Skip to main content

Smoke and Mirrors - Gemma Milne ***

It's a bit of a strange one, this. The subtitle is 'how hype obscures the future and how to see past it'. Hype is a real problem in science communication, and I was really looking forward to an exploration of the nature of science communication hype, where it comes from, why it happens and how to correctly interpret it. Gemma Milne starts promisingly by explaining the origins of that familiar term 'smoke and mirrors'... but then it's as if you've bought a whole different book - because Smoke and Mirrors is not primarily about hype.

Don't get me wrong, hype does come into it as a linking theme, but what we really have here is a set of well thought out polemics on issues in the science and technology field, with the main thrust being on what the issues are and what might be done about them, but with a sideline in how hype can give the wrong focus and result in us addressing the wrong problems. So, for example, the first chapter is about 'finding the true meaning of value in the world of farming'. We get a lot on making farming greener and more ethical, making it more appropriate for those whom the food system currently fails, but the hype part is really just about overemphasis on things like artificial meat and how they are interesting but won't solve the problem. In 33 pages, only a couple in total are about the hype aspect.

It's not that these discussions aren't interesting. They are all topics we ought to be thinking about and Milne explores the topics well, giving a rounded picture - so, for example, in that 'feed the world' chapter, she is supportive of a sensible approach to GM rather than EU-style knee jerk opposition - but hype gets a relatively small look-in in most cases. 

As one obvious example, one of the worst types of purveyor of hype are university press offices, and I had expected to get an in-depth look at these and what they do, but they aren't really mentioned, not even getting an entry in the index. Similarly, a lot of hype comes from newspaper headlines and even science magazines have a tendency to put ridiculously hyped headlines on the covers. Again, we do get a passing mention of the tabloid newspapers' obsession with cancer cures and causes, for example, but it's not the key focus of the relevant chapter.

The topics covered apart from food production are curing cancer, the future of batteries, fusion energy, space travel, quantum computing, computer-brain interfaces, AI and astrobiology. All topics worth our attention, but the way they are dealt with is more something I'd want from a magazine article on the specific subject, individually. What there is on hype wasn't enough to usefully tie them together as a book. A good piece of writing, then, but not what I was hoping for.


Paperback:    
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...