Einstein, History, and Other Passions: The Rebellion Against Science at the End of the Twentieth Century. - book reviews

At the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of American History a new permanent exhibit that presents the role of science in American culture has been established. There, one can read Einstein's 1939 letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in which he used his influence to warn of the possibility that the Germans were developing an atomic bomb. FDR's response was the now-historic Manhattan Project. After World War II, Congress showed just how delighted it was with the success of this scientific collaboration by providing full support to all fields of science. Thus was forged an implicit contract between science and society.

This optimistic identification of science with economic, social, and even moral progress has today been largely eroded by negative perceptions of science and scientists. Most of the displays just around the corner from Einstein's letter reflect this looming cynicism, as they are devoted to what Gerald Holton calls "the hazards of science and the public's disillusionment with technology."

Holton, a professor of physics and of the history of science at Harvard, set out, in Einstein, History, and Other Passions, to dispel such widespread disenchantment and return the scientific community back to the respected status it held in post-World War II America. The need for a leader of this sort is imperative as society's reverence for science is clearly diminishing. The media dedicate relatively little attention to scientific issues; the rate of scientific illiteracy, even among our intellectual and political leaders, is rising; and there is a growing concern among scientists that little effort within the educational system is being made to emphasize the benefits or significance of pursuing a career in their field. Congress has already begun to cut scientific funding, drastically reversing the support science has enjoyed for the past five decades, while educators, scholars, and social commentators often depict science as a soulless activity, devoid of any passion.

Holton calls this countermovement a "Romantic rebellion," attributing it to various factors including: the fear brought on by abuses of science and technology resulting from corporate or governmental policies, accounts of laboratory fraud and misconduct, misguided notions of "New Age fanatics," an increasing sense of depersonalization, and environmental concerns.

He observes that not only is science presented as being unable to generate control over "nature's forces which cause our burdens and ills," but it is deemed the very source of the disasters of the past century - a period ironically considered by scientists to be an era of great discovery and progress.

Holton himself remains true to the intellectual tradition. His passion for science and his belief in its power to help guide humankind in its battles against ignorance, disease, and other such evils are woven throughout most every page. However, the foundation he worked so well to set in the first part of the book about science's public image, both past and present, is soon abandoned for a discussion of Einstein and an elaborate presentation of the history and philosophy of science.

Holton is indeed an authority in these fields. However, his description of Einstein, and the vast influence he has had on science and culture, backfires against the originally intended plan, which was to use Einstein to show that science is not a dull, impersonal field, but that scientists can be highly imaginative and make an immensely positive impact on society.

For starters, basing a defense of science as a passionate and creative field on the life and work of Einstein makes little sense considering the Romantic rebellion is not being executed against the science of Einstein's era, but against today's. Holton never offers any examples of current leaders in science who embody Einstein's humane and spirited nature or work to educate the public as Einstein did. Science is indeed difficult to popularize in today's times, especially because of its overwhelming complexity, but that makes it all the more important for the scientific community to close the gap between itself and the general public. The most outspoken individuals currently hail from the Romantic rebellion, while, as Holton says, the scientific community has "responded with quiet acquiescence." Einstein would never have stood for this.

Also, whereas Holton is well aware that the "proverbial man on the street is quite blissfully ignorant" of the applications of Einstein's theories in such practical devices as the laser, calculator, computer, and even America's favorite pastime, television, he doesn't seem to see the full implications it entails. That Americans for the most part are only cognizant of the superficial aspects of Einstein's influence on the world, namely that he was some genius who knew a lot about scientific stuff including E=[mc.sup.2], is indicative of the existing chasm between the scientific and general communities. The abstract image of Einstein as a wizard-like scientist does nothing to help elevate science to a respected position among lay people. Holton thus wrongly interprets the influence Einstein may have on modern society.