OPINION NATURE|Vol 456|11 December 2008

the virulent leaf rust fungus, to show that breeding, and should they thus be conserved in argumentative or analytical approach would traditional, allegedly outmoded forms of land their remote centres of origin? Or can they be have addressed why popular science matters. use may help to solve modern environmental used on a larger scale in intensive agricultural The relationship of science to people and problems. The opposing side advocates modern, landscapes? The integration of traditional and to the broader culture was, in the period she technology-intensive, high-performance forms modern practices into agricultural systems that describes, gaining importance as the sci- of agriculture that safeguard large parts of the are productive yet sustainable, consideration ences began to have a significant impact on world’s food supply today, but are not resilient of the needs of small-scale farmers and main- ordinary lives. The possibility that scientists and depend on significant inputs of fossil fuels tenance of diverse ecosystems will all remain might have a negative impact, through their that may become expensive in the future. conflict-laden — but they represent crucial perceived responsibility for new weapons and Nabhan notes the often overlooked contri- challenges in the quest to feed the world. ■ mass-production machinery, was a live issue. butions of traditional ecological knowledge Tobias Plieninger heads a group on ecosystem More historical studies of the vehicles of sci- to sustainable food production. After reading services at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of ence communication are needed so that we can the book, major questions arise. Do locally Sciences and Humanities, Jägerstrasse 22/23, understand the interplay between science and domesticated plants have an archival function 10117 Berlin, Germany. society; but this requires more than narrative. that provides genetic varieties for modern plant e-mail: [email protected] So little is published in this area that it would be unfair to ask LaFollette to draw international comparisons. With a myriad of local commercial stations to follow and many potential stories to tell, she has a more Early days of science broadcasting difficult job than scholars of British science radio, for example, where for the same period Science on the Air: Popularizers and publisher Edward Scripps established the there was one monopoly broadcaster, the BBC. Personalities on Radio and Early Television Science Service news bureau in 1920, which LaFollette describes how in the United States by Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette was highly influential in both print and radio scientists preferred a lecture format, but were Chicago Univ. Press: 2008. 324 pp. $27.50 for four decades. The one post-war chapter, put under pressure to make their programmes which benefits from an established secondary more entertaining or risk marginalization. In literature, discusses science on US television Britain, producers remained deferential and Writing popular science and writing about in the 1940s and 1950s. Here LaFollette con- accepted that information should be conveyed popular science are very differ- trasts the sober style directly from the authority to the viewer — ent endeavours. The former is of The Johns Hopkins “public men personally discussing events in at least as old as John Newbery’s Science Review (from the news”, as one producer put it. Unlike in Newtonian System of Philosophy 1948) with the more the United States, elite scientific organizations (1761), with its star Tom Tele- entertaining formats such as the Royal Society and the British Asso- scope, and has been practised in sponsored by the Bell ciation repeatedly sought control over broad- every medium in turn: lectures, Telephone System and casts. A common element was the growing books, news papers, magazines, programmes made by importance of the skilled intermediary, and cinema, radio, television and Disney from 1954. mediation by a presenter was the norm on the Internet. But analysing it tele vision by the late 1950s. ARCHIVES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION is a recent pursuit, tied to the Today the media market growth of university science- is global. Producers work in studies departments concerned a multichannel world, where with science’s social dimensions. no country’s output can afford Although now established, the to limit itself to national con- field is not so overpopulated that cerns. Single broadcasters can there is agreement about how to rarely afford the cost of ambi- do it, or for whom. tious science shows and so seek Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette to collaborate. Co-production has written on the history of has led to a homogenization popular science for more than 25 years, and of style, moving closer to the is best known for Making Science our Own: Scientists conveyed information directly to the US entertainment model and Public Images of Science, 1910–1955 (Univ. public in early radio broadcasts. away from the earnest, deferential treatment Chicago Press, 1990). In her new book, Science LaFollette describes in 1920s radio. Some on the Air, she reveals from primary sources Science on the Air has an academic level commentators fear that the science in science the story of the first 20 years of science broad- of detail. But LaFollette writes in a narrative programming is reaching homeopathic con- casting on US radio. We meet the Smithso- style, with occasional touches of whimsy — centration. The continuing presence of science nian Institution’s Austin Hobart Clark, who “microphones trembled during atomic bomb in the schedules, evidently vulnerable to broad- initiated a series of scientists’ radio lectures in tests and rattled with impassioned debate”, for casting fashions, demands investigation. This 1923, and Thornton Burgess, who transferred example. This choice has consequences; after book shows it can be done. ■ from writing children’s nature books to radio reading it, you will know what happened to Tim Boon is chief curator at the Science Museum, programmes. LaFollette discusses how the US science radio and early television, but you London, and author of Films of Fact: A History of scientist William Ritter and the newspaper may wonder why you need to know it. A more Science in Documentary Films and Television.

708