Unscientific America - Book Report/Review Example

Unscientific America Question 1: Politicians and the people are at loggerheads. Not for the question of voting some particular party to power. The bone of contention is support and opposition to science. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have dealt with issues with far reaching consequences not only relating to the lifestyles but to that of survival of humankind. According to the authors, the individual who has the highest regard for science finds it difficult to come to its all-out defense. The authors in the book, “Unscientific America,” argue, “Even as science is crucial to the fate of twenty-first –century America, it’s under assault from new forces that not even the science-friendly Obama administration can fully address, because they’re as much cultural and economic as directly political in nature.”(xi) A confusing situation has developed in America for which a well thought out long-term solution is needed. The main purpose of the book is to warn all the concerned sections of American society well in time regarding the societal attitudes to the research projects on science and the possible corrective course needed. The younger generation of America is no more fascinated about the stunning development in the area of science. Does that research benefit humankind in the real sense or will it generate more problems for the society, is the moot question. In support of their contention the authors argue, “The army of young researchers on campuses across the country who do not want to be just scientists, but instead nourish a powerful desire to reach out to the society in which they live, and to which they owe so much.”(xi) The torch of scientific research has been passed on to a new generation. It now depends what they do with what their predecessors have left, and the conditions in which they left it. Question 2: The writer and the scientist make it an eminent pair to write a book on a subject of this nature. Scientific illiteracy threatens American future. America cannot afford the rift between the world of science and the rest of society. They need to live together in tandem. Science is such a vast subject and one cannot put all its branches in one bracket, and term them as permanently good or bad. Moreover, there has been a staggering growth of scientific research, even the scientists are baffled by its rapidity of its expansion. For example, global warming was a non-issue a couple of decades ago. Now its implications are on many branches of science, politics, economics, danger to cities located on the coastal areas and a host of other subjects. The journalists are doing overtime writing articles on global warming and allied subjects. I agree with the authors’ assertion that the post-atomic bomb era after World War II, was the golden era for the scientists and they were held in awe and admiration by the political leadership of America. The important issue about scientific researches and achievements is they create parallel channels of construction and destruction. The political equations changed, top scientists from all over threw world, especially from the European countries, began to immigrate into the US, and grants for scientific research kept on mounting. But when the negative side of it became clear, the damaging consequences were evident, the attitudes turned hostile. Science once dominated over politics, but for this development, fraternity of scientists should not be blamed. But political control over scientific research is absolutely essential, in the overall interest of national security, and scientist cannot be given a freehand in this area. Question 3: The authors express their ardent love for science and they state, “We need science to reestablish its core relevance to American life, to enjoy the standing and visibility it had in the late 1950s and early 1960s.”(130) But it is difficult for me to agree with the authors on this contention. Why science should return to its standing in the post-war era? The damaging effects of scientific development in areas like pollution, health and a host of other issues are becoming evident, and science needs watch and check in every important area. Not alone the research related to atomic bomb, but even a pencil bomb needs detailed control. A pencil bomb has the latent destructive capacity to destroy a giant air-craft. The staggering budget allocations in the area of internal security in every department and for guarding production centers and installations is due to terrorists adopting scientific techniques for their destructive misadventures. Since the ultimate sufferers are the general public, they are entitled to know the mind of the government, which area of science is marked for development in the country and why. The big research projects should be available for public scrutiny, through appropriate forums. Question 4: I consider this book to another product of materialistic civilization and internet revolution. The authors have brought a new topic into discussion. But their contention and complaint that science does not command the same awe and reverence that it did once upon a time, is just one of those observations. No branch of knowledge will command uniform respect for all time to come. Take for example the branch of Electrical Engineering. It once commanded lots of demand with the students. Later Electronic Engineering took over the lead. To say that Electrical Engineering should command the same importance is an untenable argument. Market forces and individual preferences come to play and the scale tilts accordingly. Science is like the galloping horse. Unless perfect controlling mechanisms are finalized for every important branch of scientific research, it cannot demand unconditional respect and patronage. It is true that science and the progress of humankind are intimately linked. Science should not be allowed to become the casualty of culture war. True religion and science are alternative beats of the same heart. Spirituality is the science of sciences. The rift between the religious and scientific communities is due to lack of understanding from both ends. The authors argue, “That such reactions can only damage the cause of scientific literacy for generations to come. It threatens to leave science itself caught in the middle between extremes, unable to find cover in a destructive, seemingly unending culture war.”(97-98) The emotional tone in religious and scientific discussions needs to be avoided and moderation with either side is needed. For every argument there is a counter argument, and such an approach will lead to a no-win situation. The ideal meeting ground is between a faith-based scientist and a spiritual personal with scientific approach. The joint efforts of Chris Mooney and scientist and writer Kirshenbaum have delivered tangible results and served the intended purpose of their writing. The growing gap between the scientific and popular cultures has engaged their particular attention and they have given solutions in the light in which they perceived the issues. Science and scientists enjoyed their heydays during and immediately after the World War II. The politicians, planners and intelligentsia then agreed that science is panacea for all the societal problems. The situation reversed soon. Culture took over the driver’s seat and people came to believe that scientific research, results and products created more problems that what they were going to solve. Fresh problems sprouted with each solution. Grading: Notwithstanding my fundamental differences with the assertion of the authors as for their taking side with the science, I am willing to give grade A for this book. Normally, only the spiritualists are at loggerheads with science. The authors have opened up a second front. The time has come to apply break for scientific research, and take stock of the research done so far. The pursuit of scientific research for its own sake needs to be put a stop to. No right thinking people can afford this luxury and squandering of taxpayer’s wealth. But, while there are definitely lessons to be learned, the authors do not convince me that science should return to its standing in the post-war era. Much of the appreciation for science then was based on awe and an almost blind trust in the power of chemicals and machinery. Instead of returning to a previous state of prominence, wouldn’t it be better to achieve a modern level of importance, a place where the public is informed about what research is done in the laboratories, and why? The assertion of the authors that there exists a rift between science and society is correct. But they stumble, when they begin the blame game and tender solutions. Their observation that media does not give adequate coverage to science and technology, is far from convincing. They also indicate that the content and quality of the articles on the subject of science are poor. Hollywood also should not be blamed for their lackluster approach to science themes. The basic objectives of Hollywood industry are to entertain and make money and it should get themes to dramatize. Hollywood is not there to placate science, nor it is the objective of science to please Hollywood. Work Cited Mooney, Chris (Author) Kirshenbaum, Sheril (Author) Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future. Basic Books; 2009, Print. Read More