What do you think?
Rate this book
Science and Survival
In Science and Survival, Barry Commoner announces that "the age of innocent faith in science and technology may be over." A massive electric power failure all over the Northeast, the admission of children to a St. Louis hospital 15 years after they had been exposed to radio-iodine from Nevada nuclear bomb tests, the disturbing news about DDT, and the potential menace of recombinant DNA - not to mention the threat of "nuclear winter" in the event of thermonuclear war, a prospect Commoner discussed years before most Americans even heard of it - led him to the conclusion that science, like the magic practiced by the legendary Sorcerer's Apprentice, was getting out of control. Therefore, scientists could no longer simply remain at their work; they had to go out and alert the nonscientists to the problems that their work was creating. "Science can reveal the depth of this crisis," the book concluded, "but only social action can resolve it."
- GenresScienceNonfiction
192 pages, Paperback
First published August 15, 1967
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 3, 2014
"Science and Survival" was originally published in 1963, however it is still very present and relevant to today. The main point: the biological world is a victim to uncensored technologies, that an uninformed and closed-minded society ignore because of ignorance, un awareness, and lack of discernible communication. This book should be REQUIRED to be read in all classes in the world. It doesn't matter what class, because it's pertinent to everyone and everything, not just science. Barry Commoner, the author, illustrates nicely, the problems with the disconnect between science and the natural world and of course society with its politics and conventions. Nothing has been done it seems to improve on the relay of scientific information and the effects on biological life by new technologies, to the lay person - the general public. Makes me think...what if the general public were mostly scientists and could assess information more thoroughly and discriminately before a new technology was released? Advancements are taking over before they are firstly approved and assessed their damage. Everything is moving so fast that it's impossible it seems to stop this vicious cycle of technological improvements - which yield money - without conscientious and deliberate action.
What a great book and so properly written. Writers just don't write like this anymore. To sum it up nicely, here's the conclusive paragraph from the book,
"Science can reveal the depth of this crisis, but only social action can resolve it. Science can now serve society by exposing the crisis of modern technology to the judgement of all mankind. Only this judgement can determine whether the knowledge that science has given us shall destroy humanity or advance the welfare of man." (pg. 132)
Note: This book was a recommendation from the book "iGods: How Technology Shapes our Spiritual and Social Lives."
What a great book and so properly written. Writers just don't write like this anymore. To sum it up nicely, here's the conclusive paragraph from the book,
"Science can reveal the depth of this crisis, but only social action can resolve it. Science can now serve society by exposing the crisis of modern technology to the judgement of all mankind. Only this judgement can determine whether the knowledge that science has given us shall destroy humanity or advance the welfare of man." (pg. 132)
Note: This book was a recommendation from the book "iGods: How Technology Shapes our Spiritual and Social Lives."
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 9, 2021
Me encontré este libro usado en una cafetería mientras caminaba solo por Barrio Antiguo, después de leer las primeras páginas decidí comprarlo.
El libro es un ensayo escrito en el 64 en el cual explica cómo estamos perdiendo el control sobre la tecnología, es interesante como las nuevas tecnologías que menciona son hoy obsoletas y aquellos sueños lejanos que el autor plantea son hoy una realidad.
Me gusta como en los primeros capítulos Commoner habla de las catástrofes causadas por el exceso de confianza en la tecnología y de la poca comunicación entre las partes, como un problema puede terminar afectando a ecosistemas de forma irreparable.
Los capítulos en los que habla sobre un nuevo enfoque de la ciencia refiriéndose a la Biología Molecular y sobre los peligros de una guerra nuclear me parecieron tediosos. Probablemente porque hoy en día la información y los descubrimientos se han actualizado mucho desde entonces pero aún así es interesante ver cómo se visualizaban estos conocimientos desde esa concepción.
Sin duda mis capítulos favoritos son los últimos dos en los que habla de la importancia de fortalecer una comunicación abierta entre científicos y civiles para construir y enfocar las tecnologías en busca de un bien común guiado por una moral social, sin que estas tecnologías se vean influenciadas por intereses políticos o militares.
Me hubiese gustado que este libro fuera más conocido, pero al menos en esta red social es mínima la cantidad de personas que se han encontrado con él y me siento contento de estar entre ellas. Menciona ideas muy interesantes y a pesar de haber sido escrito hace más de 50 años tiene ideas que seguirán vigentes hasta que El Progreso tecnológico se detenga.
El libro es un ensayo escrito en el 64 en el cual explica cómo estamos perdiendo el control sobre la tecnología, es interesante como las nuevas tecnologías que menciona son hoy obsoletas y aquellos sueños lejanos que el autor plantea son hoy una realidad.
Me gusta como en los primeros capítulos Commoner habla de las catástrofes causadas por el exceso de confianza en la tecnología y de la poca comunicación entre las partes, como un problema puede terminar afectando a ecosistemas de forma irreparable.
Los capítulos en los que habla sobre un nuevo enfoque de la ciencia refiriéndose a la Biología Molecular y sobre los peligros de una guerra nuclear me parecieron tediosos. Probablemente porque hoy en día la información y los descubrimientos se han actualizado mucho desde entonces pero aún así es interesante ver cómo se visualizaban estos conocimientos desde esa concepción.
Sin duda mis capítulos favoritos son los últimos dos en los que habla de la importancia de fortalecer una comunicación abierta entre científicos y civiles para construir y enfocar las tecnologías en busca de un bien común guiado por una moral social, sin que estas tecnologías se vean influenciadas por intereses políticos o militares.
Me hubiese gustado que este libro fuera más conocido, pero al menos en esta red social es mínima la cantidad de personas que se han encontrado con él y me siento contento de estar entre ellas. Menciona ideas muy interesantes y a pesar de haber sido escrito hace más de 50 años tiene ideas que seguirán vigentes hasta que El Progreso tecnológico se detenga.
October 3, 2012
With his recent death two,days ago, on the radio this was the only book mentioned, so I am surprised the ratings are low, as well as no pic. . .
January 8, 2026
60 years later and the ever present inability of society from learn from history is on full display in Barry Commoner’s warning about scientific advancements without regard for consequence. Everything has a price.
May 23, 2025
tecnología, angel o verdugo?
June 5, 2026
informative
Read
March 8, 2018Barry Commoner was not only a respected scientist, but one who understood and emphasized the importance of using science to address the most pressing concerns of our time, especially the introduction of new technologies. At the same time, one of his greatest contributions was to situate science inside a broader democratically-determined policy-making process..
Take toxic chemical pollution, for example: "[O]nce the scientific evidence has been stated, or its absence made clear, the establishment of a level of tolerance... is a social problem and must be resolved by social processes."
Scientific knowledge, in other words, doesn't automatically confer the right of political leadership upon those with the greatest expertise.
Commoner was a citizen scientist, meaning that he directed his attention towards some of the most pressing issues and threats to humanity posed by new technologies -- including nuclear weapons testing.
Nevertheless, for citizen scientists, the challenge was to avoid political and economic pressures that create enormous incentives to place science at the service of corporate or military enterprises that often work against the common good.
"The freedom to choose his own problem is the scientist's most precious possession."
One of the projects that made Commoner a public figure was the so-called Baby Tooth Survey. It involved testing baby teeth for radioactive isotopes coming from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.
In the late 50s, studies came out reporting that levels of strontium-90 in milk sold in St. Louis rose from 6.5 micromicrocuries per liter to 18.7 in just a few months. Health authorities claimed that the amount was "insignificant" because the "maximum permissible concentration", a level below which no medical effects were expected, was 80. But when a representative of the International Commission on Radiological Protection testified to Congress that the MPC for large populations ought to be 30 micromicrocuries per liter and that levels would inevitably rise to that point if nuclear testing continued (in ND, in fact, levels in milk had already reached 33 mmcs), some experts contended that there was no absolutely safe level of radiation.
With public concern rising as a result of these debates, Commoner and others in the St. Louis scientific community "decided to try out the idea that scientists could usefully inform the public about such matters."
The scientists (chemists, biologists, physicians) set out to educate themselves about the pathways of exposure, distribution in the environment, passage of strontium-90 in the food chain and expected tissue damage. They became heavily engaged in the community's lecture circuit as concerns grew -- PTAs, Lions, Rotarians, local TV interviews, etc.
"We discovered religious denominations and parts of our city that we never before knew existed. We saw at first hand the great need for providing the public with the information that every citizen must have if he is to decide for himself what policies our nation and the world should follow with respect to nuclear testing, civil defense, and disarmament."
... In 1958 the prominent American biochemist Herman Kalckar published a paper in Nature on the problem of assessing the strontium-90 uptake in children's bones. "The importance of such information was widely recognized, since there was no basis from previous experience for an accurate prediction of how much of the strontium-90 in the diet would remain in the bones -- where it might, if sufficiently concentrated, in time induce leukemia or bone tumors...Dr. Kalckar point out that strontium-90 is also deposited in the teeth, that the milk teeth are shed after a time and could easily be analyzed. ... The idea was sound but difficult to carry out. ... Considerable numbers of teeth would be needed to produce statistically significant results.
"When CNI scientists read Dr. Kalckar's paper, they estimated that the project would require the collection of about 50,000 teeth a year for at least ten years to produce useful results.
With lots of enthusiasm and interest in "doing something" about fallout, they organized the Baby Tooth Survey, and "with the help of numerous willing mothers and children began collecting teeth. ... Within a year the donation of baby teeth had become a way of life among St. Louis children. By 1966 the Baby Tooth Survey had collected over 200,000 teeth. As a result, the laboratory published the first and only detailed studies of the absorption of strontium-90 by a large population of children through the major period of nuclear testing.
What lessons can we draw from this extraordinary citizen science community project?
"Much has been written about the alienation of citizens from the complexities of modern public affairs. Experts have everywhere intruded between the issues and the public. The Jeffersonian concept of an educated, informed electorate appears to be a naive and distant ideal. But at least in one area - science and technology, on which so much of our future depends -- and effort is being made to make the ideal a reality."
Perhaps the point is to not be so complacent that we passively leave important questions to "the experts" or to accept the rationales (e.g. national security) for secrecy.
Today things have deteriorated to the point where many people are anti-science. As if that changes the reality (outside of their own heads) of the world we live in. The impoverishment of public debates on critical questions like climate change (stoked by fossil fuel industry propaganda campaigns) is much different from Commoner's time. It would be interesting if he were alive to talk about it, because he so wisely engaged the questions of his own time.
Science and Survival also reminds us that Commoner had a view that was quite different than that of the dominant school of cellular biology (still dominant today), which emphasizes the defining role of DNA in genetics. "The message which controls heredity is not carried by a single molecule but by the whole living cell," he wrote. "The limitations of what can be accomplished by a single molecular intervention into a biological process testify to the ultimate importance of the whole."
Today the debate over genetic engineering seems to be dominated by those seeking to profit off new forms of genetic engineering.
Take toxic chemical pollution, for example: "[O]nce the scientific evidence has been stated, or its absence made clear, the establishment of a level of tolerance... is a social problem and must be resolved by social processes."
Scientific knowledge, in other words, doesn't automatically confer the right of political leadership upon those with the greatest expertise.
Commoner was a citizen scientist, meaning that he directed his attention towards some of the most pressing issues and threats to humanity posed by new technologies -- including nuclear weapons testing.
Nevertheless, for citizen scientists, the challenge was to avoid political and economic pressures that create enormous incentives to place science at the service of corporate or military enterprises that often work against the common good.
"The freedom to choose his own problem is the scientist's most precious possession."
One of the projects that made Commoner a public figure was the so-called Baby Tooth Survey. It involved testing baby teeth for radioactive isotopes coming from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.
In the late 50s, studies came out reporting that levels of strontium-90 in milk sold in St. Louis rose from 6.5 micromicrocuries per liter to 18.7 in just a few months. Health authorities claimed that the amount was "insignificant" because the "maximum permissible concentration", a level below which no medical effects were expected, was 80. But when a representative of the International Commission on Radiological Protection testified to Congress that the MPC for large populations ought to be 30 micromicrocuries per liter and that levels would inevitably rise to that point if nuclear testing continued (in ND, in fact, levels in milk had already reached 33 mmcs), some experts contended that there was no absolutely safe level of radiation.
With public concern rising as a result of these debates, Commoner and others in the St. Louis scientific community "decided to try out the idea that scientists could usefully inform the public about such matters."
The scientists (chemists, biologists, physicians) set out to educate themselves about the pathways of exposure, distribution in the environment, passage of strontium-90 in the food chain and expected tissue damage. They became heavily engaged in the community's lecture circuit as concerns grew -- PTAs, Lions, Rotarians, local TV interviews, etc.
"We discovered religious denominations and parts of our city that we never before knew existed. We saw at first hand the great need for providing the public with the information that every citizen must have if he is to decide for himself what policies our nation and the world should follow with respect to nuclear testing, civil defense, and disarmament."
... In 1958 the prominent American biochemist Herman Kalckar published a paper in Nature on the problem of assessing the strontium-90 uptake in children's bones. "The importance of such information was widely recognized, since there was no basis from previous experience for an accurate prediction of how much of the strontium-90 in the diet would remain in the bones -- where it might, if sufficiently concentrated, in time induce leukemia or bone tumors...Dr. Kalckar point out that strontium-90 is also deposited in the teeth, that the milk teeth are shed after a time and could easily be analyzed. ... The idea was sound but difficult to carry out. ... Considerable numbers of teeth would be needed to produce statistically significant results.
"When CNI scientists read Dr. Kalckar's paper, they estimated that the project would require the collection of about 50,000 teeth a year for at least ten years to produce useful results.
With lots of enthusiasm and interest in "doing something" about fallout, they organized the Baby Tooth Survey, and "with the help of numerous willing mothers and children began collecting teeth. ... Within a year the donation of baby teeth had become a way of life among St. Louis children. By 1966 the Baby Tooth Survey had collected over 200,000 teeth. As a result, the laboratory published the first and only detailed studies of the absorption of strontium-90 by a large population of children through the major period of nuclear testing.
What lessons can we draw from this extraordinary citizen science community project?
"Much has been written about the alienation of citizens from the complexities of modern public affairs. Experts have everywhere intruded between the issues and the public. The Jeffersonian concept of an educated, informed electorate appears to be a naive and distant ideal. But at least in one area - science and technology, on which so much of our future depends -- and effort is being made to make the ideal a reality."
Perhaps the point is to not be so complacent that we passively leave important questions to "the experts" or to accept the rationales (e.g. national security) for secrecy.
Today things have deteriorated to the point where many people are anti-science. As if that changes the reality (outside of their own heads) of the world we live in. The impoverishment of public debates on critical questions like climate change (stoked by fossil fuel industry propaganda campaigns) is much different from Commoner's time. It would be interesting if he were alive to talk about it, because he so wisely engaged the questions of his own time.
Science and Survival also reminds us that Commoner had a view that was quite different than that of the dominant school of cellular biology (still dominant today), which emphasizes the defining role of DNA in genetics. "The message which controls heredity is not carried by a single molecule but by the whole living cell," he wrote. "The limitations of what can be accomplished by a single molecular intervention into a biological process testify to the ultimate importance of the whole."
Today the debate over genetic engineering seems to be dominated by those seeking to profit off new forms of genetic engineering.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews