Project Steve
Because mockery can sometimes be the best of all responses, I'm thrilled to read about Project Steve, which is over a year old, but new to me. When a group of creationists (The Discovery Institute) produced a list of 100 scientists who question evolution as a unifying principle of biology, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) responded with their own petition in strong support of evolution, numbering 431 scientists. 431-100 sounds less than overwhelming? Here's the catch: to demonstrate how far out of touch with the scientific community those DI 100 are, the NCSE limited their petition only to scientists named Steve or Stephanie. The Panda's Thumb is "reliv(ing) the joy."

"So how do you convey to the public that the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists support evolution, and only an insignificant minority oppose it? How do you demonstrate that anyone who claims that a 'growing number of scientists' question evolution is trying to mislead the public? How do you satisfy the urge of every mainstream biologist who wants to say, 'Shut up and get a Ph.D. in biology and do 20 years of research before you tell me that the uniting principle of our field is a fairy tale!' How do you create a list that will end, once and for all, the use of lists? And finally, how do you do all this without giving the creationists any grounds to claim we’re taking them seriously?

The answer? Project Steve.
[SNIP]
The NCSE statement was initially sent to biology professors at research institutions. However, after that it began circulating through word of mouth, and because there wasn’t a rigorous screening process to get on the list, not every Steve is a biology professor. For example, Steve #400, Stephen Hawking, is not a biologist. But most are. At last count, about two-thirds of the Steves are biologists. This is in stark contrast to the DI 100, as exemplified by the 9 Steves. None of those 9 are biologists. So in reality, counting only biology professors, it’s more like 300 to 0. Is it unfair to only count biologists? Maybe, but it’s very revealing that the closer the subject of the degree is to evolutionary biology, the fewer proportion of dissenters are."

Science and scientists bored me silly until about 10 years ago, when I read Lewis Thomas and realized that some were far more interesting (and really funny) than I ever would have guessed. There is a wealth of compelling science writing that can engage non-scientists, (seemingly more and more all the time...is this a trend of science, or just a trend of my reading?) shattering my old perception of their lot as mostly specialized, capable of using only a privileged language to make their point and refute someone else's. And they don't seem to face too much wrath from colleagues who don't approve of the pedestrian-level explanations that can so easily captivate my imagination.

And I understand that Bill Bryson's newest book is fabulous, but I'm holding out for the paperback. So even non-scientist writers now want to learn about, and write about science-related topics. Whether that constitutes an expression of science itself is a debate I will save for another day. In the meantime, here are my favorite science-topic books, written by scientists, that can be consumed by a non-scientist like me.

1. Stephen Jay Gould: The Mismeasure of Man
2. Lewis Thomas: The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher
3. Michael Pollan: The Botany of Desire: A Plant-eye's View of the World
4. Stephen Hawking: A Brief History of Time
5. Oliver Sacks: The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat

What should I add to my list?