Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

The stated aim of this book is to argue that (1) journalists need to voice more criticism of 'the priesthood of science' and that (2) government science funding leads to false consensus and is ultimately the enemy of good science. It is written in a plain style that should be accessible to most high schoolers. The premises for Bethell's conclusions, to the extent there is an argument for them, appear to consist of the following: (1) the evidence for global warming is unconvincing, (2) nuclear power is good/safe, and radiation can be good for you, (3) dioxin isn't that dangerous, (4) African resistance to using DDT based pesiticides is causing many malaria deaths. (5)the use of computer modelling in estimating human ecological impact is unreliable. (6) the number of AIDs cases in Africa has likely been overestimated. (7) Cloning is difficult. (8) The promise of stem-cell research has been oversold, largely becuase of Craig Ventnor's desire to inflate Celera Genomics stock price. (9) we need to think outside the box to cure cancer. (10)Not many educated people ever thought the earth was flat, Galileo's persecution under the inquisition wasn't that bad, and the Judeo-christian theological tradition is more amenable to science than Islam. (11)Darwinian selection can't account for the origin of life. (12)The evidence for evolutionary speciation is non-existant. In general, I found the book of no worth, even for a highschool audience. (Indeed, I suspect many will find that audience particularly unsuited for exposure to the controversial 'no heterosexual danger of AIDs' hypothesis.) None of the discussions involving Bethell's 12 premises is particularly novel or detailed. Bethell seems to think that the notion that radiation can have good effects is revolutionary. However, my own informal polling has yet to turn up a single adult individual who has not heard of radiation treatment for cancer. Additionally, Bethell makes no attempt to rigorously connect his premises to his conclusions (and frankly, demonstrating how the Celera Genomics anecdote is supposed to support Bethell's 'business-model' of science would be no small task). Only #9 (cancer research) appears to have any direct relation to the issue of government funded research. In terms of an overview on science, it is a valueless retread of some Kuhnian social contructionist thought on the conduct of science. I generally despise the 'everything is political' rhetoric that contemporary 'theo-cons' have inherited from the 'left' of the '60's. Judging from the book's citations, a primary influence on Bethell's thought in regards to science appears to be socialist/left wing biologist Steven J. Gould. If my take on this book is biased, it is biased by my scientific realism--not my political views. Politically, I'm a libertarian and my political views may not be far from Bethell's, thus his conservatism has nothing to do with my 1 star rating. Nor does the fact he is skeptical about global warming, the dangers of AIDS, the promise of stem cell research, and darwinian evolution, particularly bother me. This isn't to say I find the reasons he presents for his skepticism convincing. I do not. But I don't really have a dog in these fights--and frankly I have a hard time seeing how/why a general audience (and in particular, either of the two major political parties) does either. Thus it is a mystery to me what this book has to do with political correct or incorrectness. Most distressingly, I find both of Bethell's conclusions and his general rhetorical style counter-productive to the promotion of 'good' science, as he claims to want to promote. In regards to science-critical journalism--'Media-hype'occurs in regards to everything, but we live in a country in which one recent study found one-in-four people believe that the sun rotates around the earth. Thus it is hard to believe we are in dire need of more criticism of science. If there is the white-lab-coated priesthood of which Bethell speaks, it has to be one of the most unsuccessful at carrying its message to the folk in recorded history. Also, mainstream journalists are typically in a worse position to discuss the relevant issues objectively in that they work without scientific peer-review and for publications with decidedly more politically oriented agendas and 'sensationalist' editorial policies. All that more main-stream criticism is likely to achieve is 'reverse-hype', anti-science coverage. Worse still, the critical style that Bethell repeatedly engages in--for example citing problems with computer modeling studies of environmental impact--runs counter to science. If you don't like computer modeling studies, then come up with a better method of modeling human environmental impact. Just citing a problem with a current approach leads to the view that we can just believe whatever we wish independent of any objective methodologies. Lastly, on the government funding issue--for 2005, the National Science Foundation appropriation was 5.4 billion dollars. Now as stated above, I'm a libertarian, so I have some sympathy for Bethell's point. However, given the fact that for 2005 the federal government extracted 2,500 billion from the nation's economy, funneling a fifth of one percent of that extraction toward scientific research seems the least the government ought to do.