Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain. Peter J. Bowler. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 339 pp.
The central question raised by Science for All concerns the assumed decline of working scientists writing for the popular press after the Victorian Age in Britain. Observers of the history of science have noted that once scientists became professionalized around the turn of the twentieth century, they lost interest in writing for popular consumption and the field was taken over by journalists. Through extensive research and a good deal of meticulous detective work, Peter Bowler, a professor of the history of science at Queen’s University, Belfast, has collected a substantial body of evidence and builds a strong case that writing for the popular audience by working scientists was alive and well during the first four decades of the twentieth century.
Certainly, some science writing was done by journalists and other “science writers,” but there was a significant contribution by professional working scientists. Writing by non-scientists was often discounted (mostly by the working scientists) because the non-professional often didn’t fully understand the science, because the writer’s goal was for audience entertainment, and because it often had to be sensationalized to attract readers. In addition, there was concern that “science writers,” while likely skilled at explanation and audience engagement, might not accurately represent the view of the majority of working scientists in the particular field.
A significant portion of the writing of this period was actually done by working scientists, and Bowler presents an extensive list of scientists and the publication outlets that include books, encyclopedias, serials, magazines, newspapers, and lectures (both public and broadcast on the BBC). The scientists engaged with this audience for many reasons, even though there was objection from the scientific community that popular writing distracted from research. But some scientists saw the need to inform the public about developments; some wished to advocate a particular point of view or social agenda, and some just did it for the money. The problem for publishers was finding scientists who could explain issues using a minimum of math and technical jargon, and who could write with a clear, interesting, and engaging style. As Bowler points out, a surprising number of scientists could rise to the challenge.
Science for All is well researched and documented. While it offers limited depth, the book has a significant breadth, as Bowler provides an extensive survey of authors, topics, publishers, publications, and potential audiences that could be the “mother lode” for historians of science or journalism and others concerned with this topic. The author’s research took him to university archives, secondhand bookstores, and collections of dust jackets and promotional flyers. Much information, reports Bowler, was lost in 1940 during the London Blitz. As a result, some conclusions are backed by solid evidence, while others depend on well-supported inference. The book provides a substantial foundation for further research into the early-twentieth-century time period, as well as acting as a guide for researchers interested in the second half of the century.
This is not casual reading; the reader will likely have to be motivated and interested in the topic to navigate to the conclusion. A thoughtful finishing edit for coherence would have helped clean up a few distracting redundancies that make the reader speculate that a particular section had been visited before. While not exactly a page-turner, Science for All is generally well written and engaging.
In more contemporary times, even though a greater number of people have gained access to higher levels of education, including science education, the need remains for science writing for the non-specialist audience. Many people are interested and curious about recent developments in science and technology, but cannot begin to understand the descriptions and explanations in the academic or professional literature. In addition, there are professionals, teachers, and others who want to keep up with fields on which they do not focus. In any case, there is a challenge to explain specialized information to lay audiences about the natural sciences, technology, business, engineering, the social sciences, and medicine. The current majority of “explainers” is made up of some very good professional writers—James Gleick, for example—who report and explain science and technology for popular consumption. In addition, we still see a few working scientists like Stephen Hawking and Nobel Prize winner Murray Gell-Mann attempting to increase public understanding of the laws governing the universe through books and documentary programs.
Further, as projects in government, science, education, business, and industry become more complex, teams of specialists are required to contribute to their success. These specialists will typically come from a variety of fields, and they will have to communicate clearly with one another to work together effectively.
The more we develop into cultures of specialists, the stronger the need for clear and understandable explanations for non-specialists. Bowler leaves the impression that, while it might not be in the public interest, professional scientists will most likely never again engage with the public on the same level as they did in the early twentieth century. Scientists can certainly engage with the professional communicators who tell the stories, but they will likely never have complete control over the message as they did in the past.
For those interested or who have research questions about the complex relationship between professional scientists and the public’s knowledge of science and technology, Bowler’s Science for All is a very good place to begin the search for understanding.
SAMUEL P. WALLACE
University of Dayton