a review of Corrupted Science
Sep. 23rd, 2008 08:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
We got home from the UK last night at about midnight EST (5am BST, the time our body clocks were following), so today has been a bit fuzzled. More later on our adventures, many of which involved taking photos of pubs, chip shops, and curries and emptied pints of Newky Brown so we could enjoy the prospect of
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I couldn't face e-mail last night, so downloaded in excess of 500 e-mails this morning. A lot of these were e-zines, so could be quickly and guiltlessly filed. There were quite a few goodies and several nasties, notably a patronizing and oddly disquieting review of The Dragons of Manhattan by someone on SciFi Weekly who seems to think that "outsiders" shouldn't satirize the Bush Administration . . . perhaps on the basis that all the world knows how good Americans are at self-criticism. That's not the only cavil he has, but it's the one that really a lot sticks in my craw. (The others may be okay; I dunno.) I find the "outsiders shouldn't criticize" a bit quasi-racist, to be honest, especially when directed towards someone who's invested a lot more in the US -- moving his whole life here, defending the country against lifetime friends and family, etc., etc. -- than someone who's just been fucking born here and so can swan around saying he's One O' De Chosen.
There are errors in the review. In the extraordinarily odd extended recitation of the plot (this is a book that is playing around with the concept of plot, so any attempt at a Daily Mirror capsule plot-summary is ill directed) there's mention of the character Depra. That's my pal Deepa (not "Depra"), who allowed me to abuse her name. There's the curious claim that only "a few" of my books have been released in the US; I've not counted, but my guess is that some 40 or so, maybe more, have been published here.
But that's not really what, in my jetlagged state, I planned to post about.
Instead, after wading through lotsa shit, I found there'd been a review on BoingBoing by Cory Doctorow of my book Corrupted Science. Here's most of it:
John Grant's handsome little hardcover book . . . is an eye-popping tour through the history of bad (very, very bad) science, from eugenics to geocentrism to Lysenkoism. Grant -- whose stern historical tone is liberally relieved with bravura dry sarcasm -- approaches his topic from the general to the specific.
The book begins with a fine, brief history of fraudulent scientists, categorizing their frauds . . . and then ranges back and forth through history, revealing the minor and major frauds of respected figures like Newton, Galileo and Marco Polo to outright scoundrels like Ruth B Drown, who sold fake radio-based cancer cures to desperate, dying people for decades.
After this delightful . . . overview, Grant moves on to different social causes of fraud: ideological scientists who fooled themselves (for example, the discoverers of "menstrual rays" and other improbable phenomena); then military fraud (CIA psi experiments, military waste on secret flying military bases that didn't, and, of course, Star Wars, junk Patriot Missiles and the Missile Defense Shield); religious fraud (bans on teaching evolution, intelligent design, und so weiter); then ideological attacks on science (the burning of the Library of Alexandria, the American Eugenics movement; anti-masturbation campaigns, young earth and New Age crackpots); and then finally onto the book's third act, a chilling exploration of the political curtailment of science.
Here, Grant begins with Nazi science, and not just the gruesome death-camp experiments we're all familiar with, but also the bizarre attacks on "Jewish" mathematics and physics and the effort to create "German" equivalents that adhered to the ideological tenets laid out by Hitler's regime. Of course, there's plenty here about junk genetics, weird theories about the origins of disease ("earth rays") (!), and then, finally, a stomach-turning look at the human subjects experiments undertaken in the death camps.
Next up is Stalinist Russia, and of course, that means Lysenkoism, an ideologically correct biology that led famines that killed millions. The social factors that brought Lysenko (and his contemporaries, including Lepeshinskaya, who advocated the idea of "spontaneous generation of life," despite this notion having gone out with Pasteur. Grant does a great job bringing these personalities to life, and giving a flavor of the reasons that some scientists were forced to toe the line while others (physicists -- vital to the nuclear arms race) were able to conduct their affairs with relatively little meddling. I was also fascinated by his description of the junk psychology that doomed political dissidents to a lifetime in mental institutions and the notion that some psychiatrists may have turned in their diagnoses in order to spare their patients the worse fate that awaited them in the Gulag.
Finally, Grant closes with the systematic attacks on science under the presidency of George W Bush, and makes a compelling case that the failure of countries that tried to constrain science in order to make it comply with ideology is a real possibility for the USA today. Grant's relentless account of the Bush administration's attacks on health science, environmental science, geoscience, evolutionary science, climate science and other critical disciplines is deeply chilling. The political hacks who censor NASA and EPA reports are clearly of a lineage with the commisars who doomed the Soviet Union by purging the bioscience that undermined their political philosophy.
Exhaustively researched and footnoted, Corrupted Science is excellent reading for anyone who believes that science is worth fighting for.
I thought that was an okay review, I did.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 12:53 am (UTC)I think it's an okay review too.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 01:52 am (UTC)"Welcome back, stranger."
Hi, Sweet Thing.
Still amazingly jetlagged. We'll get there soon.
xx
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 02:35 am (UTC)Looking forward to seeing the piccies. He is rather dissociated from England as he has accepted the fact that, on a school teacher's salary, we won't be going back. I, on the other hand, would move in a minute!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:11 pm (UTC)Pam has now posted the pix, although presumably out of compassion for Dave she omitted some of the more fashion-plate shots of Newky Brown bottles and plates of Chicken Tikka Masala. We unfortunately didn't see a traditional chippie when there or we'd have snapped that for him too . . .
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 03:22 am (UTC)Congrats on the Boing Boing review. Nice publicity! May you go into reprints!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 05:18 pm (UTC)I'll have to hunt up my makeup and a banjo, then. I presume the banjo is used to guide the rays to the desired target?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 06:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:13 pm (UTC)"They're produced on the Black and White Menstrual Show."
Go and strangle yourself at once by way of apology for that one.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:41 pm (UTC)Too smutty for me, mate. Selkie'll probably use it somewhere, though.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:12 pm (UTC)Y'know, it's always the same people who home in on the smutty bits like a cruise missile.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:16 pm (UTC)*grin*
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:40 pm (UTC)What's smutty about hips?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:43 pm (UTC)It's the context, m'dear, the context.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:47 pm (UTC)"It's what makes us charming, don'tcha think?"
Fuckin-A it does!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:22 pm (UTC)"May you go into reprints!"
The book's in fact already in its second printing.
*puffs out chest*
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:18 am (UTC)Secondly, congratulations on that wonderful review of Corrupted Science. Shamefully, I have not bought one yet, but will be doing so very shortly.
Thirdly, regarding: "someone on SciFi Weekly who seems to think that 'outsiders' shouldn't satirize the Bush Administration . . ."
I have never set foot outside of America, and yet I'm appalled by the suggestion that this reviewer seems to be making.
America has such a huge effect on the world that I think it's a shame people from some of the more USA-affected parts of the world can't vote in our presidential elections -- in a sense, they've earned the right as a courtesy. Bush is not a local problem, he's a global problem. He's certainly responsible for more non-American deaths than he is for American ones. Also, Americans have had no hesitation in satirizing other foreign leaders. We've been doing so for years without apology. How dare this "reviewer" even make such a suggestion?
As an American citizen who loves this country and always will -- in spite of everything -- I hereby grant you absolute permission to verbally skewer any American president who deserves it. And I would be sorely disappointed in you if you didn't.
Fourthly, start watching your mailbox - something should be arriving shortly.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:21 pm (UTC)Many thanks for the review congrats! Pleasingly, the review has now been mirrored in its entirety on three other sites (or conceivably more; but the Google Alerts service has picked up three). My guess is the publisher will see a corresponding sales blip when he looks back in a couple months' time.
"Bush is not a local problem, he's a global problem."
You never said a truer word, my buddy. I'm just hoping we'll not find he's been a terminal problem for the species -- that his inaction for eight years on global warming/climate change, coming just at the exact time it did, hasn't doomed us.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 01:52 pm (UTC)And welcome back!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:22 pm (UTC)Thanks on both counts!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 02:37 pm (UTC)We all have good reviews and not-so-good reviews. It's best to shrug off the not-so-good and be happy with the good! It sounds like a cool book to me.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:23 pm (UTC)"It's best to shrug off the not-so-good and be happy with the good!"
Much agreed in principle. This one, as I say, somewhat unsettled me.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 03:32 pm (UTC)Now: Outsiders shouldn't criricise Lysenkoism. Only true sons of the Rodina may criticise Trofim Denisovich. You should understand that, Gospodin.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:26 pm (UTC)"his only begotten Daughter, Sarah"
That'd be Sarah "Toinsignificance" Palin, would it?
"Outsiders shouldn't criticise Lysenkoism."
In future I shall do so only in tongues.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 08:03 pm (UTC)That it would, De Lord's only begotten Daughter, who was born to lead us to the Max Factor, or something like that.
Make sure that you criticise Lysenko only in the purest Russian.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 10:22 pm (UTC)The convincing part of the stunt is the virgin birth young Bristol's pulling off.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 03:58 pm (UTC)Myself, I would have used 'relentless' to describe the war on science waged by the D.C. Thugz.
I'm wondering: are you the only 'popular' writer to have made a methodical, systematic examination of this relentless war on science, fact and rationality by these villainous bloodsucking xtain gang of Evil?
Love, C.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 07:37 pm (UTC)"are you the only 'popular' writer to have made a methodical, systematic examination of this relentless war on science, fact and rationality by these villainous bloodsucking xtain gang of Evil?"
No. There are a couple of much fuller accounts than mine (which is, obviously, confined to just a single chapter -- albeit a longish one). Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science (2005) is a great read, and has gone through at least one update so far (when given its paperback release a couple of years or so ago). Seth Shulan's Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration, done in league with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a bit more formal -- less of a ripping yarn, in other words -- but is also of considerable value. I'm not sure if it's been updated since its release in 2006.
The two books together give a very full picture. Of course, it's always an out of date one, no matter how many updates they do! The New York Times has at least one excellent reporter covering such matters on an ongoing basis . . . and also one idiot. Offhand I can't recall either of their names, and I'm too busy right now to go ferret them out.
The Union of Concerned Scientists' website is easily Googleable, and is well worth a look. Also excellent and easily Googleable is the Skeptic's Dictionary site, which contains an extraordinary amount of stuff; you have to dig through to find the matter relating to the Bush Administration, but it's there.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 10:04 pm (UTC)Love, C.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 09:33 pm (UTC)Oops!
"Seth Shulan" should be "Seth Shulman" in the above.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 09:29 pm (UTC)It's not a bad review, I suppose...
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 09:32 pm (UTC)"You're looking rather spiffy in Pam's photos."
Kind of you to say so, but I think I look bloody awful in them.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-24 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 01:20 pm (UTC)Thanks!