Author Posts Archive: Chris Mooney
Conservatives try to expose what they claim is a case of science suppression by the Obama administration—and in the process demonstrate how little they know about science in the first place.
The Waxman-Markey bill’s progress to a first historic vote hasn’t been pretty—but it has been progress.
The latest report from the Global Change Research Program tells us a lot about climate science, but it also tells us a lot about a government that is finally managing science for the benefit of its citizens.
GQ’s new “Rock Stars of Science” campaign should give not just disease sufferers, but America’s scientists, hope.
The 2009 Atlantic hurricane season begins this week—but forecasts of a tamer year should make us raise our guard, not lower it.
It’s about time everyone is celebrating Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education—she is, after all, perhaps the leading day-to-day defender of science in America.
Tom Paulson, formerly of the Seattle-Post Intelligencer, now a freelance writer, carpenter, and building contractor, epitomizes the story of the science writer in our time.
Ensuring scientific integrity in government is a marvelous goal—but achieving it will hardly be simple, even under this administration.
Recently revealed documents just add to the evidence that sowing doubt about global warming seems to have been in part a political strategy.
Nearly 50 years after C.P. Snow’s famous “Two Cultures” lecture, what can we learn from its polemical aftermath, and its author’s savage battles with literary critic F.R. Leavis?
Three key “knobs” that our leaders can use to fine tune their climate policies—the role of EPA, the payment of dividends, and the auctioning of permits—will make it easier to achieve legislative or policy victory. And if they get the bass, volume, and tone just right, they can still win.
Many students don’t see a life of academic specialization as the best way to employ their scientific talents. They want to do something more, to bring science to the rest of America.
Don’t fall for the optimistic spin that some are putting out: What happened in Texas last week was bad, bad, bad for science education.
Having just moved his blog from one mainstream outlet to another, our Contributing Editor considers the many hats science bloggers now wear in an era of struggling science journalism.Ch
The titanic issues that surround the prospect of modifying the planet, currently off the radar for most Americans, could come up in a very big way in the relatively near future. We need leaders to start talking to the public before that happens.
President Obama puts John Holdren in charge of a government-wide scientific integrity project—if he can ever assume his post at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, that is.
Governor Jindal’s assault on volcano-monitoring research is just the most recent swipe at federal funding for an important area of study.
If a major media outlet can’t even correct facts about global warming, is it still socially relevant?
Screenwriter Matthew Chapman, the great-great grandson of the great great scientist, reflects upon science, politics, and culture 200 years after Darwin’s birth.
Historical research on the relationship between science and religion reveals a story very different from common tales of discord.
Global warming deniers believe selective anecdotes about anomalous local weather refute the fact there is a globally averaged warming trend.
All the things I didn’t get to say to Stephen Colbert, and other thoughts on the comedics of science.
Despite the inauguration of a new administration, conservatives have left a damaged scientific system and an archaic way of thinking about science policy. The outgoing policymakers cannot rewrite history for their own purposes.
Are science and environmental advocates as happy with Obama’s OIRA choice as his other appointments?
Get ready for regular discussions of science all year long—in the policy arena and the broader culture. But what are we hoping to gain from this effort, and how will we know if we learn anything at all?
President-elect Obama’s pick for White House science adviser, John Holdren, has received numerous barbs from critics of progressive climate policy. Unfortunately, the attacks are a distraction from the real problems facing the planet.
Science and engineering will continue to play a key role in growing our economy and developing clean energy technologies. The government needs to enable more students to pursue schooling that contributes to our green growth.
The news that CNN is eliminating its science reporting team is just the latest blow to mainstream science journalism. But an informed democracy needs good coverage of issues that touch virtually every aspect of our lives.
It’s critical that we see the science adviser rollout given a degree of prominence similar to other top-level nominations. In our next government, science can’t just be an afterthought.
The Science and Entertainment Exchange is a new departure for the scientific community, but precisely the sort of outreach measure that can help it better connect with our broader society.
Divisiveness and the lack of shared purpose have been too common surrounding science issues. It’s time for a change.
His anti-global warming novel was unfortunate. But like it or not, his impact on the image of science in our culture was massive.
There’s much for scientists to like about Barack Obama’s plans for science policy—but will he make it a priority, and what about the money?
As the media’s interest in covering science declines, the lack of strong advocates for such coverage also comes to light.
How will unprecedented budget deficits affect the funding of American science? The answer: No one is entirely sure, but they can’t be good.
It’s entirely possible for research to thrive even as the influence and relevance of science, in policy and to the average citizen, decline. Reflections on a dramatic conversation to elevate science in America.
For eight years running, the National Academy of Sciences has offered public advice on scientific appointments for the next administration and seen its advice largely ignored. This year, the tone is different, and it’s time to pay attention.
When the public hasn’t been monitoring developments in science, people can fall back on Hollywood images of big strange projects that go badly awry. If scientists monitored public perceptions, they could engage before misinformation spreads.
Both presidential candidates have now answered 14 questions about science policy—but it’s not enough.
We should use hurricanes to discuss global warming, but we have to do it with rigorous fidelity to the current state of scientific understanding.
If we’re focusing attention on storms in 2008, then let’s also pay serious attention to oft-neglected matters of hurricane preparedness policy.
Americans are confident in the leaders of the scientific community. But are they interested in those leaders’ policy recommendations?
Is the U.S. really producing fewer and fewer scientists—and is the answer to simply crank out more?
The FBI’s case against Bruce Ivins summons mythical fears of science as a perilous ethical endeavor—and that’s a threat to the image of scientists everywhere.
While everybody is talking about energy these days, they’re not necessarily talking about the scientific opportunity so much as the business one. The moment is right for researchers to take up—with a sense of unshaking mission and purpose—the grand cause of a generation.
How many more sordid tales concerning the Environmental Protection Agency can actually come out before November?
Don’t look now, but we’re peering down yet another possible threat to Americans’ ability to drive their cars in a way that they can remotely afford—an active Atlantic hurricane season.
Randy Olson’s new global warming mockumentary,
Sizzle, burns into your mind a lesson about how to reach broader audiences with science.
Suing companies that pump greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere for damage to cities and states proved difficult a few years ago. But the latest court rulings could set the stage for a climactic battle over who pays for overheating the planet.
Young scientists today have a hunger for outreach training. Here are some concepts, conceits, and lessons learned from an attempt to help them deal with the media.
Sure, it would be nice if we could better educate members of Congress about science. But why not go further by electing more scientists in the first place—and training unelected Ph.D.s in the politics of influence?
Now even the Bush administration basically admits that it misused and suppressed global warming information and the scientists who purvey it. Is the battle finally over?
The World Science Festival in New York City was a huge success—and that’s because it garnered attention that ranged far beyond coverage in traditional science media outlets. But to communicate science broadly, there’s still a long way to go.
Why the economic side of the global warming debate needs a more balanced ledger.
New proposals to revive literary scholarship with scientific methods could build a bridge between two long-separated academic worlds. The result could be a better understanding of both science and literature.
Two writers claim there is no assault on the scientific information that informs public policy and don’t even bother engaging the facts of the case.
Death tolls continue to rise, a product of poverty, poor infrastructure, and a negligent government. Better forecasting for the North Indian region would be a start for protecting citizens from future cyclones. Democracy in Burma probably wouldn’t hurt, either.
There has been a near-complete breakdown at our central environmental regulatory agency under the Bush administration.
The successful rightwing documentary demonstrates that science needs a loud, accessible, entertaining, mass media response to creationist nonsense.
The chief lessons learned from ScienceDebate2008: ignore naysayers, and never give up.
We desperately need to adapt our coastal infrastructure to climate change.
When are Americans finally going to get accurate, timely information–not to mention action–from their government about global warming risks to the Gulf Coast and elsewhere? Part I of a two-part column series.
By constantly criticizing and responding to anti-science forces, are we only strengthening and propping them up?
The latest scientific research suggests that current biofuel production might not reduce carbon emissions significantly, or at all. It’s clear now that the issue is “wickedly complicated.” Are we wise enough to handle it?
A strong judicial rebuke to the Bush administration’s indefensible behavior on mercury pollution may mark the end of an embarrassing era during which the toxin poured into our ecosystems.
How are Americans supposed to figure out the candidates’ stances on matters of science and technology policy? Answer: They won’t unless they strongly care to know in the first place—and even then, they can’t learn much of anything directly from the candidates themselves.
We need more popular intersections of scientific thinking with the other lenses through which we see the world.
The quest to restore dedicated science advice for Congress through a reborn Office of Technology Assessment has proven more difficult than one might have supposed.
The latest scientific workforce debate underscores the importance of science graduates learning about something other than science.
Humans should be extremely cautious about meddling any further with the Earth’s atmosphere. But we should study the possibility nevertheless, in case someone else tries it—or in case we don’t have a choice.
How U.S. media coverage of global warming finally moved past “he said, she said, we’re clueless.”
How should we think about the relationship between global warming and an increased risk of wildfires to the United States?
Scientific integrity and scientific innovation aren’t necessarily—or always—the same thing. There are important distinctions that must be made if we are to marry sound scientific research with sound science and technology policymaking.
Scientific facts no longer speak for themselves. In the age of the Internet, facts need to be framed for diverse audiences spread across fragmented media outlets.
