We have discussed the importance of popular science in fostering science ed- ucation and science literacy in the United States, outlined a brief history of scientific communications, and surveyed unique issues pertinent to the theory, style, and substance of this genre of literature. While these principles have been described for written works of popular science, the same basic issues and con- cerns remain relevant regardless of format. When evaluating any work of pop- ular science for collection development, keep these general principles in mind and ask such questions as the following:
• How are jargon and mathematics handled?
• Are the pacing and structure of the work appropriate?
• At what technical level is this information presented?
• Are the scholarly context and significance of this information made clear?
When evaluating an item for possible inclusion in a library collection, the librarian engages in a process similar to that used by a reviewer. While the two processes are complementary, they are not coterminous. The evaluating process centers around deciding whether to purchase an item for a collection. The li- brarian assesses a book’s relevance for a local collection, what gaps it might fill, and what its projected demand would be. Reviewing materials involves assessing their quality. Published reviews of the thumbs-up or thumbs-down variety are the result. When evaluating an information resource it is desirable to consult a number of reviews, then to use the information from them, combined with knowledge of the local collection and patrons, to make a purchasing de-
cision. Librarians are particularly encouraged to consult reviews in professional and specialized journals. See Part II of this book for science periodicals that review books for general readers.
Here we will further examine some suggested procedures for evaluating works of popular science for library collections. Materials are discussed primarily by format, each format having its own distinct advantages and disadvantages as a vehicle for communicating science.
EVALUATING BOOKS
Books are perhaps the most common and arguably the most influential me- dium for communicating science to the general public. Their chief advantages are that (1) the written language lends itself to scrutiny, and thus to deeper understanding; and (2) because of their length and the degree of detail they permit, books allow for a more deliberate, progressive exposition of ideas than other formats. Reading a book requires a commitment of time and intellect. So, too, does the active cultivation of science literacy. While it is important to update and supplement book knowledge with that obtainable from other media, it is highly unlikely that a person can become and remain scientifically literate with- out investing some time in structured, self-directed reading.1
A word here regarding the obsolescence of science books: librarians know that science changes rapidly; in certain disciplines, the citation half-life of re- search articles averages around five years. Popular science materials, although subject to comparably rapid obsolescence, do not generally become outdated as quickly as original research. Before a scientific theory is popularized, it usually has gone through at least initial peer review, and scientists have reached some degree of consensus about its validity. Even books that are ten or more years old should accurately represent what was known or considered possible at the time they were written. Thus, they should not contain any ‘‘wrong’’ information, just information that needs to be supplemented. While timeliness is certainly preferred in science literacy collections, the useful shelf life of many books is longer than some librarians might expect. A few books, including several cited in the following chapters, are considered classics.
Numerous factors should go into a collection development decision when evaluating a new popular science book. Some apply to any book being consid- ered, but even these obvious factors have different significance in the realm of popular science. Factors to examine include the book’s authorship, publisher, and genre or format.
Authorship
Determine the author’s credentials. Who wrote the book is important, but not necessarily for the same reasons that the authorship of a novel is important. A
librarian might know, for example, that any novel by certain bestselling authors will be in high demand and thus, if for no other reason, merit purchase. Where popular science books are concerned, however, authorship reflects on the issue of authority; you should ask, For what purpose was the book written? Is the author qualified to write a book on this subject?
A writer’s credentials are important. Look especially for authors who have a track record of successful popular science writing. Authors whose past work has been recognized in a ‘‘best books’’ list, such asLibrary Journal’s annual ‘‘Best SciTech Books for General Readers’’ feature (published annually in March), are usually trustworthy sources. Additionally, several professional groups and insti- tutions, such as the American Institute for Physics, the McDonald Observatory, and the British Council for the Public Understanding of Science, sponsor prizes for science writing. Such recognition is another good measure of a writer’s competence.
Some authors are also scientists. They fall in two general categories: (1) practitioners in the field who are popularizing general knowledge from their discipline, and (2) prominent scientists—often Nobelists or scientists known to the public—who are popularizing their own original work. Notable scientist/
authors in the first category include Isaac Asimov, Jeremy Bernstein, John Grib- bin, Alan Lightman, James Trefil, Barry Parker, and several others. While they enjoy solid reputations as scientists and have made their own original contri- butions, they are not superstars. They have respectable yet unspectacular aca- demic credentials. They write their popular works while working on their research projects or between projects, and appear to see no rigid distinction between doing science and writing about it. They are not afflicted by the high- brow disdain for popular science common among many scientists. Not coinci- dentally, writers of this ilk often possess superior communications skills and manifest enthusiasm for their subjects and sincere empathy with their readers.
In the second category of scientist/authors are those who have made excep- tional contributions to their fields and, as a result, have the ‘‘name appeal’’ that attracts attention and sells books. Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman, Edward O. Wilson, Jane Goodall, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and others are ex- amples. These are the best and the brightest in their fields, although popularizing science is not what they have chosen to do first, and sometimes not what they do best. Do not misunderstand that statement. These writers are among the most influential science popularizers and their books have contributed greatly to pub- lic understanding of their fields. In the best cases, these scientists popularize their work out of an earnest desire to share ideas with a broader audience. At worst, books by famous scientists get published because they sell, pure and simple. Still, even with the best of motives, these authors are, by trade and training, scientists first, communicators second. While their books might sell fabulously, other books available on the same subject may do a better job of teaching and explaining.
Popular science books may also be produced by professional writers or jour-
nalists. Here again, a distinction can be made between journalists who specialize in science writing and generalists who cover all fields.
Science writers, especially those affiliated with universities or reputable na- tional newspapers or magazines, are uniquely trained professionals who often have some academic background in science, enjoy many contacts within sci- entific communities, and know the science beat thoroughly. (There are even specialists among specialists.) Though they are not scientists, they nonetheless qualify as science insiders. This is often reflected positively in the quality of their work.
The works of generalist writers should be evaluated carefully. Look for evi- dence that they have done their homework. Though they might have the noblest intentions, they often lack adequate resources to do work of the same caliber as the specialists. This is not to say that you must avoid books by these authors.
Each book stands on its own merits. However, research indicates that popular science books by writers without professional connections to scientific com- munities tend to distort and sensationalize ideas more frequently than others.
Some, in fact, appear to have been written for those very purposes.
Other authorial possibilities exist. In recent years, collaborations have become more common. Collaborations between scientists and journalists, scientists from different fields, or scientists and humanists can be especially effective. In true collaborations, the literary dynamics are livelier, the perspectives broader, and, ideally, each author contributes personal strengths and skills that add depth to the work. However, books sometimes appear ‘‘by’’ a noted scientist ‘‘as told to’’ an intermediary. The danger here is that the intermediary might choose to write about only those of the primary author’s opinions or ideas that are likely to sell books. Miriam Pollet cautions, ‘‘As long as a fast buck can be made on the human need for explanation, mystery, and fantasy—a lay fascination with the ‘brave new world’ that can be hustled by the media—librarians had better be wary.’’2
The author’s identity and credentials can reflect on the authority and accuracy of the information in the book. When the author is a superstar scientist, for example, you are probably safe assuming a high degree of technical accuracy, but at the same time you might wish to take a close look at how well that information is communicated for a lay audience. At the other extreme, if the author is a generalist with no particular history of popular science writing, in- spect the work carefully for evidence that its content is well established by scientific consensus. Books that circumvent the peer review process are to be avoided.
Publishers
Determine the nature or institutional interests of the publisher. The publishing industry in the United States is enormous and heterogeneous. Huge, New York based commercial publishers dominate certain aspects of the industry, but myr-
iad specialty and small presses also thrive within their own niches. Additionally, various professional, educational, and political groups publish as a secondary activity, in support of some larger objective. Publishers who sponsor books on popular scientific subjects are likewise very diverse. Librarians evaluating these books need to be aware of the types of science publishers and the kinds of books they produce.
In terms of numbers of good books trade publishersare probably the most prolific. This is also the most eclectic category. Major New York publishing houses are bottom-line, megabusinesses with vast resources. They conduct ex- tensive market surveys before entering into a publishing enterprise. Typically, their catalogues list titles by known authors on current and topical subjects.
Thus, the superstar scientists often publish with trade companies. For the same reason, trade publishers often list titles on scientific subjects that are hot or in the news. Topics extensively popularized in recent years include AIDS, the Human Genome Project, virtual reality, various environmental issues, and sci- entific funding, fraud, and mismanagement. In these cases, the librarian might have several titles from which to choose. (Here’s a tip: the first book to appear on a hot topic is seldom the best.)
Numerically,university pressesconstitute the second largest category of pop- ular science publishers. Some of the best science popularizations available come from publishing houses affiliated with academic institutions. Although they com- pete with trade publishers to some degree, the university presses generally op- erate under a clearer sense of mission. Like their parent institutions, university presses gain legitimacy by furthering knowledge and learning. Quality is im- portant.
The authors of university press books are often scientists or scholars. These books seldom charge to the top of the bestseller lists, but they do reach a sizable audience, and may have a longer shelf life than trade books. University presses also produce books on subjects eschewed by the trade publishers. Sometimes, though, university press books approach or straddle the boundary between pri- mary literature and technically inclined popularization. University presses tend to publish books appropriate for somewhat more knowledgeable readers. Less often, they publish books explicitly for readers with no prior knowledge of the subject.
The third category comprisesspecialty publishers. Although individual houses differ in their publishing orientation, all exist to fill a specific niche, and often to promote some particular cause. Some specialty publishers are offshoots of professional scientific societies. The American Institute for Physics, the Amer- ican Chemical Society, and the Mathematical Association of America, to name just a few, have active publishing interests, which frequently include lines of popular works. Professional associations often produce works in series, and these can be identified and evaluated as parts of their wholes.
Another type of specialty publisher is represented by nonacademic societies that are organized around a philosophical or political mission. For example, a
number of environmental alliances publish books on topics of interest to mem- bers of their organizations. When evaluating any book by a specialty publisher, it is important to recognize that the publisher has a vested interest in furthering a particular point of view on the subject. Do not expect a book published by an environmental organization to support development of nuclear energy resources or for a professional scientific society to bring forth a book that blows the whistle on fraud within the profession. Although these books might be excellent, they have inherent biases, suggesting to the librarian that other viewpoints need to be represented in the collection for the sake of balance.
Type of Book
Determine the book’s genre or format. Several identifiable types of books can be found in the literature of popular science. Each offers something unique to the general reader seeking scientific information, and all might be included in a representative popular science collection.
The most common type is the exposition, written to ‘‘expound, explain, or appraise analytically a given subject.’’ In practice, this basic function is accom- plished in many different ways and for varying purposes. For example, an ex- position might take the form of a general history, a remedial or refresher volume, a semi-scholarly treatise, a mass-market trade publication, an expose´ or political discourse, a journalistic report of some new discovery, a personal or philosoph- ical account based on the author’s experiences, or, indeed, any combination of the aforementioned. What they have in common is that they tell the readerabout something that has happened or is happening in the world of science. The most important factors to consider when evaluating an expository work relate to its style and substance, as discussed in Chapter Three.
Several subtypes of expositions have already been noted. A few rather distinct kinds, not mentioned previously, merit brief attention. The first is thescientific essay. The word is derived from the French essayer (to try); accordingly, a notable strength of the genre is the amount of literary freedom it accords the author. The purpose of the essay is to expound a point of view or to persuade, and the author’s success in that endeavor depends on the eloquence of the words as much as the force of the intellectual argument. This kind of writing stands in stark contrast to cookbook science writing. For that reason, many scientists with unfulfilled literary aspirations have turned to the essay as an alternative vehicle of expression. Loren Eiseley, scientist and author of a popular history of evolution,The Immense Journey, wrote:
That the self and its minute adventures may be interesting every essayist from Montaigne to Emerson has intimated, but only if one is utterly, nakedly honest and does not pon- tificate. In a silence [on] which nothing could impinge, I shifted away from the article as originally intended. A personal anecdote introduced it, . . . and yet I had done no harm to the scientific data.3
Popular science theorists suggest that the essay can be an important bridge be- tween technical and public scientific communications.4 There is no doubt that scientific essays are popular among general readers.
A second expository subtype that deserves specific mention here is thesci- entific biography. Through the lives of great scientists, the skillful biographer can animate an entire era of science and society. A well-written biography (or autobiography) explores the entirety of the individual’s thoughts, experiences, and social influences. The distinct value of a biography is that not only is it about an individual, but in a sense it is also about that individual’s entire per- sonal universe. Thus, through the telling of an individual’s own story, a broad social, cultural, and intellectual portrait emerges. Biographies are great eye- openers for those who regard science writing as narrow and impersonal. Some biographies are written at a more popular level than others, but even a compre- hensive scholarly biography, although difficult going in parts, should make for compelling general reading.
Another common expository format is theanthology, usually under the gen- eral editorship of a single person or an editorial board. Anthologies can be useful vehicles, particularly when they gather the work of diverse writers—for exam- ple, scientists, civil servants, knowledgeable laypersons—who lend breadth of opinion to the subject. Look for uniform quality, regardless of point of view, and thematic coherence.
Another subtype, the textbook, is often disdained in collection development handbooks, but should be considered for science literacy collections. Standard wisdom holds that textbooks are inappropriate additions to library collections because (1) they are written for classroom use exclusively, (2) they present no new information, and (3) they are rapidly superseded by new editions.5Many library collection development policies explicitly (and perhaps peremptorily) state that textbooks are not purchased.
Nevertheless, textbooks can fill gaps in a basic science literacy collection that cannot be filled by any other kinds of library materials. Suppose you are an adult who, several years out of college, wishes to brush up on calculus, long fallen into disuse. Probably you would find a good introductory text most useful.
(You are not likely to find the mechanics of calculus described in expository form, for example.) The value of textbooks is that they are written to teach. If you are prompted by general intellectual curiosity, texts will be of little service, but if you are seeking an applied overview of a broad technical field, a standard text can provide just the right kind of treatment. The core concepts of some areas of science—calculus is a good example, as are inorganic chemistry and electrical engineering—are best assimilated when learned from a textbook.
These subjects simply do not lend themselves to the literary treatment found in expositions. Further, with textbook knowledge mastered, the reader may be pre- pared to advance to works of a more technical nature.
Thecoffee table bookis yet another subtype sometimes maligned in collection development handbooks. These books are often viewed as vanities, to be pur-