the book - it wasn't just a cranky "you guys don't understand science" rant, followed by a variety of test results showing how ignorant society is. Instead, the book looks at the ways in which scientists and the science community don't do a good enough job of making their findings and their w...more

· see review

Aug 08, 2009

Craig Wuthrich rated it

In this tone-deaf and ineffectual booklet, authors Mooney and Kirshenbaum demonstrate a decidedly pro-science position, but are simultaneously nursing a strong disdain for its practitioners. This unfortunately serves to sabotage their efforts of providing any sort of enlightenment. The authors are often quite effective in identifying important problems regarding science in American society, but consistently miss the mark when it comes to placing blame or in suggesting solutions.

For ...moreIn this tone-deaf and ineffectual booklet, authors Mooney and Kirshenbaum demonstrate a decidedly pro-science position, but are simultaneously nursing a strong disdain for its practitioners. This unfortunately serves to sabotage their efforts of providing any sort of enlightenment. The authors are often quite effective in identifying important problems regarding science in American society, but consistently miss the mark when it comes to placing blame or in suggesting solutions.

For example, the authors are correct in their assessment that Americans aren’t necessarily as stupid or ignorant as we seem. We spend hours researching the latest arguments to back up our chosen positions, whether it be quack medicine, creationism, or pseudo-climatology. Clearly, the problem is the malignant ideology that causes so many Americans to choose positions that are objectively wrong before they begin this research. The authors of this volume place no blame on nonsensical religious beliefs, partisan hackery, or the credulity of the masses, however. For them, this problem is clearly the fault of the scientists for not being more effective in explaining why these various pseudo-sciences are wrong.

Of course, even the good points they make are wholly unoriginal. They are fixated on the efficacy of Carl Sagan in communicating science to the masses, but this is obvious. Most anyone with knowledge of the situation would put him in the top five science communicators of the modern era at very least, and I’d bet that most would put him at the very top. I certainly would. To then take this example and use it to argue that the problem with America is that everyone not named Carl Sagan isn’t doing Sagan-like work seems particularly silly.

There simply isn’t much substance here. Even the description of the problems in American society, the only redeeming quality of the book, is muddled together with so many half-baked accusations toward the scientific community as to distract the reader from any point they might have been attempting. At 132 pages, the book is too short to develop a substantive plan of action, even ignoring the ubiquitous redundancy and self-indulgent personal tangents.

I am tempted to give this book two stars, as the result would probably be a net positive if a Republican were to accidentally read it. That isn’t likely to happen very often, however, so it’s really unclear what this book could possibly have accomplished, even if it weren’t so incompetently written.
(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Jul 03, 2011

Maughn Gregory rated it

Shelves: religion-about-for-and-against, science-nature

"Again and again, we find a disturbing disconnect between the knowledge contained in our greatest minds and how we live our lives, set our policies, define our identities, and inform and entertain ourselves." (p. 4)

I heard Mooney interviewed on a Point of Inquiry podcast (www.pointofinquiry.org/chris_mooney_acco...) and was so impressed that I ran out and read this book: a concise, insightful treatment of lots of topics that interest me, especially:

* How the wor...more

· see review

Oct 03, 2009

Grace rated it

Recommends it for: Lynda so she could give me her perspective

Shelves: cultural-studies, current-events, non-fiction, read-in-2009

Forty-six percent of Americans believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Only 18 percent of Americans know a scientist personally and even fewer than that can name the government's top two scientific agencies.

When asked to name their scientific role models, 44 percent of Americans had no clue. Out of those who did respond, many chose Al Gore and Bill Gates.

Many Americans cannot answer these true/false questions correctly:
"Electrons are small...moreForty-six percent of Americans believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Only 18 percent of Americans know a scientist personally and even fewer than that can name the government's top two scientific agencies.

When asked to name their scientific role models, 44 percent of Americans had no clue. Out of those who did respond, many chose Al Gore and Bill Gates.

Many Americans cannot answer these true/false questions correctly:
"Electrons are smaller than atoms, true or false."
"The universe began with a hug explosion, true of false."

These are just some of the startling statistics set forth in Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's book "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future." This book is definitely a wake up call to the scientific elite and general public alike. It is a quick read, just over 130 pages, and is organized in an easily accessible way with examples of the sources of our scientific illiteracy and solutions to combat it now and in the future.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum do not focus blame or responsibility on just one group or cultural norm - for example, uneducated Americans or our culture of anti-intelligence. They focus on how scientists need to be trained to speak to the public so they can educate them and get them on board with their research. They argue that the mainstream media's failure to keep science sections in newspapers and science programs on the airwaves (these low profit stories and shows are dropped for more lucrative articles and programming) is detrimental to understanding. And they talk about politicians ignoring science because it doesn't speak to their constituents and might make them look stupid in front of voters.

When you roll these factors and many others together, you get the state of affairs for the scientific community in America today. Not that long ago, scientists were heroes; they were respected and firmly a part of the upper echelon of society and government. After we won the space race, it went all down hill. Culture changed in the late 60's and 70's, and science lost its footing in mainstream America. It's been declining ever since. In order to stay competitive against other countries, we need to stop this trend of scientific illiteracy and we need all parties involved to see what's at stake by not getting the American public more informed about scientific matters.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in science in America today.

(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Feb 12, 2010

Brad rated it

This book had an excellent premise, but ultimately failed to completely deliver. The authors, whose shared blog I have long enjoyed, make a convincing, if intuitive, argument of the embarrassing grasp of basic science in America today. The arguments regarding polling data, the failing of the media, and the influence of fundamental religion are sound and have long since been the concern of many astute observers. The authors deserve kudos for their artful articulation. Further, I personally have a...moreThis book had an excellent premise, but ultimately failed to completely deliver. The authors, whose shared blog I have long enjoyed, make a convincing, if intuitive, argument of the embarrassing grasp of basic science in America today. The arguments regarding polling data, the failing of the media, and the influence of fundamental religion are sound and have long since been the concern of many astute observers. The authors deserve kudos for their artful articulation. Further, I personally have also long advocated the interdisciplinary approach they offer to address these problems. I agree with them regarding the polarization resulting from the passion of the New Atheists; yet, obviously, in this capacity, this section was written to placate the offended. Indeed, this book lacked an intellectual counter to some of the NA’s relevant objections; instead, they almost just hoped they’d shut the hell up. Admittedly, this short volume probably isn’t the forum for this type of in depth intellectual debate; still, it left a noticeable void.

There are other problems. The authors place much of the blame on the scientific community. Yet their very argument – that the media and the public are not hungry and not prepared for this potentially life changing information – implies the true difficulty the interdisciplinary scientist inherently faces, regardless of intention. Further, while the authors rightly acknowledge the noble efforts of Carl Sagan – a hero of mine – they ignore the efforts of contemporary populizers of science: Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jane Goodall, Kenneth Miller and EO Wilson. (In fact, the authors make an ill-informed mistake by lambasting Wilson’s seminal ‘Conscilience,’ an excellent and lovely read.) And, naturally, there are many others, but the very fact that they are not as well known as Sagan implies the implicit difficulty that contemporary science faces – the very same difficulty that the authors blame the scientific community for.

Ultimately, I think, this is not a book for scientists. It is a book for the lay-person: an honest and relevant evaluation of the sad state of affairs, the reason that such affairs are of concern and the reasons that have gotten us where we are. Where their argument is strained, and where it seems glaringly obvious this is not for scientists, is their assault on the New Atheists (who, I agree, aren’t being productive, but must admit that they are merely responding in loud frustration to the exact same premise as this book) and the too-heavy blame on the scientists for not dealing well with a society that has, in reality, crumbled around them. Nevertheless 3 stars for contributing, ultimately positively, to a discussion that MUST be had!
(less)

· see review

Jul 27, 2009

Mary Spiro rated it

The term science literacy often refers to how much we can remember from science class in high school. Journalist Chris Mooney and scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum, authors of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, contend that science literacy extends beyond whether we can name the planets or know how long it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun. Science, they say, should be as much a part of our everyday lives as shopping, work, leisure, and even worship.
...more

· see review

Jul 25, 2010

James Cape rated it

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

· see review

Jul 26, 2011

Adam Slagell rated it

I have read few books more important to America's future than this. Scientific illiteracy, while a problem, is only the tip of the iceberg. If anything, it is scientific apathy that is far more threatening. People do not see science's relevance to their lives, and what they do hear is filtered and regurgitated through their favorite politicized media outlet so they can conveniently reject whatever they don't like.

While Mooney holds no punches in blaming media for their role, he doesn't blame the...more

· see review

Jul 15, 2009

Tracy Black rated it

First, the subtitle, "How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future", is very misleading. It was not at all about scientific illiteracy. It focused entirely on America's view of science and scientists, i.e. how important it is to us, our level of trust of scientists, and our interest in staying up to date. Not what I expected, but still interesting.
The 2 stars is because most of the book focused on the scientist's inablility to communicate with politicians and the general public...more

· see review

Mar 19, 2010

Jane rated it

Recommends it for: Caitlin, Marlene, Margy, Sarah

Scientists' lack of skills in communicating the importance of their discoveries, and the media's lack of attention to science because it can't be encapsulated in sound bites, have starved the public of information on which our future depends, claim the authors.
Americans are more interested in a final product than in the scientific process and are suspicious of deep intellectual pursuits. (Read Richard Hofstader's 1962 book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life"). The media congl...more

· see review

Nov 15, 2011

Cheryl rated it

Shelves: non-fiction, science

This book brings three things I love together: science, politics and snark. It is an interesting history of the portrayal and perception of science.

However, in Part 2, the snark soon becomes bitter and accusatory. The first author, who is a journalist, seems upset that ScienceDebate2008, which was put on by two Hollywood writers, wasn't as successful as he hoped it would be. Justifiable, but it comes out sounding whiny and as if from a child throwing a tantrum. He plays to stereoty...more

· see review

Feb 26, 2011

Mark rated it

Shelves: non-fiction, science

I read this for a story I'm working on and to interview the author. It's about novella size, a quick read, and well articulated in its depiction of how woeful the state of our knowledge is on science, and perhaps more disturbing, how we have lost a basic respect for scientific inquiry and findings in present-day America and much of the western world.

Mooney, a science journalist, and Kirshenbaum, a scientist/writer, won my respect particularly in their sections about the conflicts ...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Feb 16, 2010

Dan rated it

This book is more polical than I thought, but overall I thought it was good. The premise of the book is that people in the US are not as literate in science as they really ought to be, or were a generation or two ago. It then goes on to lay a lot of blame for why this is.

While it blames the Bush administration (warning, this is pervasive, but not horribly so), the majority of the blame goes to the scientific community in general. The lack of communication skills; properly interfac...more

· see review

Aug 22, 2011

Lance rated it

· review of another edition

It's a generally well-edited and well-written book (with an exception I'll complain about later), but it doesn't actually say anything very interesting.

There's a lot of complaining about the state of scientific illiteracy (though very little about "how scientific illiteracy threatens our future" - it's just understood to be true), some blaming of the GOP, and lots of blaming of scientists and atheists.

Unfortunately, there aren't any big solutions - just "let's...more

· see review

Jan 27, 2012

Rick rated it

Recommends it for: everyone

I think this short book deserves a wide readership because it accurately and articulately captures the sources and support systems that created and foster what's often referred to as "scientific illiteracy" in america, but may be better characterized as antipathy to science. I will certainly share it with my friends and colleagues. (Yes, I'm a scientist)

My only reservation is its suggestion that the solution lies in trying to create more scientists, or at least more people th...more

· see review

Sep 04, 2009

Donald rated it

Disappointing book. Discusses why Americans dislike science and scientists today in a decent historical analysis, but then loses way in suggestions how to improve the situation. The historical and social reasons presented may or may not be correct, but the facts are clear--profoundly ignorand Americans in science distrust science, scientists seem loathe to want to engage with ignorant non-scientists and when they do (as in the debate over God), they piss Americans off even more and, even if we p...more

· see review

Oct 16, 2009

Susan rated it

Thankfully this wasn't what I expected it to be. I truly expected a diatribe on how the American educational system is failing to give the average American a decent understanding of basic scientific principles. Instead, the authors shifted the responsibility onto the scientific community: we are the ones responsible for ensuring that the general public understands the relevance of science in general as well as scientific breakthroughs to everyday life. We need a new enigmatic PR person now th...more

· see review

Feb 05, 2012

Jesse Markus rated it

I say this a lot: This book wasn't what I expected. It's not a smug attack on pseudoscience. This book is trying to make friends. The authors are concerned with scientific illiteracy and they discuss which tactics can help remedy this problem and which tactics are doing more harm than good. Chapter 8 takes aim at the New Atheist movement, authors like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. While I disagree with some of their criticism of the New Atheists, I applaud this book's effort to bridge gaps and...more

· see review

Oct 11, 2009

Julie Ellis rated it

The title of this book is misleading. The authors didn't discuss how scientific illeteracy threatens our future much. Mostly, it was a discussion of why Americans are scientifically illiterate. The authors seem to put most of the blame for this state of affairs on the scientific community itself. While I agree scientists need to be better communicators, I feel that the authors put a disproportionate share of the blame on the scientific community. The authors also take the position that scie...more

· see review

Jun 23, 2010

Richard marked it as to-read

Recommended to Richard by: Down to a Science Science Café

Shelves: bookclub, non-fiction, science, social-political

Dunno if I'll make the time to read this. That 'Muricans are getting really bad at dealing with science is a truism; as someone whose daily entertainment time budget leans heavily towards science podcasts, I don't need any more lessons in how true this is.

But I can immediately see at least four reasons why this might be so, and other reviews inform me that the authors have ignored what I suspect are the most problematic.

First, does our education system do a decent job of ...moreDunno if I'll make the time to read this. That 'Muricans are getting really bad at dealing with science is a truism; as someone whose daily entertainment time budget leans heavily towards science podcasts, I don't need any more lessons in how true this is.

But I can immediately see at least four reasons why this might be so, and other reviews inform me that the authors have ignored what I suspect are the most problematic.

First, does our education system do a decent job of laying the foundation? No, but that's old news and this book apparently doesn't focus on it.

Second, do the scientific elites and their partisans do a good job of fighting for part of the spastic 'Murican attention span? er, probably not, and this seems to be what this book is about.

But: third, are there fundamental reasons why scientific awareness is declining? Well, yes: complexity is way up; and since humans unconsciously shy away from high-cost/low-reward endeavors, that complexity means more and more folks will implicitly free-ride on the expertise of others. Expecting scientific literacy is increasingly unwise. Has the educational establishment (1, above) and the scientific outreach community (2, above) recognized this trend? Perhaps this is, indeed, dealt with in the book, but I haven't seen mention of it.

And: fourth, has the sociology of the West shifted to make this even more problematic? About sixty years ago sociologists were struggling to define and describe changes that seem to have been leading indicators of such a shift (viz., Riesman's The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character). A century ago most science was understandable by lay-folk, but more importantly the economy was production-oriented, so the whole question of "How Things Work" was widely germane. Since WWII we've shifted to a consumer-driven economy, which is fundamentally more interested in "What Are the Cool Kids Buying?" This question is essentially an a-rational one, so the trend is inimical to a perceived need for careful rational thought.

Clearly, if the last trend is real and significant, progress on the other three questions will be ephemeral.

I'd be interested in a book that deals with all of this, but that is asking a lot. Scientific educators already have so much on their plates that their ability to deal with the meta is limited...

(Selected as the book-of-the-month for the reading group of the Down to a Science Science Café for May 2010.)
(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Apr 08, 2010

Tom Meyer rated it

"A Brief Hagiography of Carl Sagan" and "Until the Last Republican Has Been Strangled by the Entrails of the Last New Atheist" would both have made superior subtitles. It's not that Kirshenbaum and Mooney are bereft of ideas, it's that they oversell their good ones while making fools of themselves otherwise.

Their two genuinely good ideas are to deflate the culture war aspects of science debate by appealing to the middle, and to vastly increase the number and qua...more

· see review

Dec 19, 2010

Tippy Jackson rated it

Shelves: politics, science-history, culture

I was really hoping for more from this short book. In the first chapter, the author identifies the rift between scientists and the American public. At first I was excited because rather than just pointing to statistics, the media and generally blaming the public for not caring, he identifies problems within the scientific community that also contribute to this divide. Many of the things he mentions I've personally encountered and they were things that have bothered me for a while. So, when he st...more

like 1 like

· see review

Oct 12, 2009

David rated it

Carl Sagan, in his 1995 book “The Demon-Haunted World,” issued this sober warning:

"We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

As Mo...moreCarl Sagan, in his 1995 book “The Demon-Haunted World,” issued this sober warning:

"We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

As Mooney and Kirschenbaum observe, “At present we’re marching steadily toward that outcome.”

The authors note that on the plus side, Americans are surrounded by technology and see first-hand the fruits of scientific research. The Internet and other information technologies have made it much easier to disseminate accurate scientific information. But this same technology also makes it possible to disseminate all sorts of nonsense, and to amplify the fallacy-ridden writings of the creation science and global warming denial communities.

In other arenas, the authors lament that only minor progress has been made. Long gone are the glory days of Sagan’s “Cosmos” series on PBS. Nowadays Hollywood and network TV mostly avoid scientists and scientific themes, and when they do deal with a scientific theme or scientific undercurrent, they prefer paranormal topics (UFOs, time travel, etc) and frequently depict scientists as villains, geeks, and jerks. There are a few bright spots — Numbers, a few of the CSI epsiodes and others — but by and large the Hollywood/TV picture is pretty discouraging.

Mooney and Kirschenbaum criticize writers such as Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett for going out of their way to attack religious belief and believers. In the authors’ opinion,

"If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive. If anything, they work in ironic combination with their dire enemies, the anti-science conservative Christians who populate the creation science and intelligent design movements, to ensure we’ll continue to be polarized over subjects like the teaching of evolution when we don’t have to be."

One of the more interesting parts of this book is the authors’ account of how Carl Sagan, who arguably was the most successful communicator of science in history, was himself snubbed by the scientific establishment for his efforts. His 1992 nomination to the National Academy of Sciences was rejected, mainly on grounds of his public endeavors. The message was clear to any current or aspiring scientist: engage the public at the peril of your career.

To address these problems, Mooney and Kirschenbaum call for nothing less than a fundamental restructuring of the scientific establishment. First of all, scientists themselves must squarely face the abysmal job they have done in communicating their research to the public. They cannot rely on advanced technology such as Internet blogs here, since these same technologies are just as effective in spreading nonsense. Instead, training in and encouragement for the dissemination of results to the public must be incorporated into the curriculum of every scientific field.

Mooney and Kirschenbaum further argue that society must rethink the financial reward system for those who pursue scientific careers. As a recent blog entry cited in the book laments, “Had I to do it over again, I would not choose a PhD, at least not a general science degree. I would have gone to medical or law school, or perhaps a PhD in public health (a very rapidly growing field). At least after training in these programs your skill set is clearly defined, and you can be confident that you will have a job post-graduation”.

In their conclusion, the authors quote C.P. Snow, “We require a common culture in which science is an essential component. Otherwise we shall never see the possibilities, either for evil or good.”

See also Chris Mooney’s recent essay at HuffingtonPost.com.(less)

· see review

Sep 20, 2009

Erin rated it

Shelves: environment-nature-science

A discussion of the acceptance of science by the American general public. It explains how we went from the gung-ho days of post-Sputnik science promotion to the current situation, in which people distrust science and think evolution is dangerous to their religions. It appears that the culprits are scientists themselves, who have tendencies to be abrasive (like the New Atheists movement) or unwilling/unable to successfully share their work with the public, and the media, which have cut science ...more

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 21 22 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (3)

Genres

Science

30 users

Non Fiction

26 users

Politics

4 users

Science Nature

2 users

United States

2 users

Sociology

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

About Chris C. Mooney

Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist, blogger, podcaster, and experienced trainer of scientists in the art of communication. He is the author of four books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality (April 2012). He blogs for "Science Progress," a website ...more

More about Chris C. Mooney...

Books by Chris C. Mooney

Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming

The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--And Reality

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

Trivia About Unscientific Amer...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Groups That Shelved Unscientific Amer...

Atheists and Skeptics

1178 members

last activity 1 hour, 35 min ago

shelf: read

The Atheist Book Club

389 members

last activity 1 hour, 24 min ago

shelf: to-read

The Liberal Politics & Cu...

121 members

last activity 12 hours, 49 min ago

shelf: to-read

title link	preview: Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future
avg rating	preview: Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future Goodreads rating: 3.29 (217 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5741758-unscientific-america?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1328841574m/5741758.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5741758-unscientific-america?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris C. Mooney[/url]

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website