I’ve always been interested in how to communicate science and what I do to non-scientists.  I admit, I’m not always the best at it, but I hope I am able to convey some sense of the fun I have doing it.  Last week, on a trip to Powell’s with a colleague and some of our summer research students, I picked up a copy of The Canon:  A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, by Natalie Angier, a science writer at the New York Times.  I had seen it advertised somewhere, and had been meaning to read it sometime soon as I prepare to teach a non-science major writing course next spring semester.

My plan is to blog as I read each chapter in the book.  I want a record of what I think about the book so I can look back as I prepare for the course I’ll teach in the spring since I’m thinking about using Canon (and I’ll have to be careful not to write Cannon) for the course.  My goal, by the way, for this course is to get non-science majors interested in science.  We’ll see what happens.  If any of the dozen or so folks who read this blog have the time, I’d love to get your feedback too.  Sort of an on-line book discussion, but don’t feel like you have to read the book.  I’m especially interested in the thoughts of any non-scientists out there.

Below the fold, I’ve summarized what I think about the Introduction.

Introduction:  Sisyphus Sings with a Ying

Why is Angier writing about science?  Because she likes it.  She admits that she wouldn’t have been a scientist, but she took more science courses than the average writing major – enough to know that lab work was her Achilles heel.  She wants to communicate science to non-scientists, which is of course her job at the Times.  So why a book?  She goes through several arguments for why:

  1. The public should know more about the basics of science so they can make informed decisions about current public issues (stem cell research, genetic engineering, bisphenol in water bottles…)
  2. A better understanding of science leads to a less gullible public (i.e. The Secret, Astrology, water witching).  My favorite book for this by the way is Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
  3. A more science literate public would better understand the need for funding of fundamental scientific research.
  4. Science is fun.  But the process of learning science drives all of the fun out of it.

Angier chooses the last, because it seems to resonate the most with her.  I agree.  Science is fun.  As the advisor for our department’s chemistry club, I get to go to the local elementary schools and do hands on activities that are always a huge hit.   By the time kids get to me in college though, many come in saying they hate science.  Angier picks up on this, particularly the number of grown-ups who have flunked high school chemistry.

The rest of the introduction describes why grown ups, who have lost interest in science (or had it beaten out of them in college or high school) should read her book.  She talks about knowing just for the sake of knowing, understanding where their tax money is going and what it is being used for, and one of my favorites, being able to have a conversation with a scientist at a cocktail party.

The book focuses on the hard sciences:  physics, chemistry, biology, geology.  The table of contents tells the story:

  1. Thinking Scientifically
  2. Probabilities
  3. Calibration
  4. Physics
  5. Chemistry
  6. Evolutionary Biology
  7. Molecular Biology
  8. Geology
  9. Astronomy

Angiers has interviewed hundreds of scientists, many of whom are quite famous, and forced them to tell her what the most fundamental ideas in their fields are.  She is striving for depth rather than breadth of coverage, which is in tune with what all science pedagogical research points to (for science and non-science majors, which she gets half right).

I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, and will provide an update on the first chapter soon.  I’ll also recommend this book to as many of my non-science friends as I can, particularly in light of recent posts about the two cultures on Science Blogs.