I just learned that I have, like, three weeks to make all changes to my book in time for the paperback version--and to write a new introduction to boot. So much has happened in the world of politics-and-science since late August when RWoS first came out in hardback that the notion of comprehensively updating would be a futile endeavor. Instead, most of the new information will be contained in the new foreword. But, inevitably, there are numerous things that will need changing because they are dated or no longer true. For instance, in the book I asserted that Bush had not yet taken a position on "intelligent design." That's because, at the time, he hadn't. Since then, he has. That has to change, obviously.
And then there's typo monitoring, errata, etc. It's a hell of a task, and when you combine it with the fact that I'm supposed to be starting on the new book, it's going to keep me pretty busy. Blogging may suffer as a result. But if you have a copy of RWoS handy, and note any places where I ought to be updating--emphasis on updating, no grand revision suggestions please--drop a post on this thread to let me know. It will make life a lot easier.
For that matter, if you have any comments on what might be the six to ten biggest science and politics developments in the last half year--e.g., the James Hansen story, or the Dover trial--I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'll be covering those in the new introduction.
- Log in to post comments
I'd mention that a few other republican moderates, supposedly known for not catering to the religious right, have changed their socks on the ID topic (even if its just embracing the "teach the controversy" version), specifically McCain.
Good point. I had some nice things to say about McCain in the book, and now, one wonders whether they were justified....
I'd mention the non-graduate appointee at NASA who decided that the Big Bang was "just a theory" and that all web pages should mention it as such.
I would agree with Joe on that point and the dover trial would seem to be the other 'automatic' entry.
I would mention the unusual hurricane season (warming-induced or not) as well as the melting in Greenland, etc. that have put new focus on climate change. Also, there's the leaked draft of the IPCC showing that scientists are no longer using tentative language on important points.
Also, the incompetance of various political appointees have borne out your assessment that officials appointed by the administration are often long on ideology, short on expertise.
I forget if you mention the Discovery Institute in the RWOS (hey, RWOS's Search Inside the Book seems to be broken) but I would say it's worth mentioning, along with the point that Discovery's MO was copied from earlier tactics on the right (Paul Krugman's squib on this subject was pretty good).
You probably should note the Harriet Miers fiasco (her head was apparently not as conservative as her known-to-GWB heart). Also note what you think people ought to watch for from the two new Supreme Court justices (beyond the obvious abortion issue) regarding science.
After the Dover decision, my Senator Slick Rick Sanctimony-orum officially changed his position about where Intelligent Design belongs in the curriculum. You might want to dredge up his statement for a section on desperate duplicity.
Don't forget all the hassle with the FDA's Emergency Contraception issues, the resignation of Susan Wood, and the almost-appointed Veterinarian for Women's Health.
Perhaps the Kansas Kangaroo court on ID?
Or the cuts to the NASA science budget this past month?
The Clean Water Act is currently under review...I don't know any details at this time other than it may be weakened.
Good luck! I'm looking forward to the paperback version.
Slightly off topic; I have recently purchased your book, but haven't started it yet (it sits on my secondary desk, about 6 books from the top of the pile). What do you think about posting whatever additions/corrections you come up with on this blog?
I'd suggest the Oregon State University firestorm surrounding Daniel Donato's salvage logging article. I mean, to have John Marburger set to the task of an investigation? Eat your heart out, Deutsch.
Drop me an email if you would like info on it, I've been following the story closely.
Seth,
That's an interesting idea, might put others to sleep though. I'll think about it.
Thanks to everyone else for the suggestions, you've really helped to jog my memory. Something else I forgot to mention but will certainly include is Joe Barton's little inquisition, which happened before my book hit the stands but after the text had been finalized (so it wasn't included).
cm
Perhaps its too obvious to point out in the new intro, but I believe you mentioned hurricane damage to New Orleans early on in the book, and that obviously happened.
Plus the whole NASA mess with Jim Hansen, Deutsch, etc.
And definitely susan Wood and the plan B debate.
For instance, O'Reilly Press always does a page of errata, and I find it useful to print out and stick inside the book (such as for Tiger Unix and probably better examples, but I'm too lazy to search for them). Of course, O'Reilly is more of a technical publisher, but I thought this might be a good fit for inclusion on your webpage somewhere.
Did GWB come out with something other than his "jury is still out as to how God created" statement about intelligent design and evolution? That's all I remember seeing.
-Rob
A footnote on the resignation of Gale Norton and speculation on her successor?
Seth,
I think I will put up a comprehensive list of changes to the text from hardback to paperback on the web somewhere, perhaps on this blog. It won't be in the book. The book, though, will contain new updates in the form of a lengthy new preface. And maybe some closing reflections as well. That's the plan, anyway....
These are both a little tangential, *but* -- you might mention the heating up of the creationist stuff (I'm stunned by how many blogs & even governers say "why don't scientists understand what is readily apparent to 85% of us".) It might be worth mentioning the Dennett book / opposition.
*and* -- I think that the attempt to get search engine companies to serve as the government's database of what Americans care about is possibly the most important political development of the year. This is only indirectly science, but it is about data & evidence, as well as being about autocracy and privacy. You may need to have a decent science eductaion to fully realize all the consequences of being able to find out even what people in general are searching about (so you can tune your message, test the results of your ad campaigns and gestures) let alone what individuals or regions are searching about (so you can choose how many voting booths to put in each county like they did in Ohio in 2004...)