1. principles
  2. Modern Science Popularizers

Modern Science Popularizers

By drorzel on September 13, 2007.

James Nicoll has a question about pop science:

Who today fills the niche of science popularizer once filled by people like Ley or Asimov? That is, who writes essays covering a wide range of the sciences, as opposed to covering one in detail for the public?

If you look in the comments, the second plugs Bill Bryson's science book, and you'll find me saying positive things about Natalie Angier's The Canon. (You'll also find me quibbling about Asmiov, but that's a side debate...)

They're not coming up with a whole lot over there, but surely ScienceBlogs readers have some ideas. So, are there good general-science popularizers out there these days? Bonus points for recommending particularly good books.

Tags
Books
Pop Culture
Science
Science Books

More like this

So, are there good general-science popularizers out there these days?

scienceblogs.com just needs to get way more popular, I think.

How about:
James Gleick

Jared Diamond

Steven Johnson

I realize that Gleick and Johnson both write at that blurry edge between culture and science (and I guess Diamond too, for that matter), but I'd say that they take the time to elaborate on the science and draw a pretty good crowd.

I think Simon Singh has been excellent and I hope he continues to write more books.

I don't know that I would call John McPhee a science writer as such, since he does a lot of other related stuff (his latest is about transportation). But he's done some stuff I love, including Annals of the Former World (geology) and Curve of Binding Energy (building nuclear weapons).

Stephen F'n Hawking did a pretty good job with A Brief History of Time.

None of the people mentioned are like Asimov though, and I think it is slightly the times. Asimov did science essays in magazines, like Ley (and Clarke and ...) and many of his popular science books, e.g. "Asimov's Guide to Science", read like that also. I don't see any market for that kind of thing anymore - more than superficial but less than esoteric straightforward explanation, that took some thoght. The essays here are good, and perhaps as close as possible.

One possible answer to this question is "no".

Perhaps there isn't anyone filling the role of science-populizer once held by Asimov et al, and this is a big part of why science is no longer very popular.

The "Asimov-Clarke Treaty of Park Avenue", co-created while Asimov and Clarke were traveling down Park Avenue in New York City while sharing a taxi cab, states that Isaac Asimov was required to insist that Arthur C. Clarke was the "best science fiction writer in the world" (reserving second best for himself), while Clarke was required to insist that Isaac Asimov was the "best science writer in the world" (reserving second best for himself).

This is supported by statements from both writers, such as the dedication in Clarke's book Report on Planet Three, which reads:

"In accordance with the terms of the Clarke-Asimov treaty, the second-best science writer dedicates this book to the second-best science-fiction writer".

I second #7 - when I was in high school, we watched some introductory Chemistry videos in first level Chem starring Hofstadter. Nobody believed me when I told them that the tacky, vaguely amusing old man was a Nobel prize winner. x.X

If you're interested in physics, chemistry and certain areas of biology, it's tough to beat Philip Ball, who's also an editor at Nature. I recently finished "The Self-made Tapestry," and it's superb.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball