My book was reviewed in the Sunday Times of London yesterday. The reviewer was generally positive. Nevertheless, presumably out of the standard critic impulse to say something, anything negative, he created one of the most staggering strawmen I've ever witnessed:
But the central plank of [Mooney's] argument is the embryonic stem-cell issue. There is no doubt that Bush's solution to his dilemma was based on atrocious science. Exposing that fact is one thing. But to question the right of anybody to oppose experiments on human embryos, as Mooney does, is quite another. [Italics added]
Actually, stem cells aren't the central plank of my argument. Moreover, I never question the right of anyone to oppose embryo research, nor would I ever question that right.
Where they come up with this stuff, I will never understand. But it certainly is easier to criticize someone if you attribute dumb, indefensible positions to them.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Michael Kinsley has an excellent column up at Slate about the inconsistency of the anti stem-cell crowd:
Against this, you have the fact that embryonic stem cells are extracted from human embryos, killing them in the process. If you believe that embryos a few days after conception have the same…
Michael Kinsley sums up the ethical inconsistency of the Blastocyst Liberationists:
Third, although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise…
Yesterday, extending a public debate that I participated in earlier in the week, I criticized some arguments by Reason's Ron Bailey and started to criticize some writings by the Discovery Institute's Wesley Smith. I'm pretty much done with Bailey (see our exchange here), with whom I really don't…
As you have probably noticed, I haven't been blogging lately. This is largely because I have been working on some other writing projects, which involves many hours spent in frustrated contemplation of a blank computer screen, which leaves me decidedly unmotivated to then embark on lengthy blog…
Hey, look on the bright side. At least your book is getting reviewed! :)
Don't get too worked up about the Sunday Times review, Chris. The reviewer, one John Cornwell, got all sorts of facts wrong in his review. For example, there's this reference to "the distinguished physicist Freeman Dyson, formerly an agnostic, announced in 1976 his belief in a Designer God..."
... which is simply flat-wrong. Dyson's still an agnostic last time I checked. At least as far back as 1988, when my copy of his book, Infinite in All Directions, was published. And I found this unedited interview transcript on the web:
(From http://meaningoflife.tv/transcript.php?speaker=dyson)
Wright: So so you've made no reference to explicit beliefs about divinity about a deity, about whether there whether Jesus was the son of God or any of that so you're kind of leaving all of that, you're kind of agnostic on all these points?
Freeman Dyson: Well, I, yes.
--That kind of settles it. I would say. Then Freeman explores his version of religion at bit further:
Freeman: I mean, to a first approximation I think sort of God to me does mean something but it's such a mystery that I don't feel inclined to try to invent specific models the fact that we have some instinct of mind at work in the universe seems to be about as far as I'm willing to go I mean that I call it God simply is a mind that's gone beyond the scale of our understanding that's I think that's about as far as my theology goes.
Wright: Ok. So I mean if you were living in another culture you could equally well be a Buddhist ...
Freeman Dyson: Yes.
Wright: You could because fundamentally what religion is about to you is the things that people do.
Freeman Dyson: Right.
He clearly didn't read your book that carefully, since you repeatedly point out that the problem is not that politicians take positions opposite those of mainstream scientists, but rather that they try to cloak their reasoning in science.
The "great triumph" of Bush's stem-cell "compromise" was that we can do good science without killing any more little baby zogotes. That was a lie, of course, but Bush was too much of a coward to say what his supporters obviously feel: the scientific promise of stem cells is not worth the consequences of destroying embryos. That's a political position, defensible within a certain philosophical framework, and one that voters can easily consider.
This same cowardice pervades the modern conservative movement. The science doesn't match their philosophy, so they change the science. That is the point of your book, no? The reviewer is a moron.
Great job on Tavis Smiley, by the way.
Thanks, folks. Sorry if I sounded a bit too worked up. I'm more amused than angry. Generally, though, I've been underwhelmed by the ability of most reviewers to actually grasp a book's basic argument. It's very troubling.
One thing to understand about journalism, of any kind, is that there are these lowest-common-denominator types that filter out anything that fails to fit the journal's "style", called subeditors. To become a subeditor you have to be able to remove substance and replace it with style as quickly as possible. Not many people with critical skills end up as subeditors, and those that do usually become editors, where they can do even more harm.
So if a reviewer tries to deal positively with something, the sub will insist upon "balance". When the reviewer tries to engage actual science, the sub will remove anything that is actually contentful. When the reviewer tries to deal with politics and science, the sub will ensure that the paper's bias is repsected.
No, I'm not that cynical. Why do you ask?
Dear Christ Mooney: I'm sorry that my review in the ST upset you. My judgment that your strongest and most sustained argument in the book relates to the stem cell debate is based on a fair estimate, I think, of the proportion of the text devoted to the question --- I am not criticising you for this: I think you were right to focus on it as the Hwang business in S. Korea is now demonstrating. If I criticise you for failing to appreciate the arguments of those who find human embryo research distasteful, it is contained in your comment "Bush's pro-life followers who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells consituting a five day old embryo as derving of the same moral and legal protections as fully eveloped human beings..." I don't think this dismissive phrase does justice to the huge constituency of scientists, ethicists, and others who argue against humnan embryo experiment and the complexity of the ethical scruples involved (nor do you attempt to rectify this elsewhere in the book). As for the position of Freeman Dyson, one only has to read the chapter in his book on the anthropic principle to see that he was inclined to a deist designer position in 1976 whatever else he may have said since. All the same, I enjoyed your book: I thought it timely and interesting and I argued strongly with the editor to give it prominence. I don't think it did you any harm. With best wishes: John Cornwell
John,
I'm not that worked up about this; and no, I don't think you did me any real harm. I appreciate the coverage.
However, let's face it, you wrote that "to question the right of anybody to oppose experiments on human embryos, as Mooney does, is quite another." To justify that statement, one would think you would provide evidence of me questioning that right. You haven't done so.