DOCSLIB.ORG

PER, Vol.XIX, No. 1, Winter 2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PER, Vol.XIX, No. 1, Winter 2006 ........................................................................ Professional Ethics Report Publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program in collaboration with the Committee on Scientific Freedom & Responsibility, Professional Society Ethics Group VOLUME XIX NUMBER 1 Winter 2006 Dr. Jason Borenstein science. to encourage the courts, legislators, and A legal ruling such as this could school boards to participate in an age- The author is a visiting Assistant generate a precedent that keeps “design” old, and perhaps intractable, philosophi- Professor in the School of Public Policy out of science classes in other school cal debate concerning whether there is a at Georgia Tech and the Editor of the districts (as opposed to what might occur firm and decisive dividing line between Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law if local school boards decide the matter). science and religion.[6] When these (www.psljournal.com). Yet it is not clear that the arguments groups rekindle arguments about supporting design theory should be whether a set of criteria exists that Intelligent Design: Religious Concerns labeled as being religious in nature. distinguishes science from other fields of Aside, It Is Still Troubling inquiry, it may generate more problems There is a strong temptation to say than it solves. Scholars disagree, for From Pennsylvania and Ohio to that the teaching of Intelligent Design example, about whether Michael Ruse[7] Kansas and Utah, battles wage on during violates the Establishment Clause consid- or Larry Laudan[8] has put forward the school board meetings and legislative ering the underlying religious motives of superior view concerning the decision in sessions concerning how public schools its supporters. The agenda of design McLean v. Arkansas.[9] should handle the topic of evolution. theorists may, and often does, coincide Intelligent Design theory is a relatively with the goals of religious organizations, On a related note, assuming that the new participant in these debates, and as a but that alone might not be sufficient to problem of demarcation can be solved result, it was not known, until recently, prove that their arguments are unscientific. and that the relevant criteria have been how the courts would respond to it. It would be overly hasty and uncharitable accurately identified, we can certainly Whereas challenges to evolution have to assume that merely because someone is question whether non-scientists such as typically been dismissed on constitu- religious, that she cannot genuinely be judges and public officials will be able to tional grounds, Intelligent Design was interested in promoting good science. apply the criteria properly and consis- articulated in a cautious and deliberate Further, in principle, one does not neces- tently. The strategy of labeling Intelli- manner so that it might successfully sarily have to be a theist to be swayed by gent Design as being religion might be withstand legal scrutiny. Although the Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” fraught with problems, but there are notion that an intelligent being created argument,[2] William Dembski’s argument compelling reasons why we should be life is far from new, recent advocates of concerning statistical improbabilities,[3] or wary of the view. For one, design design theory have tried to incorporate Stephen Meyer’s argument about the theorists explicitly refuse to shed light scientific concepts and terminology in a “Cambrian explosion.”[4] There is suitable on the nature and identity of the more sophisticated fashion than their justification for claiming that these “designer.” It is rather suspicious that predecessors did. arguments have their share of flaws, which scholars, who allegedly offer a theory is one reason why the scientific commu- that is scientific in nature, acknowledge Historically, the legal system nity has largely rejected them. Yet a that there are significant components of endeavored to determine whether primary and essential way of revealing their theory for which they will not alternatives to evolution should be these flaws is through examining the provide an explanation. This is an characterized as science or as religion, a empirical evidence. especially troubling practice since it strategy commonly used to handle cases appears to be done to accomplish a Placing the arguments of design involving creationism. After weighing the predetermined legal goal, the acceptance theorists within the domain of religion can merits of Intelligent Design, a federal of design in biology classrooms, rather sidetrack the dispute from the crucial issue, judge, John E. Jones III, held that it is not than for purely scientific reasons. science and thus should be barred from which is whether any of the claims being offered have supporting evidence behind science classrooms in the Dover Pennsyl- Within their writings, design them. Many of the key arguments for vania school district.[1] It is understand- theorists primarily focus their attention design can be challenged, and perhaps able why Judge Jones’s decision has on delineating alleged shortcomings already have been refuted, on scientific been praised as being a victory for contained within evolutionary theory. grounds.[5] Further, it is probably unwise Winter 2006 Professional Ethics Report 1 ........................................................................ (Borenstein continued from page 1) Santorum from Pennsylvania, play a key human life began and their view is a Although critiques can be useful, design role in pushing forward various different “rival,” in some sense of the term, to theory falls short of providing a coherent kinds of initiatives that “encourage” evolution. However, merely because a set of positive claims about how the teachers to criticize evolution, and these group of people espouse a view and world works. Scientists rightly complain individuals are not typically scientists. sincerely believe it, that is not sufficient that Intelligent Design offers little or no to show it belongs in a science classroom. direction for future research avenues. For Design supporters are quick to attack A hypothesis must prove its mettle by example, what kind of experiment could be flaws that they detect in evolution, which withstanding the scrutiny of the scientific constructed to determine how the leads them to endorse the “teach the community, and design theorists them- designer created biological mechanisms controversy” approach.[10] Although the selves seem to acknowledge, albeit such as blood clotting? There is plausibil- design movement operates under the grudgingly,[13] that their theory has not ity behind the cynic’s suggestion that guise of promoting good pedagogy, it is passed this demanding test. design theory may just amount to a unclear how this goal is being accom- complex series of arguments from plished if political mandates, such as the [1] “Court rejects ‘intelligent design’ in science class,” Cnn.com, December 23, 2005, at http:// ignorance, honing in on both real and one that was temporarily enforced in supposed gaps in our knowledge about www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/ Dover, and parental pressure are interfer- intelligent.design.ap/ (last visited January 16, the world. It does not advance our ing with how biology teachers run their 2006). understanding beyond informing us that own classrooms. Evolution is such a [2] Michael J. Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” in Dembski scientists have not fully solved all of the politically-charged issue that it causes key questions for which we seek answers. and Ruse (eds.), Debating Design: From Darwin some biology teachers to present a to DNA, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. caricature of the topic or avoid it alto- 352-370. There is also reason to be skeptical gether in order to avoid the wrath of [3] William Dembski, et. al., The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small about design theory because of the parents, politicians, and school board frequency with which supporters of Probabilities, Cambridge University Press, officials.[11] Arguably, the goal of 2006. design make use of non-scientific teaching students good science is not [4] Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological avenues to gain support for their view. being upheld if our philosophical and information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological The mainstream scientific community is religious disagreements interfere with the not clamoring for the modification of Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2), 2004, pp. ability of teachers to discuss a topic they 213-239. evolution education so that it becomes know is central to the biology curriculum. [5] For example, Francisco Ayala seeks to more “ID-friendly.” Rather, momentum The work of scientists instead of political explain how evolutionary theory undermines an appeal to a “designer” and to teleological behind the attempt to gain acceptance for rhetoric should determine which scientific design is generated, for example, from explanations for natural processes in “Design theories are presented in the biology without Designer: Darwin’s Greatest Discovery,” government officials who are sympathetic classroom. from Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, to it. Politicians, such as Senator Rick edited by William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 55-80. Editor: Mark S. Frankel As a by-product of the seemingly [6] A point of contention,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Epistemology in James' Pragmatism J
    35 THE ORIGIN OF AN INQUIRY: EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY IN JAMES' PRAGMATISM J. Ellis Perry IV University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth "Much struck." That was Darwin's way of saying that something he observed fascinated him, arrested his attention, surprised or puzzled him. The words "much struck" riddle the pages of bothhis Voyage ofthe Beagle and his The Origin of Species, and their appearance should alert the reader that Darwin was saying something important. Most of the time, the reader caninfer that something Darwin had observed was at variance with what he had expected, and that his fai th in some alleged law or general principle hadbeen shaken, and this happened repeat­ edly throughout his five year sojourn on the H.M.S. Beagle. The "irritation" of his doubting the theretofore necessary truths of natu­ ral history was Darwin's stimulus to inquiry, to creative and thor­ oughly original abductions. "The influence of Darwinupon philosophy resides inhis ha ving conquered the phenomena of life for the principle of transi tion, and thereby freed the new logic for application to mind and morals and life" (Dewey p. 1). While it would be an odd fellow who would disagree with the claim of Dewey and others that the American pragmatist philosophers were to no small extent influenced by the Darwinian corpus,! few have been willing to make the case for Darwin's influence on the pragmatic philosophy of William James. Philip Wiener, in his well known work, reports that Thanks to Professor Perry's remarks in his definitive work on James, "the influence of Darwin was both early and profound, and its effects crop up in unex­ pected quarters." Perry is a senior at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmoltth.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Behe and the “Limits” of Evolution (Bacterial Edition). James Downard - 18 July 2014
    Michael Behe and the “Limits” of Evolution (bacterial edition). James Downard - 18 July 2014 During the Kitzmiller v. Dover Intelligent Design trial in 2005, the Expert Testimony of Michael Behe (2005a) came under fire. One of the lynchpin figures in the design movement, famed for Darwin’s Black Box, his crash-and-burn performance has been amply covered in many venues, including popular coverage by Matthew Chapman (2007) and Laurie Lebo (2008). Overlooked in the heat over irreducibly complex bacterial flagella mousetraps (and whether Behe and Ken Miller would duel with lab beakers at dawn) was a minor technical issue tossed off in Behe’s deposition and afterward, which warrants examination for the insights it gives to Behe’s use of technical citation and the degree to which he investigates the strength of the ammunition he slips into his ID shotgun. Venturing into the finer points of bacterial antibiotic resistance, Behe was bowled over by the import of Barry Hall (2004a): “In Vitro Evolution Predicts that the IMP-1 Metallo-β-Lactamase Does Not Have the Potential To Evolve Increased Activity against Imipenem.” To emphasize this “limit of Darwinian evolution” Behe included a full reprint of it for the Dover court, where one could see that he had drawn a big circle around the “Not” in the title. Arbitrarily deck-stacking his point further by asserting that evolutionists think “Darwinian processes can do everything,” Behe (2005a) summarized Hall’s findings thus: This is exemplified in some recent papers from the laboratory of Professor Barry G. Hall at the University of Rochester.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Is Not Science” Given by John G
    An Outline of a lecture entitled, “Intelligent Design is not Science” given by John G. Wise in the Spring Semester of 2007: Slide 1 Why… … do humans have so much trouble with wisdom teeth? … is childbirth so dangerous and painful? Because a big, thinking brain is an advantage, and evolution is imperfect. Slide 2 Charles Darwin’s Revolutionary Idea His book changed the world. All life forms on this planet are related to each other through “Descent with modification over generations from a common ancestor”. Natural processes fully explain the biological connections between all life on the planet. Slide 3 Darwin’s Idea is Dangerous (from the book of the same title by Daniel Dennett) If we have evolution, we no longer need a Creator to create each and every species. Darwinism is dangerous because it infers that God did not directly and purposefully create us. It simply states that we evolved. Slide 4 Intelligent Design Attempts to Counter Darwin “Intelligent Design” has been proposed as way out of this dilemma. – Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and Michael Behe (to name a few). They attempt to redefine science to encompass the supernatural as well as the natural world. They accept Darwin’s evolution, if an Intelligent Designer is (sometimes) substituted for natural selection. Design arguments are not new: − 1250 - St. Thomas Aquinas - first design argument − 1802 - Natural Theology - William Paley – perhaps the best(?) design argument Slide 5 What is Science? A specific way of understanding the natural world. Based on the idea that our senses give us accurate information about the Universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Centrosome Detection in Sea Urchin Eggs with a Monoclonal
    Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 84, pp. 8488-8492, December 1987 Cell Biology Centrosome detection in sea urchin eggs with a monoclonal antibody against Drosophila intermediate filament proteins: Characterization of stages of the division cycle of centrosomes (cytoskeleton/fertilization/microtubules/mitosis) HEIDE SCHATTEN*, MARIKA WALTERt, DANIEL MAZIAt, HARALD BIESSMANNt, NEIDHARD PAWELETZ§, GE2RARD COFFE*, AND GERALD SCHATTEN* *Integrated Microscopy Resource for Biomedical Research, University of Wisconsin, 1117 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706; tCenter for Developmental Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717; tHopkins Marine Station, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA 93950; and 1lnstitute for Cell and Tumor Biology, German Cancer Research Center, D-6900 Heidelberg, Federal Republic of Germany Contributed by Daniel Mazia, August 27, 1987 ABSTRACT A mouse monoclonal antibody generated Most all of the previous immunocytochemical work on against DrosophUa intermediate filament proteins (designated centrosomes has used an autoimmune serum from a patient Ah6/5/9 and referred to herein as Ah6) is found to cross-react suffering from CREST (calcinosis, Raynaud phenomenon, specifically with centrosomes in sea urchin eggs and with a esophageal dysmotility, sclerodactyly, telangiectasia) scle- 68-kDa antigen in eggs and isolated mitotic apparatus. When roderma (6-10). However, the inability to use this serum for preparations stained with Ah6 are counterstained with a immunoblotting precluded
    [Show full text]
  • Bioelectric Responses at Fertilization: Separation of the Events Associated
    Gamete Research 5:363-377 (1982) Bioelectric Responses at Fertilization: Separation of the Events Associated With Insemination From Those Due to the Cortical Reaction in Sea Urchin, Lytechinus variegatus Dieter Hulser and Gerald Schatten Department of Biological Science, The Florida State University, Tallahassee The bioelectric responses at fertilization of the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus are a com- plex series of membrane potential and resistance changes that occur concomitant with ga- mete fusion, ionic fluxes, and the cortical granule discharge. This work attempts to separate the electrical effects of sperm-egg interactions from those of the cortical reactions. Two ap- proaches were taken to discern the electrical events associated with insemination, distinct from cortical granule discharge: 1) fertilization of eggs treated with 3% urethane, 10 mM procaine, or 10 mM nicotine, to prevent the cortical reaction and 2) refertilization of fertil- ized eggs (denuded with 1 mM aminotriazole containing 1 mg/ml soybean trypsin inhibitor). Cortical granule discharge in the absence of sperm incorporation was investigated by artifi- cial activation with 5 pM A23187 or by fertilization in the presence of 10 pM cytochalasin D, which prevents incorporation. These results are consistent with a model in which the sperm-egg interaction triggers both a rapid (50-400 msec), but minor (= 10 mV), electrical transient that leads to an action potential and then both the Na+-dependent fast block to polyspermy and the late block re- sulting from the secretion of the cortical granules. Key words: fertilization, sea urchin, bioelectric response, secretion, motility INTRODUCTION At fertilization the sea urchin egg undergoes a complex series of electrical changes in membrane potential and resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Fraudulent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in South Korea: Lessons Learned
    Accountability in Research, 13:101–109, 2006 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0898-9621 print DOI: 10.1080/08989620600634193 GACR0898-96211545-5815Accountability in Research:Research Policies and Quality Assurance, Vol. 13, No. 01, February 2006: pp. 0–0 Commentary FRAUDULENT HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN SOUTH KOREA: LESSONS LEARNED Commentary:D. B. Resnik et Korean al. Stem Cell Fraud DAVID B. RESNIK , JD, PHD National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA ADIL E. SHAMOO, PHD Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA SHELDON KRIMSKY, PHD Department of Urban & Environmental Policy & Planning, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Now that most of the smoke has cleared from the South Korean human embryonic stem cell fraud, it is time to reflect on some lessons that one can learn from this scandal. First, a brief review of events will help to set the stage. In June 2005, Seoul University investigator Woo Suk Hwang and 24 co-authors published what appeared to be a ground- breaking paper in Science in which they claimed to have estab- lished eleven embryonic stem cell lines containing nuclear DNA from somatic cells of research subjects (Hwang et al., 2005). In March 2004, Hwang’s research team had published another apparently important paper in which they claimed to have estab- lished one cell line with the nuclear DNA from a research subject (Hwang et al 2004). If these two papers had been valid, they would have represented a significant step forward in human embryonic stem cell research, since they would have demon- strated the feasibility of a technique known as therapeutic Editor’s note: Although this piece is not related to the topic of this issue, we felt it was important to comment on the recent events in South Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Improving Animal Models for Regenerative Medicine
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Cell Stem Cell Forum Strategies for Improving Animal Models for Regenerative Medicine Jose Cibelli,1 Marina E. Emborg,2 Darwin J. Prockop,3 Michael Roberts,4 Gerald Schatten,5 Mahendra Rao,6 John Harding,7 and Oleg Mirochnitchenko7,* 1Michigan State University, Cellular Reprogramming Laboratory, Department of Animal Science, B270 Anthony Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA 2University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Medical Physics and Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, 1223 Capitol Court, Madison, WI 53715, USA 3Texas A&M Health Science Center, College of Medicine Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Scott and White, Department of Medicine, 5701 Airport Road, Module C, Temple, TX 76502, USA 4University of Missouri, 240b C.S. Bond Life Sciences Center, 1201 East Rollins Street, Columbia, MO 65211-7310, USA 5University of Pittsburgh, Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, S362 Biomedical Science Towers, 3500 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA 6Center for Regenerative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 50 South Drive, Suite 1140, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA 7Division of Comparative Medicine/ORIP/DPCPSI/OD, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 943/950, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2013.01.004 The field of regenerative medicine is moving toward translation to clinical practice. However, there are still knowledge gaps and safety concerns regarding stem cell-based therapies. Improving large animal models and methods for transplantation, engraftment, and imaging should help address these issues, facilitating eventual use of stem cells in the clinic.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Intelligent Design Postulate a “Supernatural Creator?” Overview: No
    Truth Sheet # 09-05 Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?” Overview: No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Yet actual statements from intelligent design theorists have made it clear that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer. Firstly, the textbook being used in Dover, Of Pandas and People (Pandas ), makes it clear that design theory does not address religious or metaphysical questions, such as the nature or identity of the designer. Consider these two clear disclaimers from Pandas : "[T]he intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the progress of science. For example, the place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." 1 “[T]he concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God.
    [Show full text]
  • Neither Logical Empiricism Nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was
    Neither Logical Empiricism nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was By: Daniel Nicholson & Richard Gawne Like a slow-burning story of triumph, the canonical narrative of the history of contemporary philosophy of biology tells the tale of a subfield emerging out of the smoldering ashes of logical empiricist philosophy of science, and the wreckage of an equally futile vitalistic program that preceded it. Most logical empiricists scoffed at the life sciences, and those who did deem it worthwhile to explore the biological realm produced nothing of value. The logical empiricists failed because their project was a prescriptive enterprise whose primary mandate was to bring increased rigour to biology by importing methodological protocols from the physical sciences. Vitalists of the early twentieth century were not stricken with physics-envy, but the animating forces and other metaphysical phantasms they conjured into existence to ward off the threat of reductionism were at least as ill-conceived as anything produced by the logical empiricists. Practitioners associated with the aforementioned schools failed to seriously engage with the science that allegedly inspired their musings, and as a consequence, the philosophy of biology languished in a state of futility for much of the twentieth century. Things began to change sometime in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the textbooks by Michael Ruse (1973) and David Hull (1974), together with a series of articles by Ken Schaffner (1967; 1969a; 1969b) and Bill Wimsatt (1970; 1972a; 1972b), found their way into print. These efforts are regularly identified as the first significant contributions to modern philosophy of biology.
    [Show full text]
  • CARL ZIMMER Author & Journalist
    CARL ZIMMER Author & journalist carlzimmer.com @carlzimmer BIOGRAPHY The New York Times Book Review calls Carl Zimmer "as fine a science essayist as we have." He is the author of thirteen acclaimed books and a columnist for the New York Times. Zimmer first be- gan writing about science at Discover, where he served for five years as a senior editor, and has gone on to write hundreds of features for magazines including The Atlantic, The New York Times Magazine, Time, National Geographic, and Scientific American. He has also served as a scientific editor for television documentaries, consulted on museum exhibits, and contributed his writing to major science web sites. Zimmer has earned numerous honors for his work. In 2007 he won the National Academies Communication Award, and he has won the American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ences Science Journalism Award three times. In 2015, Zimmer won the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers, and in 2016, he won the Stephen Jay Gould Prize, awarded by the Society for the Study of Evolution. In 2018, Zimmer’s book She Has Her Mother’s Laugh was named by Publisher’s Weekly one of the ten best books of the year. The Guardian named it the best science book of 2018 and The New York Times Book Review chose it as a Notable Book of the Year. It was short-listed for the Baillie-Gifford Prize for Nonfiction and a fi- nalist for the PEN/E.O. Wilson Literary Science Writing Prize. His articles have been antholo- gized in both The Best American Science and Nature Writing series and The Best American Science Writing series.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Nslivenorth Media Pack Update
    Manchester Central 5 – 7 February 2021 Media Pack New Scientist Live North Adrian Newton Events Director ❝ February 2021 will see New Scientist Live take its multi-award-winning science festival to the north of England for the first time. New Scientist Live North will feature the same mix of thought- provoking talks, interactive exhibits and hands- on scientific experiences as our hugely successful London show. We are thrilled to be bringing science to life for a whole new audience curious about science and why it matters. Over three days from 5-7 February at Manchester Central, New Scientist Live North will feature three stages with 45 fascinating talks covering everything from the big bang to the future of artificial intelligence. With seating for over 2,000, visitors will be inspired by our line-up of world-class speakers presenting ideas that explain and shape our world s from gene editing to cosmic expansion. The heart of New Scientist Live North will be a bustling 1,800 sqm exhibition space, wowing visitors with dozens of engaging exhibits from major STEM institutions and corporations plus interactive activities and inspiring features curated by New Scientist Live. 9,000 highly engaged visitors from across the north of England and Scotland will be inspired by what they hear, see and touch and have their passions awaked by new experiences and ideas. MATT RIGBY/EYEEM/GETTY MATT We can't wait to see you there. New Scientist Live North Why Manchester? As a key transport hub and undisputed ‘Capital of the North’, Manchester is the perfect location to attract visitors from across the north of England and Scotland to experience New Scientist Live North.
    [Show full text]