Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future

by Chris C. Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum

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 increasingly central to world 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.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Politics, Education, Psychology, Society, Philosophy

224 pages, Hardcover

First published July 13, 2009

About the author

Chris Mooney is an energy and environment reporter for the Washington Post.

Reviews

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

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

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

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

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

[Jimmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scientific illiteracy is indeed threatening our future. Actually, our future is now in serious doubt. I am one of those who believes civilization as we now know it cannot survive into the next century.

I would like to say something about what is known as "free speech" by defining a few things that are not free speech and should not be referred to as such.

1. Lying is not free speech. It should be called out for what it is: lying.

2. Ignorance is not free speech. It should be called out for what it is: ignorance.

Some people seem to be under the impression that the first amendment gives them the right to say anything they darn well feel like saying no matter how untrue it is. Time to call it out for what it is.

[Craig · Rating 1 out of 5]

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 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.

[Dj · Rating 4 out of 5]

In spite of the title, this book doesn't really come out pointing the finger at non-Scientists in regards to the fault of why we as a Nation are lagging in our understanding of and respect for Science. Instead, it talks about the lack of the ability of the Science community to discuss the issues in ways that can be relatable for the audience in question. The book takes some key groups pointing out the issues of communication between Scientists and these groups. The major ones are Politicians, Reporters, and The Religious. It points out ways that the Science Community could improve relations with these groups and why it is so important to do so.

A very admirable book on an important subject.

[Robert Lewis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This should be the kind of book I treasure. It's central thesis--that we need to bridge the gap between the scientific community and culture at large--is both important and timely. And the book's fundamental suggestion for accomplishing this laudable goal (roughly speaking, training scientists to be more well-rounded communicators) is, while probably not the entire solution to the problem, at least an important component of the solution.

Why, then, do I feel like the book ultimately doesn't succeed in communicating its message? There are several reasons, but it ultimately comes down to repetitiveness, over-reliance on politically-charged examples, and a lack of even a draft of a comprehensive path forward.

Let's begin with repetitiveness. Several times throughout the book, I had the distinct feeling that the text could easily have been reduced to a pamphlet had the authors restricted themselves to only making each point a single time, and trusting the readers to remember some of the details. The book is fewer than 200 pages long (if you don't include the notes, it has fewer than 150 pages). It's easily readable in a single sitting. Surely anyone capable of intellectually grappling with the complicated issues surrounding scientific literacy and national science policy can be trusted to remember key arguments a few pages later. The book would have been vastly improved had redundancies been removed and replaced with more concrete policy proposals, which are almost nowhere to be found.

More troubling is the book's reliance on political arguments. I don't just mean Democrats versus Republicans or liberals versus conservatives (though the book has plenty of those examples, and is glaringly and unforgivably one-sided in its treatment, perhaps unsurprising given one of the authors previously wrote a book entitled The Republican War on Science). The authors repeatedly bemoan the poor treatment of science under the Bush Administration and cheer the election of Obama (also repeatedly reminding their readers that a chance of administration is insufficient to achieve their stated goals). Calling out Bush on his scientific track record is fair enough, but where are the equally-forceful condemnations of lefty anti-science? They're completely absent from the book. To be sure, there are scientific issues on which the Republicans can't possibly hope to earn a passing grade. But the same can be said of the Democrats on different scientific issues. For a book that, in later chapters, champions a "let's all just play nice" attitude to science communication, this seems like an unforgivable partisan attack.

Let's be completely honest. A Republican politician who doesn't believe in evolution is a national shame. It's absolutely true that there are right-wing threats to science. But not only do the authors ignore many of the left-wing threats to science, they actively chastise scientists for bothering to criticize one of them. Postmodern ideology, they claim, is not a real threat to science. But if a politician's religious views are a threat, then surely an entire movement within the academy itself constitutes an even greater threat.

Similarly, they quite rightly chastise "New Atheist" PZ Myers for his provocative anti-religious sentiment while lumping more serious thinkers like Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins into his same category, all while offering a merely superficial reading of those author's books and failing utterly to delve into the scientific, philosophical, and theological issues relevant to the schism between science and faith. While a superficial reading may be sufficient for understanding Myers' rants, a handful of selectively-quoted pages hardly does justice to someone whose philosophical views are as complex as those of Harris or whose scientific statements are as nuanced as those of Dawkins.

A later chapter entitled "The Bloggers Cannot Save Us" can be forgiven for its failure to entirely anticipate the Internet landscape a decade after the book's release, so the authors bear no fault for the fact that the chapter fails to acknowledge some of the unique threats and opportunities alike presented by these new media. Still, the reader approaching the book in 2020 (or later) will likely find that chapter offers little new information.

In fact, "little new information" is probably the book's greatest failure. To those of us who've been involved in science communication or education for even a short time, while the book's thesis may be music to our ears, this all feels like old news. We already know that there's a problem with science literacy. We already know that scientists need to become better communicators. And so on and so on. What we need are novel ideas for making progress against these problems, and the book has little to offer. On the other hand, those readers who don't already know about the problems with science literacy are unlikely to be convinced by a short book which spends more time assigning blame for the problem than documenting it or proposing solutions.

I can't say it's a bad book. It's not. It's a decent read. It just doesn't stand up to classics like Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World which, despite its significantly earlier publication, already seems to have aged better.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 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.

[Richard]

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 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.)
­

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 between science and religion, in which they pointed out that the fundamentalist Young Earth views of a subset of Christians do not represent the mainstream of religious thinkers, nor do the vehement attacks on religion by such people as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins represent the mainstream of scientists' attitudes towards issues of faith. In fact, they argue, the Dawkins-Dennett-Harris-Hitchens crowd only made the gap between religion and science more intractable by painting all religious believers with the same condescending brush.

The main point of the book is to acknowledge that yes, the educational system is doing a poor job of teaching children about science; the media are abandoning ship on covering scientific news and issues; and special interest groups, from anti-vaccinators to anti-evolutionists, are using the language of science to promote unscientific concepts, but that in the end, the group that perhaps bears as big a part of the blame as any are scientists themselves, who have looked down their noses at the need to communicate with the public, and have set up an academic training model that neither trains scientists to communicate well, nor rewards them for doing so.

A compact book with an important message.

[Kelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is really more of a long essay than a "book," and it's full of information that most scientists are already aware of: the general public is not engaged in science and there is a rift between how science is communicated between scientists, media, students, etc.

For that reason I would recommend this book to non-scientist policy makers. Teachers, administrators, media, parents, museum professionals, etc stand to learn the most from this book. With that said though, many scientists could use a reminder that communicating to laypeople in advanced scientific jargon is not effective!

All in all this is a quick read on an important topic; grab if you're interested in improving scientific engagement in the US.

[Linda Ye · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this book at a warehouse sale of the Harvard bookstore. At the warehouse, I think I was partly caught by the dramatic, if not condescending-sounding title, and for the same reason avoided reading it for a long time after it is in my possession. After reading I found that the content of the book itself turns out much more forward-looking and warm-hearted than a frightening atmosphere conveyed by the title and the image of the red-liquid containing test tube rupturing in the middle on the cover.

Overall, this is a short book by a journalist and a scientist with a rare account of the breakup between the general public and the scientific community in the United States after a "honeymoon" period in the 1950 and 1960s when scientists were regarded as heroes. The authors listed a handful of factors and a handful of events in the political landscape that have deepened the divide over the last fifty years, which are interesting reads for anyone who are close to the scientific community, or who are interested to learn more about the divide. They also drafted a possible solution, of diversifying the interface between science and other facets of society starting from changes in the present system of scientific training, where the criteria of success have remained narrow. Certainly not easy, but I have felt the sincerity of the authors behind their calls to the scientific community.

[Alejandro · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 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.

[Tippy · Rating 2 out of 5]

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 stated that he had wonderful, non-finger-pointing solutions I thought he might have come up with something interesting. But he really didn't. Nor did he have more than a few sentences about "how scientific illiteracy threatens our future." I don't know why that is the sub-heading.

His great plan-to teach scientists how to better communicate, especially in ways that the sensationalist media can accept and to reward scientists for making connections with the public-is not so great. This is a really simplistic solution, especially now. A false dichotomy between religion and science, fueled by mocking from both sides, has been set up in many minds so that nothing scientists say will help. Long, tedious, complex research that doesn't always lead to an immediately relevant insight does not lend itself to short, dramatic media coverage, no matter how well the scientists communicate (he points this out himself, earlier on). Not to mention that most of the scientists I know are already capable of communicating quite well if they wanted to.

If it wasn't so short, I probably wouldn't have finished it. Maybe to someone who hasn't been working in the sciences recently there are some revelations in here, but for me there was nothing new.

[Tracy Black · Rating 2 out of 5]

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. I strongly disagree the authors on this point. I have found science information to be extremely accessible in almost every field, and written to be understood by the lay person. Anyone who wants to know can find it. The problem is not the fault of the scientific community, it's with our culture.
Another grievance I had with the book was his treatment of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennet. He said "The New Atheists, like the fundamentalists they so depise, are setting up a false dichotomy that can only damage the cause of scientific literacy for generations to come." Forty-six percent of Americans believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old. In the face of dinosaurs wearing saddles, what is a scientist supposed to say? There is obviously a conflict between science and religion, and I'm glad to see that science is finally fighting back. It can't make any bigger rift than the one that's already there.

[BC · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 work relevant and accessible to the general public. In many ways, this argument would hold for most academic disciplines. Their continued references to humanities professors as good communicators shows that they've probably never read anything from a scholarly humanities journal!

Scientists and the science community would do well to read this book, and take many of their suggestions to heart. That being said, I found that the book probably underplayed just how pernicious and pervasive anti-intellectualism is in North America today. Science (and higher-learning in general) is facing an uphill battle today, beyond anything that "more communication" can solve.

[Bridgid · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 public that can spew scientific data, but rather, cares about the implications of science and technology on public policy and has a sound understanding of scientific principles. I was already familiar with the recent reports that scientists don't do enough to to communicate directly with the public. While the authors propose improvements in higher education they lack examples of how the improvements could be practically implemented. This book supplements existing newspaper & magazine articles, it does not surpass them in depth or scope.

[Doug · Rating 1 out of 5]

Poorly written, poorly argued, repetitive, misleading, and politically biased. Exactly what science writing (or science policy) shouldn't be.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is nice to know that someone else thinks the way I do. I, however, been to known to become rather combative when confronted with someone that is scientifically illiterate.

[C. Varn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy threatens our future is both interesting and odd. The book has generated much controversy, many negative reviews, and actually many themes in the book have been further and more clearly developed in Mooney and Kirshenbaum's blogging and article writing in the last year. If anything my complaints are that the book is too short and thus several interesting themes are undeveloped, data seems rhetorically mulled, and the best parts of the book where in the areas that involved structural problems with science educated graduate students and post-docs as well as the misunderstanding between the humanities and the sciences (and how little influence that actually has had on popular culture.) Yet, a book on a subject as broad as "scientific illiteracy" and American culture should NOT be only 130 pages. In fact, the book is actually even boarder than the sub-title suggests because the target that Mooney and Kirshenbaum have is not merely "scientific illiteracy' but scientific miscommunication, misinformation, and denialism.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum do seem to really take on some of the narratives about scientific framing, such as the "post-modern/modernist" science wars which was basically a fight in French sociology and both overblown and expanded as a means of academic turf war. This ALONE could be a good book and have been illuminating if done by someone with experience, understand, and empathy for all factors involved and could rightly have done away with a lot of nonsense, particularly overuse of post-structural semiotics in fields in which semiotics don't really apply, such as scientific inquiry or the physical nature of the universe. Mooney and/or Kirshenbuam are educated enough in both the humanities and science to do this. Merely mentioning the implied slap to the humanities--all the humanities, not just the post-structuralist influenced ones--in Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt's Higher Superstitions , pointing out Bruno Latour's lament about being abused by religious fundamentalists, and showing the limits of post-structural criticism of science doesn't really get into the real issues. I could say the same thing for his history of scientific culture relationship to the media, or his mentioning of the structural challenges to science graduate students in an academic setting that, even though scientists are said to be sorely needed, doesn't seem to have room for them. (This, however, is not unique to science-specialized post-doctorates. I have horror stories about similar things in the social sciences and humanities that I lived through.)

It is not fair, however, to review the books I wish Mooney and Kirshenbuam had written instead of the one they did. Mooney and Kirshenbaum start by critiquing the Pluto situation as about semantics, but seem to play down that the semantics about an ill-defined term always NEED to get more specific. Yes, this is not a case of "objective fact" and, yes, we should criticize how poorly the change in semantics and the controversy surrounding the issue was explained, but it does not make the case to say that because planet definition was complicated and semantic, that the definition should not be made more precise.

While Mooney and Kirshenbaum did talk about structural problems in both the media and the academy, they seemed a little too eager to blame it all on Reagan, missing the cynical use of science during the Cold War may have actually been part of the massive public relations problem in the first place. In fact, aren't MANY of the fiscal problems in academia, not just in science related to those Cold War policies? My studies of US history indicate that the Cold War distorted things--in science policy for the better---but that it may have been somewhat untenable. Furthermore, even if we were producing an army of Sagans and Goulds, Mooney and Kirshenbaum's discussion of the fragmentation of the media market actually illustrate that it wouldn't have the same effect.

The discussion of Hollywood was somewhat useful, but needed to be expanded or re-contextualized. The topic has been written about several times before and the "archetypes" (or stereotypes) of scientists are well-known. Hollywood's abuse of archetypes, stereotypes, and tropes are not even remotely limited to scientists, yet those stereotypes do not stick equally to all fields. So what else is going on here?

Furthermore, this book did not really address problems about scientific education in primary schools. Not just the lack of knowledge of scientific facts, theories, and/or models that is endemic to the general populace (and as Mooney and Kirshenbaum rightly point out, not just in the United States). While Mooney and Kirshenbaum are correct about the media role in science education outside of learning institituions, harping so much on this seems to be missing the point.

For a book that appears aimed at a general audience, it does chastise scientists quite a bit. I sometimes feel like I didn't know if Mooney and Kirshenbaum where writing for the public or for the science bloggers they criticize. Whose this aimed at? CEO's? The Daily Kos? The Nation? Skeptic Magazine? I see things that would please all of these audiences, but not developed to the point that it would really start more than an initial conservation.

The discussion of Hollywood was somewhat useful, but needed to be expanded or re-contextualized. The topic has been written about several times before and the "archetypes" (or stereotypes) of scientists are well-known. If the audience is general, I understand this chapter, but if the audience are the kind of people who follow Discover Magazine or know who PZ Myer's even is, well, I don't think I get it whole angle here.

Towards the end, Mooney and Kirshenbaum write:

"We must rally toward a single goal: Without sacrificing the growth of knowledge or scientific innovation, we must invest in a sweeping project to make science relevant to the whole of American's citizenry. ... [W]hat we need -- and currently lack -- is the systematic acceptance of the idea that these actions are integral parts of the job description of scientists themselves. Not just their delegates, or surrogates, in the media or the classrooms." (130)

I love the idea, but the skill set is not necessarily something that ALL scientist need. Yes we need popularizing scientists who are still engaged in research and who are charismatic, but part of the above could be a field in and of itself. Science journalist and science writers do some of this role, and aiding communicators could still do this. Scientists would just have to work with them. Still, most research and professional types in the scientific community are pushed for time. We've seen great models here that are still alive and well: DeGrasse Tyson, Steven Novella, Jonah Lehrer, Oliver Sachs, and even Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

So why was I harping on the books I wish this had been? Why is all the above criticism negative? Why did I not mention the controversy over blogs and religion?
I found the first third of the book fascinating and while I did have some critiques that I pointed out above, I learned much from that section of the book. The last section of the book was too short even by the standards of concision that Mooney and Kirshenbaum placed on themselves, but those ideas have promise too. I admire Mooney and Kirshenbaum's defense of the general public as basically well-meaning; yet, I don't think we can really give a lot of ground to faith-claims. There are certain types of religious, political, and philosophical l ideas that not only ignore facts and reason, but actively deny those elements of the world. I don't think we can respect those and push for scientific understanding: why Mooney seems to understand that in the realm of politics, but gives more concessions to religious ideas seems more tactical than principled. I think there is a quote in the very beginning of the book that gets to this point:

"It's a stunning contradiction when you think about it. The United States features a massive infrastructure for science, supported by well over $100 billion annually in federal funding and sporting a vast network of government laboratories and agencies, the finest universities in the world, and innovative corporations that conduct extensive research.... And yet today this country is also home to a populace that, to an alarming extent, ignores scientific advances or outright rejects scientific principles. A distressingly large number of Americans refuse to accept either the fact or the theory of evolution, the scientifically undisputed explanation of the origin of our species and the diversity of life on Earth. An influential sector of the populace is in dangerous retreat from the standard use of childhood vaccinations, one of medicine's greatest and most successful advances... The nation itself has become politically divided over the nature of reality, such that college-educated Democrats are now more than twice as likely as college-educated Republicans to believe that global warming is real and is caused by human activities. "(p. 3)

Note that Mooney and Kirshenbaum hit at the root of some problems with partisan discussions of global warming and the economic nature of denialism. Yet the don't really hit at the heart of the denial about evolution. It is NOT contradictory that people can have trust and respect for scientists but believe ultimately that on some issues there is no real consensus. That's a niche confirmation bias tied to an ideological view of the world. It is NOT scientific illiteracy or even poor communication on the parts of scientists.

Ultimately, I am glad I read this book, and so I recommend it with some major reservations. I wish that Mooney and Kirshenbaum would have sacrificed some concision for some thoroughness, and, honestly, I not only think the book would have been improved, but the more policy would come out of it, and less arguing would be made on blogs. Perhaps Mooney and Kirshenbaum will continue their working partnership and I will see these arguments expanded out in future books as I am already beginning to see in articles.

[Joachim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This first paragraph is just like a general book summary and then the second paragraph is about current society and the virus and all that:
This book was written like 10 years ago but still resonates really well with the current state of our society and with the coronavirus crisis and other events like climate change intensifying, we're at a point where the real test is coming. 2020 has been crazy and the unfortunate thing is that the warning signs came with books like this one much earlier. The skies where I live were orange for multiple days as well as in other areas because of wildfires and nature is clearly trying to give us a wakeup call. Definitely a disconnect between our society and science. But that's what we get with institutions becoming more and more with tunnel vision and as the authors demonstrated pretty well in this, scientists are almost as much to blame. Lack of communication with the people and the failure of all these really intelligent people to appeal to the public is largely a result of a paradigm that needs to change. Scientists need to be change agents in the future with all these advances in technology coming in the future and if we can't figure out how to navigate issues that come up by giving people an understanding of how things work, there will be a lot of division and challenges ahead.

How this relates to the coronavirus and what's happening right now:

People be ignoring such easy common sense and this coronavirus is really messing us up. I don't know about other countries, but here in the United States, people are almost ignorant on default and it's almost uncommon sometimes to believe in and trust knowledge and experts. I've definitely felt that it's uncommon to be intellectual and the culture of scientific illiteracy is causing people to be uneducated about important issues which causes conflict. If we hadn't had a president and a large amount of the republican party that was so much in denial and ignorant of basic scientific notions, we wouldn't have this whole divide over masks and being safe wouldn't be a political thing. It's ridiculous to think that we can still have 1000 people dying a day and it's not even winter yet. We'll see what happens but I hope we're on the right side of history and do the right thing and follow reason, humanism, and the truth.

[Vance Christiaanse · Rating 5 out of 5]

A journalist and a scientist look at the declining influence of science in the US. At the time it was published, 2009, the authors saw _The Daily Show_ and _The Colbert Report_ as about the best sources of science news on TV. The book starts with a history of the rise and fall of the prestige of science in the US since WW2. The authors saw the recent election of Barak Obama as offering hope that the US public would stop fighting vaccines and start believing in global warming.

The analysis of the problems was deeper than I expected. The New Atheists are singled out for driving devout Americans away from science. The arrogance and detachment of scientists is also noted.

The easy answer of more science education is dismissed. People in other advanced countries are about as dumb as Americans regarding basic science but they tend to be much more respectful of scientific thought than Americans. And more classes won't (immediately) impact the voting population. The US basically punishes scientifically inclined students who get advanced degrees anyway so having more of them to punish doesn't seem like much help.

The book is short, easy to read, and gives a very complete survey of the history of the American bias against science.

[Jeff Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was not what I expected. I did enjoy the book at times and I appreciated some of the thoughts expressed.

I liked the area of discussion highlighting how science and religion can co-exist. I do believe that truth is truth, and it doesn't matter from what sources it originates.

I was slightly frustrated by what the authors' state as fact as that Democrats are pro- science and Republicans are not. While this may be true for climate change, it has not been true for genetically engineered crops where "progressives" have generally been very regressive.

Reading this book made me consider why many people don't take time to be more scientifically literate. I think the best solution can come in the home. It should be incumbent on parents to take the lead in promoting intellectual endeavors. I believe this approach would be more effective than hoping universities will change the way they train.

[Brette Chapin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title of this book, “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future”, is misleading. I expected the authors to take a pro-scientist, pro-education approach, but for most of the book I felt that they were playing the blame-game. More surprising still is that they seem to find scientists heavily at fault. They start out by discussing the “demotion” of Pluto from its status as a planet and criticizing this decision as largely based on semantics. They also object to the decision on the grounds that it made the public uncomfortable. “People were aghast. Not only did they recoil at having to unlearn a childhood science lesson, perhaps the chief thing they remembered about astronomy.” (2) First of all, this fragment is not less of a fragment just because it’s long. Perhaps the authors should check their general literacy, but I digress. They ask, “Didn’t the scientists involved foresee such a public outcry? Did they simply not care?” (3) Why should they care? The scientific definition of a planet is ultimately not a public decision. The definition of what makes a planet a planet was ill-defined, so scientists had good reason to reevaluate and redefine the term. But the authors argue that, “As we saw in the Pluto story that began this book, scientists also make enemies by taking away from people things they cherish – beliefs, settled understandings.” (86) I would argue, however, that this is a perfect example of the fact that new knowledge necessitates reconsidering prior knowledge. Sometimes new information causes us to think about our previous conceptions differently, or to reject our previous conceptions altogether. This is part of the scientific process, and is not a negative outcome; instead, this represents progress in our collective knowledge. Even if some choose not to see it this way, we cannot allow the uninformed public’s cherished beliefs and settled understandings to shape the way we do science.

The authors also harshly criticize scientists for their public relations. They argue that scientists need to become better communicators, so that they can explain to non-scientists why science is interesting and important. Point taken. But how are we to communicate with people who refuse to see reason? I’m not talking about people who have a genuine disagreement with things that a scientist says based on knowledge or evidence. I am talking about people who are given evidence to support a claim, and they out-and-out reject the claim based on an emotional response. This failure to integrate new knowledge into one’s worldview represents a group of people that can never be reached by science or scientists. If one does not, cannot, or will not accept rational thought, then that person really does illustrate the “deficit model” of scientific knowledge, also described in the book as the “you’re an idiot” model. The authors add that, “Members of the public aren’t empty vessels waiting to be filled with science; the refusal to tailor such information to their needs virtually ensures it won’t be received or accepted.” (17) This point has some merit to it, especially when scientists fill their speech with unintelligible jargon. But the authors seem to be directing this comment more towards scientists’ failure to account for the public’s feelings. It seems that they expect scientist to take pains to soften the blows made to people’s preconceived notions about reality, including their religious beliefs. These factors do not need to be accounted for in the scientific process, and should not be accounted for. Selectively reporting only the findings that do not hurt people’s feelings would be intellectually unethical, and would significantly hinder the progress of science.

The authors discuss religion further, in the context of the “New Atheists”: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. They criticize these atheists as being intolerant and overly combative, which apparently makes science more difficult for the public to swallow. They argue that scientists need to be more “sensitive” to the public’s religiosity. But religion is utterly irrelevant to science. It may not be irrelevant to all scientists, but it is irrelevant to science. It’s not that making a statement about evolution, for instance, is intended as an affront to religion or the faithful, it is that religion has not been, and should not be, considered. If the statement is offensive to the faithful because it threatens their naïve and tenuous worldview, then so be it. Religion plays no part in the gathering of data and evidence, it plays no part in the conclusions supported by one’s findings, and it should have no part in how those conclusions are reported. Again, accounting for the public’s feelings has no place in science. From a personal standpoint, I don’t have a problem with other people’s belief in a god, although I am an atheist myself. I do have a problem with using one’s belief in god as an excuse for idiocy. The religious (and decidedly anti-science) right has no qualms about using religion as a defense, or worse, a weapon, and worse still, “evidence”. Given that this is the state of affairs, I don’t see why scientists should feel compelled to be “sensitive” towards those who attack them with religious “truths” and pseudoscience.

But perhaps I am being intolerant and overly combative.

[Logan Blomberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really cool seeing that this book was written in 2009 and correctly predicted where we are now in terms on internet misinformation, distrust in science, and arrogance/lack of ‘people skills’ from scientists. The premise of scientists need to work to be better communicators and the public/media needs to trust science/scientists more is spot on

[John Kramer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hits home on a lot of points that frankly get me a bit bummed out on the subject, but we can all do our part to improve our education system by getting involved. This book as a real eye-opener, it had some major politically motivated slant that I didn't care for, but it is what it is.

[Nam · Rating 2 out of 5]

it’s like a long bad magazine article. prolly the most partisan thing i’ve read this year and i lean Dem. stupid ppl abound and chapter 10 hits hard haha

womp womp

[Victor Modesto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great diagnosis, weak solutions

[Rudi Carter · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this as part of a science and society class during my year abroad in PA. Absolutely loved this book and the course built around the central tenets. Highly recommend read.

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was published in 2009. Darkly interesting to read this all these years later, especially after COVID-19.

[gia-an · Rating 5 out of 5]

read this on the beach, good read. think a version updated with covid stuff could be good.