Project Hieroglyph: Scientifically Responsible Fiction

"The reason that I think that the Hieroglyph project... won't work is because of the 'should' element."

- Jonathan Strahan, 09/13/2014, episode #201 Coode Street Podcast. 

Gary Wolf and Jonothan Strahan debated each other (and themselves, as they so charmingly are wont to do), for nearly 20 minutes about the new anthology, Hieroglyph: Stories and Visions for a Better Future (about 39 minutes into ep. #201). The aspect of Project Hieroglyph that they object to is the notion that Science Fiction - meaning the genre as a whole - should have a purpose. But is that what this anthology is really about?

My chat with Annalee Newitz after she moderated

the Hieroglyph talk at MOCA (Full Video):

I attended the Los Angeles book launch of the anthology last week. To be honest, I did get the impression that Lawrence M. Krauss and some other scientists present at the event, really do feel that science fiction should have a function. I think it's clear that Neal Stephenson thinks it is a good thing for at least some science fiction to have a function, and is proud that some of his work has both inspired scientists and engineers. Perhaps the stronger sentiment, though, was that Science Fiction should be more optimistic.

The notion that science fiction can provide a vocabulary of ideas for engineers within large institutions to use as short-hand when working together on projects is one that I find appealing. For much of my IT career I have often been reminded of concepts from science fiction and been a little frustrated that most of my colleagues are unfamiliar with these concepts. But perhaps they have helped me to be a better programmer, analyst, and project manager because I have these concepts in my own head.

Even if those involved with Project Hieroglyph are making a value judgment on science fiction based on its function, I can't bring myself to get too excited about that. It's the nature of art. There will always be differing opinions, and I think that is fine. I like the idea of science fiction sometimes serving such a purpose, and it does reflect on the value of the genre as a whole, but I don't think it all needs to. And this is ultimately what Strahan and Wolf seem to agree on toward the end of their podcast.

ASTC 2013 Keynote: A Conversation with Neal Stephenson

 

In addition to being scientifically responsible (reflecting good science, and ideas that are useful to science and related fields), Stephenson and Krauss said several times during the talk that it was essential to have a good story. So, it's not just about the science, not just about the ideas. Stephenson talked about moving away from a certain period in the genre's past where character and plot were unimportant.  Readers will have to judge if Hieroglyph is successful in this.

I simply look at the book as a themed anthology. I hope it is successful, and I hope there will be more. At the end of the talk, I got to ask a question of the panel. What new opportunities for writers might come out of this project?

That proved a tough question to answer. I thank Stephenson for taking my question seriously. He acknowledge the issue of compensating writers for their art, and said that could be an hour-long discussion all by itself.

I was hoping, though, that he might provide more details about future anthologies, or even novels, sponsored by Project Hieroglyph. Perhaps this project, along with the MIT's 12 Tomorrows anthologies, will emerge as a new trend in publishing. Could it contribute to a resurgence in short fiction? That would be an important development for the future viability of a full-time career for writers.

Related posts on Writer Compensation:

Robert J. Sawyer on The Agenda

Charles Stross on io9

John Scalzi on Audible
 

On that front, Strahan also reports in the podcast, Kathryn Cramer, one of the editors of the Hieroglyph anthology, has tweeted that there will be more projects to come.

I also contacted some of the faculty in University of California Riverside's Science Fiction and Technoculture Studies program. All three Professors of the department were present at the Hieroglyph talk: Rob Latham, Sherryl Vint, and award winning author, Nalo Hopkinson. In an email conversation after the event, I asked Dr. Vint if there might be a UCR sponsored anthology, or maybe a series of on-campus talks with the writers. She did say she was talking with Arizona State University, who partnered with Stephenson to make this anthology happen, but it is unclear if anything will come of that:

"Ed Finn [Director of ASU's Center for Science and the Imagination] and I have begun a dialogue to explore opportunities to collaborate in the future. We have yet to work out any details." 

- Sherryl Vint, Professor of Science Fiction Media Studies, UC Riverside

This is shaping up to be a momentous year for science fiction at UCR. There are lots of exciting possibilities, and also some challenges. They received a prestigious $175,000 Sawyer Seminar grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, which will include public talks on "ethnic futurisms." The Eaton Collection (world's largest collection of SF/F that's publicly accessible) received a $3.5 million gift.

But prior to that gift, concerns emerged about the Eaton Collection being threatened. Then it appeared that Dr. Steve Cullenberg, Dean of the college that houses the SFTS program, would try to facilitate a dialogue and help address the faculty's concerns about the collection. However, Dean Cullenberg later announce he was stepping down from his position. After the event in LA, I emailed Dr. Latham and asked about where things stand with the Eaton Collection, but he said there would not be much to report until later this fall.

“We hope to have more clarity soon after the Fall term begins. A new college-level committee will be in place then to address some of the faculty’s concerns, and the Senate-wide Library Committee will also be addressing the issue.”

- Rob Latham, Professor of English, UC Riverside

In 2009 Annalee Newitz called UCR a "haven for science fiction studies." I hope this reputation continues. (If you would like to support the SFTS program it UCR, you can donate here.)

As a UCR alumnus and current member of the staff, I would be proud and excited to see UCR participating in Project Hieroglyph. That would be a sign that the project is successful. And the turnout at the talk in LA is another. Reservations for the event filled up before some of my friends could sign up, and the auditorium was packed, people watching from the lounge TV outside. And as soon as I arrived, I purchased the very last copy of the anthology that the bookseller, Skylight Books, brought to the event. They continued to take mail orders and hand out book plates for signing for the rest of the night.


Disclaimer: The ideas and opinions expressed in this personal blog are my own unless otherwise explicitly attributed, and not the official opinion of my employer.

Scientific American Restores Blog Post

Good for Scientific American for restoring DNLee's blog post. The insult she is responding to is egregious. It is more than just a personal attack - and most personal attacks are probably best ignored. This is about taking a stand against sexism and racism. Such reprehensible behavior should not be tolerated. I think it was brave of DNLee to respond publicly and applaud her for doing so.

When DNLee's blog post was taken down (within an hour of being posted), it was looking like Popular Science turning off comments on their site due to Trolls. Now that the post is back, I see this as empowering science, and a show of support for women and minorities in science.

There is a lot of science controversy lately. Ultimately, I think it is good for science to get this level of scrutiny. It gives the public the opportunity to dig into the issues facing science and make it better. We should not have blind faith in science, and we should not be asked to. We should always be critical.

On the same day as DNLee's post, NPR covered the rise of "cheating" in science (e.g., faked experiment results), and the efforts to crack down on cheating. This is another example of science policing itself, like I mentioned in a recent post about shady scientific journals.

While the Popular Science actions were disheartening - like science was losing the war against trolls - cracking down on cheating and bad science journals is very encouraging. The scientific community is cleaning house

Bad Science Journals Feel The Sting

Some people have a strong distrust of science, and yet others have a strong faith in science. Neither is good. Scientific research always needs to be looked at skeptically, thought about critically. A big part of my undergraduate education in Anthropology involved critiquing the science in published scientific articles. The ability to critically evaluate science, I believe, should be at the core of science education.

This is why "Peer Review," the practice of letting other expert scientists review and give feedback to a researcher before their paper is published, is such an important practice in the scientific community. This is a process that improves the paper that is published, and filters out bad science. But even flawed research can make it through this gauntlet, and the criticism and debate continues after publishing.

Popular Science recently announced that they were shutting down comments on their site because some comments from the general public can be bad for science. The uncivil and inflammatory comments were not critiquing the science and they were muddying the water.

But there is another trend in scientific publication muddying the water: a growing number of new journals that either don't do peer review or do a poor job of it. Kudos to John Bohannon who writes in Science today about the sting he conducted to root out a bunch of poor quality journals. A surprising number of the new breed of journals he submitted a bad paper to actually accepted it without catching some glaring flaws. When confronted with his findings, at least one journal was closed down by its parent company.

Above is a snapshot of a very cool interactive map showing the locations of the journals, or where there IP addresses were, or where their bank accounts were, which was often suspiciously obscured in the paper submission process. (Green indicates rejection, red represents acceptance of the bad paper).

Journalists who specialize in science often do a good job of thinking critically about the science they report. However, other journalists often do a poor job, even on respected news outlets. Just last week on NPR's Fresh Air Terri Gross showed her poor understanding of genetics/evolution with this question to her guest, Daniel Lieberman:

Oh. I see what you're saying. Because you've already reproduced, so any adaptation that you make as a result of the disease, it's too late to have an effect on reproduction.

Lieberman should have corrected her misunderstanding by explaining that you simply can't make adaptations to yourself. You have to be born with an adaptation.

The process at work is this: If you have a genetic trait that causes a disease, but it doesn't kill you before you reproduce, you will pass on that trait. Also, the people who adapt a trait that prevents that disease are not significantly more likely to reproduce. The trait doesn't have a significant impact on genetic fitness.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, the 18th century biologist, famously theorized that organisms could acquire traits during their lifetime and pass them onto their offspring. This was eventually disproven by Mendelian genetics. This is a core concept in genetics and evolution.

However, Lieberman responds, "Yeah, well, this is an important topic, obviously." Perhaps he just wasn't listening closely, because he goes on to make another point entirely.


Clearly, we've got a long way to go when it comes to fostering critical thinking in science education and journalism. Scientists doing a better job of policing each other is a step in the right direction.