What do you think?
Rate this book
The Geek Manifesto: Why Science Matters
Britain's leading science journalist makes an agenda-setting argument that science matters to every aspect of politics with a rallying call to all geeks, wannabe geeks, and secret geeks to join together in a new force our leaders cannot ignore. There has never been a better time to be a geek (or a nerd, or a dork). What was once an insult used to marginalize those curious people (in either sense of the word) and their obsessive interest in science has increasingly become a badge of honor. And we should be crying out for them. England is a country where only one of 650 MPs has worked as a research scientist, the government's drug adviser was sacked for making a decision based on scientific fact rather than public opinion, a writer can be forced into court for telling the scientific truth, and the media would rather sell papers by scaremongering over MMR vaccines and GM crops than report the less sensational facts. Whether one wants to improve education, cut crime, enhance public health, or generate clean energy, science and its experimental method is critical. It's time to stop the nonsense! The Geek Manifesto explains what needs to happen to entrench scientific thinking more deeply into politics and society; and how those who are concerned can turn their frustrated outrage into positive action that our country's leaders cannot ignore. Contributors include Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh, Robin Ince, Evan Harris, Tim Harford, Brian Cox, and Sir Paul Nurse.
416 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2012
46 people are currently reading
724 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
January 23, 2019
We live in a bizarre, almost dystopian period of history, with an intellectually challenged real estate clown at the helm of the most powerful country in the world, a puppet whose statement "climate change is a Chinese hoax" will probably be regarded by future historians one of the most moronic and dangerously stupid pronouncements by any leader in contemporary times. A period during which religious fundamentalism is still thriving in many countries (Evangelical Christianity in the US, fundamentalist versions of Islam in some Muslim countries, extreme forms of Hinduism in India etc), rather than fading into history as an obsolete relic killed by the ascent of science and reason.
This important book is a call for rational thinkers to claim for science the primacy that it deserves, and to fight against the dismal scientific ignorance of the political class, against the BS claims of pseudo-science, and against the rearguard obscurantist action of religious zealots.
The World needs a New Enlightenment. It is all very easy for some trendy post-modernism to assume a skeptical and relativist approach to the enormous scientific and technical progress that human kind has delivered in the last two centuries, and easy for some armchair philosophers to dispute the merits of the scientific method: but, regardless of all the problems currently facing human kind, let's call spade a spade, and make it clear that Enlightenment has worked. That science works, and that it is the only truly reliable investigative method for the advancement of human condition and knowledge acquisition. That rational thinking works. That secular, democratic, liberal progressive societies deliver progress. That progress itself can be achieved. That the solution to current problems is not looking backwards, but forward.
But science and rational thinking have all to fight an uphill battle against the still widespread ignorance of too many individuals, and against some undeniable weaknesses of human nature: religious-inspired magical thinking, tribalism, sectarian thinking, over-simplistic slogan-based thinking and dumb nationalism as personified by the likes of Trump, are all intellectual illnesses into which it is unfortunately too easy to fall, for too many, especially when not armed with a proper educational background.
We might have thought that, given the evident importance of science as a foundation stone for growth, many politicians would have been alert to, and informed about, the main benefits and features of scientific thinking, but sadly this is not the case. Actually, too many politicians often indulge, whenever they try to layer a thin veneer of scientific justification onto their policies, in practices of evidence-shopping, evidence-massaging, pseudo-scientific claims, reliance on fringe-science, and disingenuous misunderstanding of the open and provisional nature of science.
This book focuses on the US and UK situation, where the situation is particularly dismal, but sadly these countries are not the only ones where such problems occur. Certainly, a country like the US, when some groups are still attempting to force the teaching of creationism in schools, and where almost half the population supports the pre-Enlightnment views of Trumpism, the situation is very sobering, and a damning indictment on the failures of what is left of the public US educational system:
- in a 2014 Gallup poll, it emerged that 42% of Americans believed that a creationist perspective was the closest to their own view. Another poll confirmed that 4 in 10 Americans believe that the Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. Such widespread ignorance is incredible in a supposedly developed country.
- as of 2012, the US House of Representatives included among its 435 members just one physicist, one chemist and one microbiologist.
- in the US, policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were given a list of forbidden terms, which included "evidence-based" and "science-based." Under the Trump administration, science has become the enemy, and truth is negotiable and definable by Presidential decree. In a country where only two thirds of Americans millennials believe the Earth is "round" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorna...), it is not all that surprising that this disgraceful Presidency can get away with it. Europe had its Middle Ages a few centuries ago. I sometimes wonder if, in a way, the US is going through a similar stage too.
- in 2009, Canada's science minister refused to say whether he believed in evolution, stating: "I am Christian and i do not think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate". I don't think any further comment is necessary here.
From the above, it is clear, as the author states, that when it comes to modern science these people have: "as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had".
It should be noted that not all countries have this dismal attitude towards science: since 1999, for example, China has increased its spending in scientific research by almost 20% every year. In terms of patent applications for GDP, South Korea, Japan, China and Germany now surpass the US, and UK is not listed even in the first top ten countries.
In England, only 13% of pupils studied maths in upper-secondary education: in Germany, more than nine out of ten pupils study maths at this stage, and all Japanese, Korean and Swedish pupils do.
An economic model like the one of the US (based on the virtual privatization of the educational system, on short term gain measured by quarterly shareholder returns and where basic scientific research is seen as a luxury that can easily be cut when the budged requires so), is not just an utter social failure, but it runs the risk of proving obsolete and not competitive in the medium-longer term.
Sadly, it is not just the political right that is waging this war on science; some parts of the political left, and a few groups of self-defined Greens in particular, are as culpable as the loonies of the American Tea Party: for example, GM is attacked as a matter of principle, simply because it does not fit some environmentalist idea of what is "natural". Their opposition to nuclear power is often based on emotional and ideological reasons above scientific evidence, and uses the examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima, reactors built at least 40 years ago with a technology radically different to the current one.
As the environmental activist Green George Monbiot stated: "using a power plant built 40 years ago to argue against 21st century power stations is like using the Hindenburg disaster to contend that modern air travel is unsafe". Many Greens appear to be disingenuously unaware of the climate change control benefits of the low-carbon option that nuclear power presents, or of the many huge potential benefits of GM (including environmental benefits). Global warming is a planetary emergency, and we need all weapons in our arsenal - including nuclear, GM and other technologies - to really address it.
For varied reasons, other potentially hugely beneficial scientific research in areas such as stem cell research, genome editing etc. are attacked both by the left and by the right of the politically spectrum. The scaremongering on the vaccination issue verges on the pathetic.
This book is a call to arms directed to all rational thinkers to promote in every way possible (through voting, political participation, consumer choice etc.):
- an educational system that educate the widest possible part of the population on the merits, values, contents and methods of science
- a political culture that appreciates the power of science as a problem-solving tool, and that adopts an evidence-based approach to policy formulation
- a government that creates an environment in which science and scientific research can thrive, and where publicly funded basic scientific research plays an important role
- a society where the epistemological primacy of science is widely recognized, and where science and critical thinking become central to the national conversation
Yes, it is a very ambitious plan, and some might say close to wishful thinking, but I completely subscribe to this list of objectives.
4 stars. I did not give it 5 stars just because this book was too US/UK-centric and it did not explore the issue from a more global perspective. But the message itself deserves a full 5-star rating.
This important book is a call for rational thinkers to claim for science the primacy that it deserves, and to fight against the dismal scientific ignorance of the political class, against the BS claims of pseudo-science, and against the rearguard obscurantist action of religious zealots.
The World needs a New Enlightenment. It is all very easy for some trendy post-modernism to assume a skeptical and relativist approach to the enormous scientific and technical progress that human kind has delivered in the last two centuries, and easy for some armchair philosophers to dispute the merits of the scientific method: but, regardless of all the problems currently facing human kind, let's call spade a spade, and make it clear that Enlightenment has worked. That science works, and that it is the only truly reliable investigative method for the advancement of human condition and knowledge acquisition. That rational thinking works. That secular, democratic, liberal progressive societies deliver progress. That progress itself can be achieved. That the solution to current problems is not looking backwards, but forward.
But science and rational thinking have all to fight an uphill battle against the still widespread ignorance of too many individuals, and against some undeniable weaknesses of human nature: religious-inspired magical thinking, tribalism, sectarian thinking, over-simplistic slogan-based thinking and dumb nationalism as personified by the likes of Trump, are all intellectual illnesses into which it is unfortunately too easy to fall, for too many, especially when not armed with a proper educational background.
We might have thought that, given the evident importance of science as a foundation stone for growth, many politicians would have been alert to, and informed about, the main benefits and features of scientific thinking, but sadly this is not the case. Actually, too many politicians often indulge, whenever they try to layer a thin veneer of scientific justification onto their policies, in practices of evidence-shopping, evidence-massaging, pseudo-scientific claims, reliance on fringe-science, and disingenuous misunderstanding of the open and provisional nature of science.
This book focuses on the US and UK situation, where the situation is particularly dismal, but sadly these countries are not the only ones where such problems occur. Certainly, a country like the US, when some groups are still attempting to force the teaching of creationism in schools, and where almost half the population supports the pre-Enlightnment views of Trumpism, the situation is very sobering, and a damning indictment on the failures of what is left of the public US educational system:
- in a 2014 Gallup poll, it emerged that 42% of Americans believed that a creationist perspective was the closest to their own view. Another poll confirmed that 4 in 10 Americans believe that the Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. Such widespread ignorance is incredible in a supposedly developed country.
- as of 2012, the US House of Representatives included among its 435 members just one physicist, one chemist and one microbiologist.
- in the US, policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were given a list of forbidden terms, which included "evidence-based" and "science-based." Under the Trump administration, science has become the enemy, and truth is negotiable and definable by Presidential decree. In a country where only two thirds of Americans millennials believe the Earth is "round" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorna...), it is not all that surprising that this disgraceful Presidency can get away with it. Europe had its Middle Ages a few centuries ago. I sometimes wonder if, in a way, the US is going through a similar stage too.
- in 2009, Canada's science minister refused to say whether he believed in evolution, stating: "I am Christian and i do not think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate". I don't think any further comment is necessary here.
From the above, it is clear, as the author states, that when it comes to modern science these people have: "as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had".
It should be noted that not all countries have this dismal attitude towards science: since 1999, for example, China has increased its spending in scientific research by almost 20% every year. In terms of patent applications for GDP, South Korea, Japan, China and Germany now surpass the US, and UK is not listed even in the first top ten countries.
In England, only 13% of pupils studied maths in upper-secondary education: in Germany, more than nine out of ten pupils study maths at this stage, and all Japanese, Korean and Swedish pupils do.
An economic model like the one of the US (based on the virtual privatization of the educational system, on short term gain measured by quarterly shareholder returns and where basic scientific research is seen as a luxury that can easily be cut when the budged requires so), is not just an utter social failure, but it runs the risk of proving obsolete and not competitive in the medium-longer term.
Sadly, it is not just the political right that is waging this war on science; some parts of the political left, and a few groups of self-defined Greens in particular, are as culpable as the loonies of the American Tea Party: for example, GM is attacked as a matter of principle, simply because it does not fit some environmentalist idea of what is "natural". Their opposition to nuclear power is often based on emotional and ideological reasons above scientific evidence, and uses the examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima, reactors built at least 40 years ago with a technology radically different to the current one.
As the environmental activist Green George Monbiot stated: "using a power plant built 40 years ago to argue against 21st century power stations is like using the Hindenburg disaster to contend that modern air travel is unsafe". Many Greens appear to be disingenuously unaware of the climate change control benefits of the low-carbon option that nuclear power presents, or of the many huge potential benefits of GM (including environmental benefits). Global warming is a planetary emergency, and we need all weapons in our arsenal - including nuclear, GM and other technologies - to really address it.
For varied reasons, other potentially hugely beneficial scientific research in areas such as stem cell research, genome editing etc. are attacked both by the left and by the right of the politically spectrum. The scaremongering on the vaccination issue verges on the pathetic.
This book is a call to arms directed to all rational thinkers to promote in every way possible (through voting, political participation, consumer choice etc.):
- an educational system that educate the widest possible part of the population on the merits, values, contents and methods of science
- a political culture that appreciates the power of science as a problem-solving tool, and that adopts an evidence-based approach to policy formulation
- a government that creates an environment in which science and scientific research can thrive, and where publicly funded basic scientific research plays an important role
- a society where the epistemological primacy of science is widely recognized, and where science and critical thinking become central to the national conversation
Yes, it is a very ambitious plan, and some might say close to wishful thinking, but I completely subscribe to this list of objectives.
4 stars. I did not give it 5 stars just because this book was too US/UK-centric and it did not explore the issue from a more global perspective. But the message itself deserves a full 5-star rating.
August 2, 2012
I am nearly finished, and struggling to finish. Not that I don't agree with most of what Henderson says, just that he uses so many words to say it. I guess I am what you call the choir he is preaching to, and I have lived in the world of science geeks for a lot of my adult life. Most of what I read, has been painfully obvious to me every day so I guess I'm not the best person to review it. I still think that most of the arguments could have been a bit more concise.
May 30, 2012
It’s interesting that the ‘added puff’ fake sticker on the front of this book calls it ‘important’ because that is actually a very informative word about this book. What is packed into ‘important’ is that this is a really essential topic with lots of well argued material… but it’s a bit boring. And that’s kind of how I felt about the book.
In a way it suffers from the target of my agent’s non-fiction mantra: ‘Is this a book or is it an article?’ I felt that this really was more an article taken to book length. But the problem is more than that and it sits at the heart of the issue that Mark Henderson is addressing. Talking about the politics of science can be rather boring. It’s a turn off. It’s quite easy to make science itself interesting if you are good writer, as Henderson indubitably is – but it’s very hard to make politics of science engaging.
I read a lot of science blogs – in fact I’ve met many of the people Henderson quotes - and much though I love someone like Stephen Curry when he’s talking about science, when he gets on a politics of science rant I lose interest because I’m not professionally involved in science – and that same difficulty of engagement comes across here.
That said, this genuinely is a very important topic, and Henderson covers many aspects of it well. There were times (when he was talking about homeopathy, say, or the lack of science education amongst our politicians) I got highly involved. And even when it was a little more dull, it was indubitably worthy and necessary.
I guess what it comes down to is that this is, yes, an important book and you genuinely ought to read it. Just don’t expect it to be overwhelmingly thrilling along the way.
Incidentally I was slightly miffed he didn’t mention my book Ecologic, which covers many of the underlying issues he mentions on the environment and organic food in a very readable fashion (doubly miffed as we had the same editor) – but that has no influence on my review.
Review originally published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission
In a way it suffers from the target of my agent’s non-fiction mantra: ‘Is this a book or is it an article?’ I felt that this really was more an article taken to book length. But the problem is more than that and it sits at the heart of the issue that Mark Henderson is addressing. Talking about the politics of science can be rather boring. It’s a turn off. It’s quite easy to make science itself interesting if you are good writer, as Henderson indubitably is – but it’s very hard to make politics of science engaging.
I read a lot of science blogs – in fact I’ve met many of the people Henderson quotes - and much though I love someone like Stephen Curry when he’s talking about science, when he gets on a politics of science rant I lose interest because I’m not professionally involved in science – and that same difficulty of engagement comes across here.
That said, this genuinely is a very important topic, and Henderson covers many aspects of it well. There were times (when he was talking about homeopathy, say, or the lack of science education amongst our politicians) I got highly involved. And even when it was a little more dull, it was indubitably worthy and necessary.
I guess what it comes down to is that this is, yes, an important book and you genuinely ought to read it. Just don’t expect it to be overwhelmingly thrilling along the way.
Incidentally I was slightly miffed he didn’t mention my book Ecologic, which covers many of the underlying issues he mentions on the environment and organic food in a very readable fashion (doubly miffed as we had the same editor) – but that has no influence on my review.
Review originally published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission
May 8, 2015
This book raised some interesting points, which definitely need to be addressed by politicians and policy groups, about the abuse of scientific evidence and ignoring by mistake or design hard science proved facts. However the first third of the book did seem a bit of a slog, where the author went through how to apply scientific methods to politics and to get more scientists and science enthusiast involved in politics and campaigning. While important this part did seem a bit too long.
The rest of the book was much more enjoyable, as the author explained how things such as homeopathy, vaccine scares, GM food etc stood in scientific circles, the evidence behind them and how this has been misrepresented by the media, politicians, corporations, activists and charity groups to suit there own agendas for a variety of reasons.
The book did a good job of attacking bad science and the defense of bad science more than people views (sometimes it’s justified though) as while science can say one thing people views are can be influenced by more like social, ethics, economic etc and made a case of this. Using bad evidence as proof or ignoring it, like in some cases to make your case is the issue.
I’d say a worthwhile read for those into science and politics that can get a bit irate when the Establishment can get science so wrong.
The rest of the book was much more enjoyable, as the author explained how things such as homeopathy, vaccine scares, GM food etc stood in scientific circles, the evidence behind them and how this has been misrepresented by the media, politicians, corporations, activists and charity groups to suit there own agendas for a variety of reasons.
The book did a good job of attacking bad science and the defense of bad science more than people views (sometimes it’s justified though) as while science can say one thing people views are can be influenced by more like social, ethics, economic etc and made a case of this. Using bad evidence as proof or ignoring it, like in some cases to make your case is the issue.
I’d say a worthwhile read for those into science and politics that can get a bit irate when the Establishment can get science so wrong.
August 8, 2012
I'd only have given it 2 stars until I got to the "Geeks and Greens" chapter, which was the only part I thought that actually contributed anything to the world.
While I generally agree with Henderson's views, there is nothing new here at all. I was expecting so much more considering the gushing reviews given by skeptics. I can't see this book changing the minds of anyone who didn't already value science. It's kind of a summary of the things that are already happening with a wish for more of the same. Oh and did you know that political engagement is a good idea?
There was an over-reliance on topicality which I think will make this book seem very dated in just a few years time.
The main thing this book exposes for me is geeks' susceptibility to confirmation bias. The fact that so many were recommending this book before they'd even read it was frankly embarrassing.
While I generally agree with Henderson's views, there is nothing new here at all. I was expecting so much more considering the gushing reviews given by skeptics. I can't see this book changing the minds of anyone who didn't already value science. It's kind of a summary of the things that are already happening with a wish for more of the same. Oh and did you know that political engagement is a good idea?
There was an over-reliance on topicality which I think will make this book seem very dated in just a few years time.
The main thing this book exposes for me is geeks' susceptibility to confirmation bias. The fact that so many were recommending this book before they'd even read it was frankly embarrassing.
March 7, 2013
I have an issue with how to rate this book.
on the one hand it's powerful and important, a much needed scientific injection in the otherwise person-led domain of politics. It is important that every voter pays attention to the information imparted here, but they probably won't get it from this book.
Mark Henderson, for everything he's got right in this book, has failed to inspire enthusiasm in his writing. I myself am one of the geeks that this book claims to be a manifesto for - I get excited when I so much as think about the wonders of the scientific method, and the advances I have seen in just my lifetime, let alone the past 30, 40, 50 or 100 years. And somehow this book failed to inspire enthusiasm in me - an already avid lover and (often outspoken) proponent of science.
And if he can't inspire enthusiasm in me, how will this book fare with those less excited by science than me?
This book is worth reading in order that we, the geeks, can infuse Henderson's narrative with our own enthusiasm, in the hope that we can make a difference. For geeks, the book is worth much more than it can be for those less enthusiastic about science, and I guess the way it has to go is that we'll read it, and pass the message on as best we can.
on the one hand it's powerful and important, a much needed scientific injection in the otherwise person-led domain of politics. It is important that every voter pays attention to the information imparted here, but they probably won't get it from this book.
Mark Henderson, for everything he's got right in this book, has failed to inspire enthusiasm in his writing. I myself am one of the geeks that this book claims to be a manifesto for - I get excited when I so much as think about the wonders of the scientific method, and the advances I have seen in just my lifetime, let alone the past 30, 40, 50 or 100 years. And somehow this book failed to inspire enthusiasm in me - an already avid lover and (often outspoken) proponent of science.
And if he can't inspire enthusiasm in me, how will this book fare with those less excited by science than me?
This book is worth reading in order that we, the geeks, can infuse Henderson's narrative with our own enthusiasm, in the hope that we can make a difference. For geeks, the book is worth much more than it can be for those less enthusiastic about science, and I guess the way it has to go is that we'll read it, and pass the message on as best we can.
May 25, 2012
This is a great book for those with a science/engineering background or anyone with an interest in rationality and the importance of the scientific method. Henderson's premise is simple; the world needs more rational thinking, in politics, economics, government etc, but the very people who embody rational thought, the Geeks, are under-represented in these areas. The Geek Manifesto is a call to arms for rational thinkers to take back the ground lost to the pseudo-scientists, the religious zealots and policy-makers that believe that simply using "science-speak" makes their claims robust. My only criticism of Geek Manifesto is that I feel, at times, Henderson relies too much on the work of Ben Goldacre in "Bad Science". The Geek Manifesto is an excellent resource for thinking people who feel that their views are under-represented. There are people and organisations that feel the same and, hopefully, the Geek Manifesto will beome a standard around which these islands of rationality can coalesce.
September 3, 2014
"The Geek Manifesto: Why Science Matters to Government" is an attempt to encourage the active participation of scientists and geeks in political life. Henderson primarily addresses the misuse of science for political reasons. Themes within the media, justice, education and health are given as examples to explain the lack of knowledge about the scientific method and science-based evidence, and the distortion that is often made in the name of a "higher polical cause."
Personally, I enjoyed listening to the audiobook and agreed with many of the ideas conveyed. However, I consider that it may be fairly uninteresting to anyone who is a layman in science reading. It is undoubtedly a book aimed at people who have knowledge about science.
Personally, I enjoyed listening to the audiobook and agreed with many of the ideas conveyed. However, I consider that it may be fairly uninteresting to anyone who is a layman in science reading. It is undoubtedly a book aimed at people who have knowledge about science.
June 6, 2012
A call for action for scientists and geeks alike. A great book on why it's important that geeks get involved with politics, why science is important for politics and what actions can be of help to make science matter for politicians. While the book has its focus strongly on the UK (most examples which are given are from there. I think because Henderson is UK-based and works as Head of Communications for the Wellcome Trust) most ideas are equally suited for other countries. Worth reading for all who are interested in science.
June 30, 2024
How long has this book remained unread on my shelves? Ten years? Something like that.
I agree on an intellectual / rational level with the author. However, I don't share his "optimism".
It is a global issue, but the book is very UK/USA centric. It was published 12 years ago, it is based on events mostly from the nineties and noughties, and it feels dated, but not in a good way as in we haven't made the progress necessary. It is supposed to be a manifesto, a rallying cry, but it only made me occasionally nod in agreement. I had to occasionally force myself to continue reading.
So, how should I rate this book? Three stars for the content or two stars for the writing style? I am goin to stick with 2 stars.
I agree on an intellectual / rational level with the author. However, I don't share his "optimism".
It is a global issue, but the book is very UK/USA centric. It was published 12 years ago, it is based on events mostly from the nineties and noughties, and it feels dated, but not in a good way as in we haven't made the progress necessary. It is supposed to be a manifesto, a rallying cry, but it only made me occasionally nod in agreement. I had to occasionally force myself to continue reading.
So, how should I rate this book? Three stars for the content or two stars for the writing style? I am goin to stick with 2 stars.
December 27, 2016
I liked the basic premise of the book. But I didn't actually finish it as I found it just kept making the same points over and over again.
March 7, 2013
A must read. It's a sad state of affairs that such a book is needed. The unwillingness to assess policies and do what works is a pitiful failure. The section on education contains some crucial observations about the curriculum it would be nice to know were being seriously considered.
Perhaps I am one of the converted and I've read many books on this topic, but it wasn't totally engaging throughout. There were one or two factual errors and a little bit of self-indulgence in parts that didn't sit too well with me but nonetheless a worthwhile read.
I hope that political parties take heed of the warnings, economic if nothing else, and consider selecting candidates with a broader range of backgrounds.
Perhaps I am one of the converted and I've read many books on this topic, but it wasn't totally engaging throughout. There were one or two factual errors and a little bit of self-indulgence in parts that didn't sit too well with me but nonetheless a worthwhile read.
I hope that political parties take heed of the warnings, economic if nothing else, and consider selecting candidates with a broader range of backgrounds.
July 10, 2012
Important reading for those who care about science, but even more so for those who care how society functions and whether decisions are made based on evidence or dogma. The need for evidence touches every area of life, from how we educate children to which health services we provide. Mark Henderson explores how science and evidence interact with politics, education, the media, healthcare and the environment. A very knowledgeable insight in some of the major decisions taken in the UK and whether the evidence supported the claims or was manipulated by one party or their opposition.
July 25, 2012
very interesting and important book for all scientists/geeks/nerds out there.
rhythm of the book can be a bit slow and sometimes feels like a newspaper column, but this doesn't detract from the research and clear exposition of his thoughts and opinions
highly recommended
rhythm of the book can be a bit slow and sometimes feels like a newspaper column, but this doesn't detract from the research and clear exposition of his thoughts and opinions
highly recommended
April 21, 2015
Covers a terrific variety of the applications of science to society, education, politics and more; somewhat narrowed by the focus on the UK context.
March 11, 2020
Mark Henderson is a science journalist based in England and seems to be well-versed in the scientific method and its importance to the progress of society. The basic argument of the book is that scientists should be included in all aspects of decision-making within those societies in order to regulate and assure that true science is taken into consideration when making decisions on important issues that impact us all.
True science is that science based upon warranted evidence together with clear correlation to a consequence that is not preconceived or implied beforehand, and that is open to the public and peer-review and follows the scientific method as it is traditionally defined. The book uses ample examples of abuse by politicians, educators and environmentalists as well as the usual crew of criminals against science for economic reasons.
Henderson does a good job of pointing out counterarguments and how they fail, and using statistical data to back up his claims. Where I believe Henderson misses the mark is his narrowness in defining useful knowledge, and his claims concerning the boundaries of science.
First, Henderson seems to dismiss liberal educations as being useful but not useful to truth-finding, relegated only to the arts and creative processes, processes he seems to claim that are outside of the scientific realm. However, he also claims that to "throw out too much curiosity-led science in favor of applied work and you risk being left with nothing to apply." (117) He also references the importance of arts and creative thinking as being the reason that we must fix the inherent problems of applied sciences. This all sounds as if the liberal arts he down plays in one part of the book is given heightened importance in another part of the book.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that scientific knowledge and processes stem from philosophy, a liberal arts endeavor. Logic, for example, is the basis of analytical philosophy.
True knowledge is useful, not just scientific knowledge.
Secondly, Henderson seems to put clear boundaries on what science can address. His example is abortion, stating that "Abortion is not an issue that can be decided by evidence alone-science cannot ultimately determine whether it is right or wrong to allow women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy." (205). While this is technically correct it does not allow for science to fully address the religious motivation behind much of the abortion "argument". Science can define a human life from life (biology/chemistry) and can dismiss much of the religious arguments in favor of anti-abortion stances (souls, human from inception etc...)
Henderson makes claims concerning environmentalist stances and their "cherry-picking" of evidence as well as the uses of GMO's and nuclear energy to stem starvation and climate change respectively. Although his arguments are correct he seems himself to "cherry pick" is evidence in his arguments for them and for human overpopulation (which is overlooked in the book). The full account of issues concerning both are not addressed. Finally, Henderson seems to conclude his book by quoting Daniel Sarewitz, a professor of Science and Society at Arizona State University that "...green tactics effectively invited right-wingers to refuse to accept the scientific consensus." This is in essence faulting environmentalists (in this case) for the ignorance and false claims of "right-wingers" to deny anthropogenic environmental issues.
Henderson's book is a needed addition to the fight against falsities and ignorance. However, Henderson seems swayed by his own political leanings and biases. A worthwhile read if you don't read between the lines.
True science is that science based upon warranted evidence together with clear correlation to a consequence that is not preconceived or implied beforehand, and that is open to the public and peer-review and follows the scientific method as it is traditionally defined. The book uses ample examples of abuse by politicians, educators and environmentalists as well as the usual crew of criminals against science for economic reasons.
Henderson does a good job of pointing out counterarguments and how they fail, and using statistical data to back up his claims. Where I believe Henderson misses the mark is his narrowness in defining useful knowledge, and his claims concerning the boundaries of science.
First, Henderson seems to dismiss liberal educations as being useful but not useful to truth-finding, relegated only to the arts and creative processes, processes he seems to claim that are outside of the scientific realm. However, he also claims that to "throw out too much curiosity-led science in favor of applied work and you risk being left with nothing to apply." (117) He also references the importance of arts and creative thinking as being the reason that we must fix the inherent problems of applied sciences. This all sounds as if the liberal arts he down plays in one part of the book is given heightened importance in another part of the book.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that scientific knowledge and processes stem from philosophy, a liberal arts endeavor. Logic, for example, is the basis of analytical philosophy.
True knowledge is useful, not just scientific knowledge.
Secondly, Henderson seems to put clear boundaries on what science can address. His example is abortion, stating that "Abortion is not an issue that can be decided by evidence alone-science cannot ultimately determine whether it is right or wrong to allow women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy." (205). While this is technically correct it does not allow for science to fully address the religious motivation behind much of the abortion "argument". Science can define a human life from life (biology/chemistry) and can dismiss much of the religious arguments in favor of anti-abortion stances (souls, human from inception etc...)
Henderson makes claims concerning environmentalist stances and their "cherry-picking" of evidence as well as the uses of GMO's and nuclear energy to stem starvation and climate change respectively. Although his arguments are correct he seems himself to "cherry pick" is evidence in his arguments for them and for human overpopulation (which is overlooked in the book). The full account of issues concerning both are not addressed. Finally, Henderson seems to conclude his book by quoting Daniel Sarewitz, a professor of Science and Society at Arizona State University that "...green tactics effectively invited right-wingers to refuse to accept the scientific consensus." This is in essence faulting environmentalists (in this case) for the ignorance and false claims of "right-wingers" to deny anthropogenic environmental issues.
Henderson's book is a needed addition to the fight against falsities and ignorance. However, Henderson seems swayed by his own political leanings and biases. A worthwhile read if you don't read between the lines.
April 4, 2023
A tasteful and informative plate of scientific importance.
This book does an amazing job of explaining the importance of having science involved in many different fields and areas of societal spaces such as education, the criminal system, and environmentalism, just to name a few. A book like this should be handed to everyone so they can understand that science is not only about gravity and Newton's Laws but about it's application to the world they live in today. And all the articles they used throughout the book are in the back with the URL so you can find and read them for yourselves which is a good tactic for this book.
Because this book is a critique on science's importance in government and society, it becomes heavy at points with statistics, article citations, and the sense that you are reading yourself in circles. That is the purpose of the book, but for the average person, this can be very hard to stay with. Also, this book is primarily for the UK but, I appreciate that it has parts where they mention the US and an appendix that talks about the way it could be implemented in the US.
A long but worthwhile book that is a decent entry point into science and the importance of it in the world.
This book does an amazing job of explaining the importance of having science involved in many different fields and areas of societal spaces such as education, the criminal system, and environmentalism, just to name a few. A book like this should be handed to everyone so they can understand that science is not only about gravity and Newton's Laws but about it's application to the world they live in today. And all the articles they used throughout the book are in the back with the URL so you can find and read them for yourselves which is a good tactic for this book.
Because this book is a critique on science's importance in government and society, it becomes heavy at points with statistics, article citations, and the sense that you are reading yourself in circles. That is the purpose of the book, but for the average person, this can be very hard to stay with. Also, this book is primarily for the UK but, I appreciate that it has parts where they mention the US and an appendix that talks about the way it could be implemented in the US.
A long but worthwhile book that is a decent entry point into science and the importance of it in the world.
October 26, 2020
This book is fantastic and I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in progress, truth and science communication.
It has only two minuses: First, it's almost ten years old. It kept me thinking almost all the time if things have gotten better... or worse. Second, it's too much focused on examples from the USA and, especially, from the UK. Not coming from any of those countries, I was at times not very interested in the number of details Henderson gave of each story.
Perhaps, the most interesting for me was the chapter about the environment where he attacks radical greens and explains brilliantly his arguments for nuclear power and GM crops.
One of the best quotes:
"Science is the best method that humanity has for solving problems that don't yet have an answer"
It has only two minuses: First, it's almost ten years old. It kept me thinking almost all the time if things have gotten better... or worse. Second, it's too much focused on examples from the USA and, especially, from the UK. Not coming from any of those countries, I was at times not very interested in the number of details Henderson gave of each story.
Perhaps, the most interesting for me was the chapter about the environment where he attacks radical greens and explains brilliantly his arguments for nuclear power and GM crops.
One of the best quotes:
"Science is the best method that humanity has for solving problems that don't yet have an answer"
January 3, 2021
A very relevant topic, more than ever
The book makes a compelling case about the need for more geeks in society -> 4*
The topic is probably even more relevant than when it was written.
It is a bit long on the examples (which are dated even if still good illustrations) and focuses on politics and the public sector, missing in my opinion another big actor in society: the private sector which would benefit a lot from more scientific thinking in the workplace and would have an important impact too.
The book makes a compelling case about the need for more geeks in society -> 4*
The topic is probably even more relevant than when it was written.
It is a bit long on the examples (which are dated even if still good illustrations) and focuses on politics and the public sector, missing in my opinion another big actor in society: the private sector which would benefit a lot from more scientific thinking in the workplace and would have an important impact too.
September 6, 2022
Another one of those books that whine and whinge about the way the world is, but this one's not as bad as the one that Ben Goldacre wrote because at least it seems to have the aim of recommending things that can be done to make it all better, foremost amongst those that geeks and scientists should rise up and use their knowledge for the good of the world.
Read this if you're a geek and you're interested in learning what you can do to help.
Read this if you're a geek and you're interested in learning what you can do to help.
November 5, 2017
Great book but IMO doesn't quite address how geeks can help to engage the community at large about awareness of science/the scientific method and its importance. Feels a lot more politics-oriented, but then again the title 'manifesto' may have given that away.
We need to work together to help to address the misunderstandings and misconceptions about science.
We need to work together to help to address the misunderstandings and misconceptions about science.
February 1, 2019
Fantastic. Helps spell out many of the issues rife with politics and society due to the lack of appreciation for scientific theory and the application of logical reasoning. Highly recommended for ALL.
September 21, 2018
A wonderful book looking at the importance of the geek vote and the difference good science could make to politics if it was organised.
May 20, 2019
First off; geek does not equal scientist, or even someone interested in science.
Secondly, this was mostly boring. It did, however, raise some nice ideas and ideals to live and vote by.
Secondly, this was mostly boring. It did, however, raise some nice ideas and ideals to live and vote by.
December 28, 2019
A book that makes some incredibly important points, but a difficult and often repetitive read
March 14, 2020
205 - 2020
May 4, 2020
Cargo-cult science love this book and this word.
April 18, 2014
In Geek Manifesto, Mark Henderson makes a compelling case for why scientific thinking matters and how it is relevant to every aspect of society - whether in politics, the economy, policymaking, education, justice, etc. It is perhaps a book most useful for those who haven't really thought about the relevance of science in our society, who have spent most of their lives in the humanities and think of science as the esoteric stuff of labs and white coats. Henderson unpacks how and why science is woefully absent in many of our important debates, or if it is, how it is misused, and misappropriated. His book overflows with examples of how scientific thinking can shape and inform our decision-making in significant ways - policy experiments using RCTs to determine the effectiveness of policy interventions for instance, empirical justification in the criminal justice system, assessing how best to use tax dollars and protect citizens' interests e.g. in the debates on whether the state should subsidise homeopathic treatment or whether people should be allowed to opt out of vaccination for their children.
For those who are indifferent, but not anti-science, Henderson's book can be a revelation. But for those who think of science as something that is useful to bring up if it supports their case and something to be dismissed if it doesn't (i.e. the target of Henderson's criticisms), or who are inclined to see scientific thinking as useful and want to understand how to better weave scientific thinking into decision-making and public debate, Henderson's book can be a little tiresome after a while. Whilst each chapter focusses on a different subject area - politics, government, the media, healthcare, the environment, the justice system and the economy - Henderson is essentially making the same points and arguments for each domain. It gets a little stale after a while, whether you are already a convert or remain stubbornly insensible to Henderson's arguments. Once you've got the gist of Henderson's arguments in chapters 1 and 2, the remaining chapters are just an extended elaboration of these.
Overall, Henderson's book isn't a bad read but is perhaps most suitable for those who think of the sciences as an alien planet and want to understand why aliens matter to us.
For those who are indifferent, but not anti-science, Henderson's book can be a revelation. But for those who think of science as something that is useful to bring up if it supports their case and something to be dismissed if it doesn't (i.e. the target of Henderson's criticisms), or who are inclined to see scientific thinking as useful and want to understand how to better weave scientific thinking into decision-making and public debate, Henderson's book can be a little tiresome after a while. Whilst each chapter focusses on a different subject area - politics, government, the media, healthcare, the environment, the justice system and the economy - Henderson is essentially making the same points and arguments for each domain. It gets a little stale after a while, whether you are already a convert or remain stubbornly insensible to Henderson's arguments. Once you've got the gist of Henderson's arguments in chapters 1 and 2, the remaining chapters are just an extended elaboration of these.
Overall, Henderson's book isn't a bad read but is perhaps most suitable for those who think of the sciences as an alien planet and want to understand why aliens matter to us.
March 8, 2016
It's a sad fact that, in societies relying so much on science and technology the great majority of our policy makers (politicians etc.) and, people truly having an impact on public opinion at large (the media) have no clue about what science really entails. If part of science is, indeed, a set of knowledge and all the products coming out of that knowledge (for instance, the technologies our economies rely so much upon) it is, also and most of all, a way of thinking -a critical scepticism strongly rooted in a deep evidence-based approach. Nowadays, as every so called 'geek' will acknowledge, such way of thinking is, well, far from being granted! Education, health, justice, environment... The policies drawn from abuses and/or misinterpretations of data so as to serve, more often than not, sole ideological dogmas are not only a disservice to the scientific and rational approach that has done so much for the progress of our societies (at least since the Enlightenment age), they can also have disastrous impact once implemented. Mark Henderson's 'Manifesto' is thus a necessary call for change to all that. Interestingly though, he is here throwing his darts fairly by targeting, also, geeks themselves, encouraging them to become more pro-active and engaged in politics. In fact, with the growing interest in popular science and, blogs and social networks as tools, geeks have no excuse for not getting more involved to put their voices ( and votes!) forward. This is not, as he cautiously warns, in order to see specific policies being implemented on the sole ground of scientific evidence (many other factors can contribute to decisions made within a society) but, to serve a better respect, recognition, understanding and promotion of the scientific approach itself, so crucial and important yet so often devalued, discarded or abused. All in all, then, it surely is a long, repetitive and, at times, slightly dull kind of book but, so much needed that it deserves a read. In any case, every 'geek' should boast it in his personal library.
June 23, 2020
Geek Manifesto argues we should include scientific method, and have respect for scientific opinion in all walks of life. It is full of examples of how failing to do this has led to poor decisions that waste public funds and even endanger lives.
I agree with the concept, and I liked the ideas for promoting critical, science-based thinking, like Skeptics in the pub (p 26) to encourage critical thinking, and the Harvard suggestion (p 85) for a prize to politicians who admit they were wrong.
I liked the aims of changing public and political opinion for the better, and fighting injustice, such as targetting science-minded constituencies with small, beatable majorities. Or the focus on getting scientists and science-minded lay people to actively engage where they see science is being ignored or picked at selectively to promote a political agenda. Sites like Fishbarrel that searches the internet for false medical claims, and Pledgebank to mobilise support for action.
I struggled with the view throughout that science is always right, always good. The book is very clear on how science self-checks, is peer-reviewed, and revises its opinion in the light of new evidence. But there are not many examples of science getting it wrong. It supports animal experimentation as best method available, but that has not always been effective to prevent dangerous pharmaceuticals getting to market. What about introducing cane toads to Australia - was science was involved in that decision? There’s a chapter at the end about Green politics being driven by an ideological approach of reducing consumerism, rather than allowing growth and ‘business as usual’ capitalism. I don’t see why the book does not tackle the science of population growth - it accepts that growth will happen and growth is the best way to deal with it.
Bit of a grind to get through - more like lengthy journalism than a manifesto - but overall worth it.
I agree with the concept, and I liked the ideas for promoting critical, science-based thinking, like Skeptics in the pub (p 26) to encourage critical thinking, and the Harvard suggestion (p 85) for a prize to politicians who admit they were wrong.
I liked the aims of changing public and political opinion for the better, and fighting injustice, such as targetting science-minded constituencies with small, beatable majorities. Or the focus on getting scientists and science-minded lay people to actively engage where they see science is being ignored or picked at selectively to promote a political agenda. Sites like Fishbarrel that searches the internet for false medical claims, and Pledgebank to mobilise support for action.
I struggled with the view throughout that science is always right, always good. The book is very clear on how science self-checks, is peer-reviewed, and revises its opinion in the light of new evidence. But there are not many examples of science getting it wrong. It supports animal experimentation as best method available, but that has not always been effective to prevent dangerous pharmaceuticals getting to market. What about introducing cane toads to Australia - was science was involved in that decision? There’s a chapter at the end about Green politics being driven by an ideological approach of reducing consumerism, rather than allowing growth and ‘business as usual’ capitalism. I don’t see why the book does not tackle the science of population growth - it accepts that growth will happen and growth is the best way to deal with it.
Bit of a grind to get through - more like lengthy journalism than a manifesto - but overall worth it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews