Good diavlog. Great to see both Carl and Chris back at BH.tv. Carl: you raised a good point about science blogging that George Johnson will probably be happy to add to his arsenal. I think you're right to worry about the problem of science writing being put in the position where only those who are motivated enough to seek it out will read it. On the other hand, I'd say three things. First, as Sean Carroll and others have argued, there is considerably more interest in science among the general public than MSM gatekeepers seem to be aware. I think the superficial treatment all too often given to science stories in newspapers and especially on TV turns people off. This mechanism may replace some of the serendipitous encounters that print newspaper readers have had. Second, a lot of blogs that aren't dedicated to science link to science stories as they catch the bloggers' eyes. A significant fraction, maybe even a majority of the (mostly) political blogs that I read do this fairly frequently. Third, quality will always out. If a science blog is good, it will attract readers, generate buzz, and grow an audience. I believe this is true even among

I, for one, welcome our new Synthetic overlords.

What a mismatched pair, here: Carl Zimmer is obviously, in the techincal sense, a 'science writer,' whereas, let's face it: Chris Mooney is more or less a glorified pundit. It would have made more sense to pair Mooney with a fellow ideologue. Mr. Mooney displays such fealty to Big S "Science. (!)" It seems that according to him, Science exists as some sort of wholly independent, fully knowable, and (of course) fully-good 'Entity.' That's why he can make strangely Manichean claims that the Bush Administration is "anti-science" whereas the incoming Obama adminstration is "pro-science." He fails to awknowledge that most 'scientific' knowledge is the result of culturally and historically contigent processes. The Western method for doing science - that is, falsifying hypotheses in a laboratory - is a product of our own particular circumstances. (Arising primarily from Boyle's work a few hundred years ago.) SCIENCE is not religious truth; it's historically conditioned. Get wit' it, Chris!

i guess this means carl zimmer has never been to japan: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/171...2:48&out=32:51

Anyone besides me think had Carl and Chris spent thirty seconds talking about Israel and Palestine, there'd be two hundred comments in this thread by now?

Thanks to Zimmer for that argument for sending a manned mission to Mars. It's a project with sentimental resonances in need of clear thinking. So, I call for Carl Zimmer to lead NASA, so that he can at least get the engineers working on an unmanned version of his pile driver drill before he uses his awesome powers of persuasion to lure Bruce Willis into his first useful job and keep him from horrendous cameo appearances in summer blockbusters. Also, and I guess we should just endure 'heads bemoaning the death of print, newspapers were never all that useful. The irony of every writer 'head coming to an INTERNET site to kvetch is clear. But, newspapers make lousy umbrellas. And, although cheap, who ever read one cover to cover? At least, if a niche writer has a website and has a good counter, he/she -and editors looking for popular writers- knows how many are reading his/her articles. I guess print boosters would prefer a box on the bottom of Z15 to self-publishing. And, although respondents need a computer and a connection, writing letters to the editor the old way was a royal pain. What print dinosaurs are

I'm having trouble with the phrase "Bush administration science scandals". Would a knowledgeable person please step in and help me? Maybe set out a one by one listing of same?

I enjoyed this a great deal, nice to get away from the usual fodder, and there is often VERY interesting fodder not directly related to politics. Good points on the quasi science issues from some on the left too. I roll my eyes hearing Bush on stem cells, but it is nice to see someone call out the animal liberation front style animal rights nuts out, that or the hyperbole over genetically modified crops or the dangers of vaccines etc etc etc.
Not quite as eye rolling as some of Bush's science discords, but still worth putting in their place.

Science isn't a system of morality. Science can inform us on what embryonic stem cells can do but it doesn't tell us the moral value of embryonic stem cells. If President Bush disagrees with Mooney on the morality of stem cells that isn't anti-science. Being anti-science is doctoring scientific evidence. Can someone link to those accusations and their validity.

Quoting Oscar DeNoe: I'm having trouble with the phrase "Bush administration science scandals". Would a knowledgeable person please step in and help me? Maybe set out a one by one listing of same?

Although I haven't yet read the whole thing, I'm sure Chris's book, The Republican War on Science, would satisfy your request. O'Neill and Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty, which I have read, offers some additional first-hand accounts of Bush's dislike for decision-making based on data and reasoning. The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a report in 2004 titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making that gives another detailed overview (at least of Bush's first term). Their 2008 report, Federal Science and the Public Good (nicely cribbed from here), offers updates, along with recommendations for undoing the damage. Here are some specific examples and suggestions off the top of my head: Read up on George Deutsch at NASA and former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. Look into the Bush Administration's support for abstinence-only programs and "teach the controversy" -- the latest stealth technique favored by Creationists trying to shoehorn the Bible into science classrooms. Review the reaction to Bush's snowjob relating to stem cell research and

Quoting Dylan Duke Gintz: Being anti-science is doctoring scientific evidence. Can someone link to those accusations and their validity.

See the links in my earlier post. [Added] Also, Michael Kinsley's piece from 2003 is a good introduction to the stem cell issue in particular.

Ogie, nice!

Well said, Brendan. Thanks Carl and Chris. Great discussion.

Anyone besides me think had Carl and Chris spent thirty seconds talking about Israel and Palestine, there'd be two hundred comments in this thread by now?

Good point. I've been going in the other direction though. I've been so overwhelmed and disturbed by Gaza that I've been incapable of posting or listening. Science Saturday and the Free Will loneliness episode are all I've been able to handle this week.

Chris alludes to animal rights as an issue where there may be a liberal (green) constituency that is non-scientific. But most green and pro-animal positions are not at odds with science. They are straightforward ethical debates about such things as promoting vegetarianism, protecting habitats and endangered species, regulating the use of animals in research, extending wider protection to the most intelligent species (the other Great Apes), etc. Obama will not face angry leftists armed with bogus science; he will face lobbying for greener governmental agencies and greener judicial appointments.

Quoting Wonderment: Good point. I've been going in the other direction though. I've been so overwhelmed and disturbed by Gaza that I've been incapable of posting or listening. Science Saturday and the Free Will loneliness episode are all I've been able to handle this week.

What is it that upsets you this time? Why doesn't it just seem like the same old same old? Sorry if I sound callous. I guess I've certainly grown a few over the years regarding that region.

Quoting Wonderment: Chris alludes to animal rights as an issue where there may be a liberal (green) constituency that is non-scientific.

But most green and pro-animal positions are not at odds with science. They are straightforward ethical debates about such things as promoting vegetarianism, protecting habitats and endangered species, regulating the use of animals in research, extending wider protection to the most intelligent species (the other Great Apes), etc.

Obama will not face angry leftists armed with bogus science; he will face lobbying for greener governmental agencies and greener judicial appointments.

Generally, I agree. Unfortunately, I think we're in a position here where we've let PETA become the face of the whole animal rights movement, and they have long since jumped the shark ... er ... tiger. The image problem seems less bad on the environmental front. It's been a while since I heard Blowhard O'Reilly and his ilk fuming about "ecoterrorists" and "the Greenpeace types." In fairness to Chris, though, I don't think he was thinking only about animal rights when he said that the left has its own anti-science strains. And even if I'm misremembering what he said in this diavlog, I'm sure he's said before, and he's right about

What is it that upsets you this time? Why doesn't it just seem like the same old same old?

That's precisely the problem. There are "little" variations on the theme that pained me in new ways -- perhaps a greater self-righteousness than ever expressed by a larger proportion of the Israeli population, to the macabre melody of children's corpses piling up; perhaps the increasing sense of dread that Obama will join the Likud-Kadima-Avodah amen choir and continue to line up against the rest of the world voting 180-2 at the UN; perhaps the almost terminal dysfunctionality of Gaza. But basically yes, same ole' same 'ole.

Quoting Wonderment: That's precisely the problem.

There are "little" variations on the theme that pained me in new ways -- perhaps a greater self-righteousness than ever expressed by a larger proportion of the Israeli population, to the macabre melody of children's corpses piling up; perhaps the increasing sense of dread that Obama will join the Likud-Kadima-Avodah amen choir and continue to line up against the rest of the world voting 180-2 at the UN; perhaps the almost terminal dysfunctionality of Gaza. But basically yes, same ole' same 'ole.

I can see that. I never know when the same old same old will seem to me like the last straw or make me almost militantly apathetic, if that's not too much of an oxymoron. I don't know what to think about Obama. I can envision all kinds of scenarios, ranging from hopeful to dreadful to cynically realist, so I'm just going to wait and see on this one.

P.S.

Quoting Oscar DeNoe: I'm having trouble with the phrase "Bush administration science scandals". Would a knowledgeable person please step in and help me? Maybe set out a one by one listing of same?

Gleanings from Harper's Index's look back at the Bush years:

Minimum number of Bush appointees who have regulated industries they used to represent as lobbyists: 98

[...]

Number of times FDA officials met with consumer and patient groups as they revised drug-review policy in 2006: 5

Number of times they met with industry representatives: 113

[...]

Percentage of EPA scientists who say they have experienced political interference with their work since 2002: 60

[...]

Months, beginning in 2001, that the federal government’s online condom fact sheet disappeared from its website : 17

An example, unfortunately, of how anti science bias is not exclusively the home of the right: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...9-1-2009_pg3_6
to those greenpeace types, you commit the naturalistic fallacy. What is natural is good, what is unnatural is bad. Wrong. If I had a cut on my finger, I would much rather dip it in a vat of neosporin than leave it to open air, or just let it hang. neosporin is not a natural substance, but it is still good at what it does, better in fact than the natural means of healing in terms of letting things heal naturally.
genetically modified organisms are not all destructive and unhealthy, in fact, the healthiest things are likely the foods we are able to tweak ourselves in the future.
The patent and property rights issues with Golden Rice is an issue that is likely to cause more headaches for people on the right, there is no reason to have that much legal red tape based off patents for such a substance. It is why I was glad to hear initiatives gathering a more "open source" toolset in terms of biological techniques and delivery systems as a work around

It's disturbing that scientists are un-able to present narratives about the creation and emergence of artificial life that don't involve disasters. Perhaps more attention should be paid to this, since the weight of the potential con (black swan) outweighs the unknown pro. Surely there must be a positive reasons why they are continuing in this field of study? Does anyone have any information on this?