Tutoring Future Presidents On The Science Behind The Headlines

Wed 07 Jan 2009

Join The Flow!

TS-Si News Feed

Latest Articles

Recent Comments

News Sections

Science

Medicine

Living

Government

Opinion

Latest Titles

Opinion Columns

Off Tangent Comix

DSM-V Update

See continuing updates on the APA, DSM, and the upcoming DSM Fifth Edition (DSM-V).

See our Annotated List of DSM-related news, research reports, analyses, and opinion pieces.

Visit the TS-Si Article Archive for reports on science, medicine, government, society, and other topics.

Chad A. Mirkin, Northwestern University, George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. Photo by Bill Arsenault.

DNA Blueprints Guide The Construction Of Specific Human Structures

Chad Mirkin discusses using DNA to build a three-dimensional structure out of gold, likening the process to building a house. Starting with basic materials such as bricks, wood, siding, stone and shingles, a construction team can build many different types of houses out of the same building blocks.

The article includes an audio recording of the full interview. Photo courtesy of the UCSD School of Medicine.

Tutoring Future Presidents On The Science Behind The Headlines

Science - Science Enterprise

TS-Si News Service

Sunday, 31 August 2008 16:30

Richard A. Muller (University of California, Berkeley).

TS-Si Science Enterprise

Berkeley, CA, USA. In the event of a nuclear standoff between the United States and another natiion, wil the new president know enough about the physics of nuclear weapons to assess the threat? A new book distills essential physics for the next president and serves as a potential for future efforts in other fields, such as biology, genetics, and health policy.

In leading the nation toward reduced greenhouse gas emissions, would the president understand which technologies would best decrease America's carbon footprint? If not, he might want to read a new primer by physicist Richard A. Muller (University of California, Berkeley).

Cover: Physics for Future Presidents. Richard Muller.

Physics for Future Presidents. Richard Muller. New York: W. W. Norton. July 2008. ISBN-10: 0393066274; ISBN-13: 978-0393066272.

The book is intended for would-be leaders, providing them with the scientific literacy needed to challenge ill-informed, partisan advice on science-based issues (such as terrorist threats, global warming, the value of manned exploration of space, and the dangers of nuclear weapons). The idea is to minimize deference to advisors and provide candidates and presidents with support when they publicly explain and defend their decisions.

"It's hard to think of an issue these days that doesn't have a science or high tech angle to it," said Muller, a professor in UC Berkeley's physics department for 30 years and an experimental physicist and astrophysicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "My real goal is to make the dialogue more based in knowledge and fact, because I think that will cool down the rhetoric and help bring opposite sides of the political spectrum together to reach agreement."

A big reason such a book is needed is the current lack of scientists at the highest level of government to advise the president, said Muller, a former MacArthur "genius" Award winner who for 34 years was a member of the Jasons, a group of top-level scientists who advise the U.S. departments of defense and energy as well as NASA on technological issues.

"There used to be a science advisory committee that was in constant contact with the president and was expected to think through technology and make suggestions," Muller said. "There is nothing like that anymore."

The need for such advice was demonstrated in 2003, said Muller, when President George W. Bush touted a future hydrogen economy in his State of the Union address, despite the fact that there are many problems with the use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel.

"There was nobody there to stop him and say, "No, this isn't going to work,'" Muller said. "I doubt that he knew, for example, that hydrogen is currently made from fossil fuels in a process that emits greenhouse gases, or that liquid hydrogen contains only a quarter the energy of gasoline per gallon, severely limiting an auto's range."

A year later in Bush's State of the Union message, there was no mention of the hydrogen economy, said Muller, who suspects that the president learned some physics in the interim.

Muller's book is an outgrowth of a popular UC Berkeley class by the same name taught by Muller since 2000 that has achieved fame through freely-available Webcasts. One Iraq war soldier called it a "lifeline" during his deployment in Iraq, saying that the course teaches "the basics needed to be an informed, critical-thinking citizen of our country." In a poll taken last semester by the Daily Californian, UC Berkeley's student newspaper, Muller's class was voted "Best of Berkeley." Muller has received e-mail from people in 48 states and 84 countries thanking him for the Webcasts.

Despite a class enrollment of 500 students per semester — the maximum the lecture hall can hold - and many online followers, Muller decided he wanted an even larger audience. Hence, a textbook — currently used at 10 other universities - and now a book for the general public that covers the physics behind major issues facing the country today: terrorism, nuclear power and nuclear bombs, energy and global warming, and space.

Muller's book dispels many myths and gathers facts that even many physics professors find surprising.

"A lot of people base their opinions on the equivalent of urban legends: stories that are so powerful that you assume they are incontrovertible, but which may not actually be true," Muller said.

Among these legends is that of the danger of radioactivity at even small doses. Muller said an irrational fear of radioactivity interferes with discussion of nuclear power as an alternative to other, more polluting sources of power, including coal.

"People are afraid of radioactivity because it is invisible and unknown," he said. "But that doesn't mean that we can't detect and work with it. Part of this wariness is that people don't trust the government when it says, 'Don't worry.' Well, they don't have to trust the government — they can actually learn what levels of radioactivity are and what they cause and make their own judgment."

Physicist Richard A. Muller (University of California, Berkeley).

Muller says the facts he presents in the book are not meant to change people's minds but provide background for making decisions. "Policy," he said, "is outside the purview of physics — but policy should be based on facts and understanding.

"When I teach my class, I say, 'I don't care if you are pro- or anti-nuke, you're going to learn about nukes. Maybe your opinion will be strengthened; if so, you will have a way of defending your opinion that is far more powerful than just stating it. Maybe your opinion will change. I don't know, and that is not my role. My role is to give you the facts. Once you understand the facts, your opinion is as good as anyone else's — and maybe better.'"

Muller's "refuge in the facts" runs counter to the attitude of some scientists today, he said. For example, while the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote an objective report on the perils of global warming, "many who describe the report, even members of the panel, when speaking as individuals, put spin on their description that is not in the report."

This includes co-prizewinner Al Gore, who exaggerates many of the panel's findings and implies in his book and movie that his opinions are actually the IPCC consensus, said Muller, who has credentials of his own as author of a respected technical book on climate change in Earth's history. Many climate scientists have remained silent about these misleading statements, hoping that the exaggerations stimulate public interest. Muller acknowledges this benefit, but feels that there is a core of intelligent readers that deserve to know the whole truth. That includes anyone running for office.

Widespread acceptance of the exaggerations has led, for example, to the belief that the United States is the main culprit in global warming. In fact, said Muller:

The IPCC climate models attribute only one-fifth of a degree Fahrenheit of global warming to the United States — a quarter of the total 0.8°F warming estimated to have occurred over the past 50 years.
While the U.S. contribution is far more than that of any other country and disproportionate with the rest of the world, if the nation continues at its current rate of emissions, it will be responsible for another 0.2 degrees of warming in the next few decades.
The emerging economies of China, India and Russia combined could contribute 4 to 5 degrees of warming.
Thus, whatever the United States does to limit carbon emissions could quickly be negated by actions in the developing world.

China, in particular, might choose not to slow economic growth — and carbon emissions — until its people reach the same level of wealth as people in the United States.

"In the end, the issues go beyond physics, but we need to recognize that many measures we institute in the United States to deal with global warming can be classified as feel-good measures or setting-the-example measures," he said. "We have to ask ourselves which example the developing world will follow — our example of reducing carbon emissions or our example of generating enormous wealth."

Muller's efforts to present just the facts often earn him attacks from both sides of a debate, with each claiming he is on the other's side. One of his proudest moments came after a semester of discussion of nuclear bombs and terrorism and global warming, when a student asked him what his politics were.

"Just in asking the question, he gave me a great compliment," Muller said, noting that he refused to divulge his voting preferences. "Science should be nonpartisan, and that's how I try teach it."

Muller is unsure whether either presidential candidate has seen his book, but he has already gotten it into the hands of some of the candidates' senior advisors. His goal is not to turn the candidates into physicists, but to give them the knowledge they need to make more informed decisions, and to be better able to defend those decisions to the public.

"The book was really written for two people," he said, "though, ultimately, just for one. I just don't know which one."

Richard Muller is a Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

He is the author of several other books: Nemesis (about dinosaur extinctions, 1988), The Three Big Bangs (with Phil Dauber, 1996), Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes (with Gordon MacDonald, a technical introduction to paleoclimate study, 2000), and The Sins of Jesus (1999, a novel in which Jesus is depicted as a prophet, with no supernatural powers).

Physics for Future Presidents. Richard Muller. New York: W. W. Norton. July 2008. ISBN-10: 0393066274; ISBN-13: 978-0393066272.

Publisher's Abstract

We live in complicated, dangerous times. They are also hyper-technical times. As citizens who will elect future presidents of the most powerful and influential country in the world, we need to know—truly understand, not just rely on television's talking heads—if Iran's nascent nuclear capability is a genuine threat to the West, if biochemical weapons are likely to be developed by terrorists, if there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels that should be nurtured and supported by the government, if nuclear power should be encouraged, and if global warming is actually happening. This book is written in everyday, nontechnical language on the science behind the concerns that our nation faces in the immediate future. Even active readers of serious journalism will be surprised by the lessons that the book contains. It is "must-have" information for all presidents—and citizens—of the twenty-first century.

The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. The sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments. Use the form below to leave a public comment or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Comments (2) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Opinions, not Science, The first thing to know about thi

02 September 2008

The first thing to know about this book is that it is not about Physics, or even more broadly about Science. The book is about what the author believes and wants the reader to believe about various public policy issues. I agree with many of his beliefs, and disagree with a few. He is entitled to his opinion, but he should present his opinion as Science. The review says suggests that Muller presents only facts, but that is not correct. First, his claimed facts are sometimes wrong, and he doesn't present relevant information when it disagrees with his opinion.

The author leads you to believe that what he is telling you is Science, not opinion when he writes, "I'll bring in engineering aspects they are needed, but the focus here will be on the science. Laws of countries can be changed, but laws of physics are pretty much set." However, he fails to meet the goal he set. He also writes, "Physicicsts, by tradition, have a more stringent standard than the courts: if you get caught exaggerating, distorting, or cherry picking, your scientific reputation is damaged if not destroyed." But then he goes on to exaggerate, distort, and cherry pick himself.

Even in cases where the situation would present a great opportunity to introduce the reader to important ideas from Physics, the author fails to present the reader with the information that would argue against his opinion. For example, as a physicist, the author surely understands what thermodynamics says about limits on the conversion of heat to work, but he treats all energy forms as equivalent by quoting their heating value (sometimes incorrectly). Given the difference in work that can be obtained from gasoline (his favorite fuel) and electricity, this is a serious distortion.

As an example of cherry picking, the author dislikes electric cars. He claims his dislike is based in physics, but it is not. He cites the energy density of batteries compared to gasoline to show that electric cars are impractical. That is cherry picking, because there are other relevant facts he refuses to tell the reader.

This book also provides little basis for the reader to learn more on his or her own. The "facts" presented are not substantiated with references, or only with the claim that the author heard it from an acquaintance. Again, some of his "facts" are incorrect.

I do not recommend this book.

Earl Killian

..., I noted also an assumption that the slight increase

02 September 2008

Write comment

Show/Hide comment form

< Prev		Next >

Last Updated on Saturday, 30 August 2008 14:06

The TS-Si News Service is a collaboration of TS-Si staff, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Contents do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates.

We welcome responsible comments. Use the public article forms throughout this site or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.