There's nothing that makes authors happier than seeing reviewers weigh the pros and cons of an argument in their book and now SciCurious and Janet Stemwedel have posted their reviews of Unscientific America! Sci pays close attention to the role of scientists, Hollywood, and religion. She does a terrifically comprehensive review that discusses the paramount themes in our book:
While it's true that there are a lot of people out there who simply don't want to learn about science, it's also true that communication is a two-way street. Scientists can't sit back and expect their results to speak for them. While that does indeed work with other scientists, it doesn't tend to fly with the lay public. And many scientists don't WANT to communicate. Sci cannot tell you how many scientists go into lab work "so they don't have to deal with PEOPLE", or because they just HATE reading and writing. Teaching at the graduate level, even of future scientists, is often performed unwillingly and with as little effort as possible. Scientists know that their future, their career, is to be found in successes at the bench. I don't think we can be blamed for wanting to pursue our careers, especially when "community outreach" counts for so very little in the pursuit of jobs or tenure. So Sci likes the idea of incentivising public outreach, and training scientists in public speaking. Aside from getting our ideas out to the public, it would certainly help Sci stay awake at lectures and conferences! And making communication skills count for something might make scientists look on those who communicate well with less suspicion. As most people who read this blog (and many other excellent science blogs out there) can tell, if given time and the incentive, scientists can indeed communicate complex ideas so that those with relatively little background knowledge can understand them. And there is not necessarily a lack of interest. When people realize how important science can be in their daily lives, they are often interested and eager to learn. And communication abilities would indeed be very useful in getting the word out to policy officials as well. Many scientists these days are extremely specialized, and often look askance at those who "simplify" their stuff for the public. But if the public, and particularly the policy makers, are going to understand why the science relates to them and why they should fund it, they need to have a basic understanding of what's going on. Sci agrees with the authors that this should probably be happening at both the level of better science education at the K-12, and better outreach on the part of scientists. Ultimately, if we want to have our work funded, understood, and appreciated, we're going to have to make ourselves understood to people outside of science.
Likewise, Janet offered her thoughtful review, focusing on the role of scientists:
Until activities like public outreach are recognized as part of the official job description, however, participating in those activities is likely to be viewed as time spent doing something other than research, grant writing, and publishing in the peer-reviewed literature -- the stuff that really counts. For a scientist who is still moving up the food chain, there is always a whiff of danger in straying too far from the official duties. Given that research and publications are what tends to bring in the outside research funding (which universities have come to depend upon to run research programs), this is what universities will reward, and this is what academic scientists who want to keep their jobs will have to make the most visible part of their professional activities. The reward structure is science will not be changed from below. Those who have established themselves, who wield the power in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions, who allocate resources and make policy within academic science, are the ones who might be able to change the system to reward other kinds of scientific work. So while there might be a mood at the scientific grassroots level to engage the public, it won't be viewed as a central part of the job until enough of the folks higher in the science hierarchy understand such engagement to be in the best interests of the scientific community and of the institutions in which they practice science.
Thanks to Sci and Janet for taking the time to read and consider the arguments in our book! Read their full reviews at Neurotopia and Adventures in Ethics and Science...
