Committee for Skeptical Inquiry ™ “... promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use Skep ti cal In quir er of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” THE MAG A ZINE FOR SCI ENCE AND REA SON EDI TOR Kend rick Fra zi er DEPUTY EDI TOR Ben ja min Rad ford MANA GING EDI TOR Julia Lavarnway [ FROM THE EDITOR ASSISTANT EDITOR Nicole Scott ART DIRECT OR Christo pher Fix PRODUC TION Paul E. Loynes Skeptics’ Odysseys and Star Trek’s Voyages WEBMASTER Matthew Licata PUBLISH ER’S REPRE SENT A TIVE Bar ry Karr

e conclude our fortieth anniversary celebration of the S I- EDI TO RI AL BOARD James E. Al cock, Harriet Hall,  and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry with eight invited Ray Hy man, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Elizabeth Loftus, Joe Nickell, Steven Novella, Am ar deo Sar ma, Eugenie C. essays in this issue by noted skeptics collectively labeled “Odysseys in Scott, Karen Stollznow, David E. Thomas, W Scientific Skepticism.” Eugenie Scott, Harriet Hall, Christopher French, Wendy Leonard Tramiel CONSULT ING EDI TORS Sus an J. Black more, Grossman, Ben Radford, Susan Gerbic, Richard Saunders, and Michael Mar- Ken neth L. Fed er, Barry Karr, E.C. Krupp, shall share their personal journeys into scientific skepticism. I think you’ll be Jay M. Pasachoff, Rich ard Wis e man impressed with the many different paths they found. Following that, we present CONTRIB UT ING EDI TORS D.J. Grothe, Harriet Hall, Kenneth W. Krause, David Morrison, James E. Oberg, a detailed update of the CSI(COP) historical timeline. Preparing it, I was sur- Massimo Pigliucci, Rob ert Sheaf fer, David E. Thomas prised how much has happened in the past twenty years. Published in association with * * * Our first feature article about nuclear power is not by a nuclear engineer or a CHAIR Edward Tabash nuclear advocate (or nuclear opponent). It is by a psychologist, Daniel A. Vogel, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Robyn E. Blumner who began his exploration of this crucial topic by wondering if part of the oppo- PRESIDENT Ronald A. Lindsay sition to nuclear power is psychological—rooted in problems with how we eval- CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Barry Karr uate risk. Our cover article, “Nuclear Power and the Psychology of Evaluating CORPO RATE COUNSEL Nicholas J. Little, Risk,” is the result. I think it is a good first step in helping all of us use the tools Brenton N. VerPloeg BUSINESS MANA GER Pa tri cia Beau champ of scientific skepticism to understand our own thinking, good and bad, about FISCAL OFFI CER Paul Pau lin energy and risk. SUBSCRIPTION DATA MANAGER Jacalyn Mohr * * * COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Paul Fidalgo DIRECT OR OF LIBRAR IES Tim o thy S. Binga I write this on the day Star Trek passed the fifty-year milestone since the first VICE PRESIDENT FOR PHILANTHROPY Martina Fern episode aired in 1966. With this anniversary and all the Star Trek movies (the DIRECTOR, COUNCIL FOR SECULAR HUMANISM thirteenth opened this past summer) and follow-on TV series (the seventh starts Tom Flynn DIRECTOR, CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS in 2017) Star Trek is again getting tremendous attention. I saw that first episode Debbie Goddard when it originally aired on NBC and was immediately hooked by the freshness, DIRECTOR, AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM originality, optimism, and vision of the series. Not to mention the memorable Debbie Goddard BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Edward Tabash (chair), characters and multiethnic crew, including Spock, the epitome of logic and ra- Brian Engler, Kendrick Frazier, Barry A. Kosmin, tionalism. I was soon calling up friends and having them come over to watch Y. Sherry Sheng, Leonard Tramiel. Honorary: Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, the next week’s episode. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and his writers Susan Jacoby, Lawrence Krauss. brought to television an optimistic vision of the future that resonated with me and millions of others. The Apollo program had us on the path to the moon, and all things seemed possible. The new series was a brilliant extension of the science fiction I’d grown up with by Heinlein, Bradbury, Clarke, Asimov, and countless others. It was thoughtful. It was philosophical. It had deep humanity. Like all good science fiction, it raised complex social issues and exposed them in an entirely new light. An example is the episode in which two races on a planet are trying to annihilate each other because they think they are so fundamentally different. One race is black on the left side, white on the right; the other, just the opposite. Our noble characters saw instead only similarities, not differences, and on that point the story progressed. Star Trek , as science and exploration does generally, gave us a sense of possi- bilities, of a future better and more exciting and awe-inspiring than we knew. I think we’ve all lost something of that sense, and I think it is important we get it back. We skeptics embrace science, and that includes not just critical thinking We continue our fortieth anniversary celebration with essays by eight noted skeptics on their “Odysseys in but that adventurous quest for new knowledge and new discoveries that Star Trek Scientific Skepticism” and a fifteen-year update and its successors so powerfully dramatized. of the CSI(COP) timeline. Our feature article consid- ers “Nuclear Power and the Psychology —K  F  of Evaluating Risk.”