Well...I am not bringing this blog back to life for the moment...but I also can't avoid a major update like this.
I'm happy to announce that an article I did for Seed last year, about the Dover evolution trial, is now contained in Houghton-Mifflin's Best American Science and Nature Writing 2006, edited this year by Brian Greene.
Obviously this volume, by definition, has lots of great stuff in it, including articles by Daniel Dennett, Dennis Overbye, Charles Mann, and many others. I hope you'll check it out. You can buy the book here.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I have a whole pile of science-y book reviews on two of my older blogs, here and here. Both of those blogs have now been largely superseded by or merged into this one. So I'm going to be slowly moving the relevant reviews over here. I'll mostly be doing the posts one or two per weekend and I'll…
Writing the first line of your first blog is even harder than starting to write a book. Blogging is an instantaneous conversation, and nobody wants to begin a conversation with a bad beginning. (Plus, you can always change the first line of your book, at least until it's published, and that takes…
One of my healthier, but alas more expensive habits, is that I walk a mile or so several times a week to my neighborhood shopping area and visit one or another bookstore. I live in a college town, so my neighborhood shopping area has some of the best bookstores anywhere. Not just a university…
I was browsing the NYTimes list of the 100 notable books of 2007 and was surprised to note that only one science book is included on that list! This is even more amazing when you realize that Natalie Angier, who wrote The Canon (a book that I reviewed but didn't like), was not even included in the…
Sir,
I enjoyed your book, The Republican War on Science, very much. I'm sure you heard this before...if you had called the book "The War On Science", a lot more Republicans would have read it.
Joe Sullivan
Frisco, (in by god TEXAS)
Here is a new course you could recommend to some of your journalist friends--or not--who have a weak understanding of science issues.
http://www.badscience.net/?p=306#more-306
"I know a fair few of you are journalists, and I thought I would mention something that I'm in the process of planning to see if you had any thoughts.
Along with a couple of friends I am setting up a short course for journalists on how to interpret scienific research data, especially health data, focusing on clinical trials, claims for efficacy, and claims of harm. This will open covering simple issues like "what is a trial", "what is a placebo", "what does statistical significance mean", and so on, but it will go on to cover much more interesting and important areas, like how to spot the classic flaws in research data, the different ways of expressing risk, and what questions to ask to get the most useful information out of researchers/press officers/companies/cranks."
How pleasant to learn that this is not the same series or publisher as The Best American Science Writing 2005, which included a piece by your close personal friend David Berlinski.