But by far the worst indignity is having to wear the “Elizabethan collar,” not exactly fun for a rambunctious dog. Still, can you see the resemblance?

Specter and Mooney don’t agree about everything, and that’s what makes their ongoing conversation at Slate’s Book Club so interesting. The discussion, focusing on Denialism, began Thursday with a review from Mooney that was mostly laudatory, but raised a few good questions. Specter responded, and Mooney weighed in again on Friday morning; we’re now awaiting a fourth installment from Specter.

That fourth installment is now up and it is here. Some highlights: 1) Specter things I’m too pessimistic in questioning whether President Obama would lead a national dialogue on synthetic biology; 2) Specter is much harder than I am the NIH’s office to study complementary and alternative medicine; 3) Specter is less sold than I on the importance of scientists filling the “communication gap,” though he agrees that approach has its merits; 4) Specter is more optimistic than I am about the ongoing possibility of journalism to elevate and enlighten us with respect to science.

To that end, he closes with a great quotation from Milton’s Areopagitica, one I’d forgotten until this jogged my memory:

Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Well, sadly, I did, that’s who–or at least, I question whether the encounters are “free and open” these days.

After Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America, I think a growing thesis of mine is that truth really does not win in open encounters, a lot of the time. In fact, truth loses big time, and we need to understand how and why. But that’s a much, much longer post…

In today’s media world, you really need a national leader to broach such a conversation—e.g., President Obama, as you suggest in your book. While I’d be happy to be proven wrong, though, I doubt he has the time to bring up such a dark-horse topic, especially in light of all the other policy fires that must be put out. Without a presidential initiative, we lack an adequate national forum for discussing the complex and crucial problems that science lays before us. (Don’t expect synthetic biology to come up on Oprah; as you point out, she is too busy providing a platform for vaccine skeptics like Jenny McCarthy.)

As a result, synthetic biology may be fully upon us before people start thinking about it. And it will likely come to broader attention only as a result of some kind of political controversy—just as occurred with embryonic stem cell research or genetically modified foods. At that point, I fear, we’ll simply become polarized over the issue.

You can read my full reply here.

..the Droid’s design screams “Star Wars,” if not “Darth Vader.” It’s jet black, all sharp angles and industrial-looking edges. Verizon asked Motorola to soften the design for better female appeal, but it’s hopeless: Droid is all masculine, all the time. When you slide the screen up to reveal the thumb keyboard, there’s no spring-assisted snap; it drags like a plow through soil. It’s all part of the manly man design concept.

Wait I sec… I love Star Wars! Still, it’s a shiny new phone with lots of buzz and anticipation surrounding the release. The Wall Street Journal predicts it may be a big win for Verizon, Motorola and Google, while naming several drawbacks.

I have the original iPhone and am planning to purchase a new one soon. My contract’s been up for a long time and the screen finally cracked last week after an unfortunate collision with hardwood flooring. It’s past time to join a 3G network. However, next year I’m headed to Austin, TX and service sounds unreliable in the region.

So I’m curious to hear from our tech savvy readers about early impressions of the Droid 2.0. Further, what do think is the best smart phone on the market right now?

There will always be irresponsible blogs and Web sites. But there is also the New York Post. What we need to defeat denialism are independent and thoughtful publications (like this one, for example) that serve up information that is at least as reliable as newspapers have been. We will get there, but it is going to take a while, and the journey has and will be painful. In the mean time, the American public, and particularly those of us who write about science, need to start talking more vigorously about our scientific opportunities and their potential risks. If we don’t start soon, we are going to let some very promising solutions to our worst problems slip away. Do you agree with me that a national discussion on the future of synthetic life is necessary? More importantly, do you think it’s possible?

I think it’s crucially important to have a national discussion on synthetic life…and I’m now writing my next response to Specter. Meanwhile, read his here.

Hi Michael,

First, let me say it has been a pleasure to read Denialism, a book I’ve wanted to dig into ever since you came to speak about it to our Knight Science Journalism Fellows seminar at MIT. It’s heartening to see another author beating the drum about America’s dysfunctional relationship with science, and making the point so vividly and memorably. Your narrative about vaccine skeptics’ attacks on an unassuming and rigorous scientist like Harvard’s Marie McCormick—whom I have also interviewed—made me so angry I wanted to hurl the book across the room (and that’s a good thing!).

What’s more, your book looks past some of the more obvious cases of “denialism”—of climate change, HIV/AIDS, evolution, and so forth—to lesser known realms like personalized medicine and synthetic biology, where our qualms about where science is taking us are likely to manifest next. You don’t deny the older and more famous instances of anti-science sentiment, but you smartly move along to the ones we’re going to be dealing with for years to come.

That’s not to say I agree with everything in Denialism; I think there are some aspects of the big picture that you haven’t painted quite right. Take, for instance, the baffling fact that despite all of our irrationality on topics like vaccination, Americans aren’t actually “anti-science” in any meaningful sense of the term…..

You can read my full entry here. Michael Specter will be replying sometime this afternoon and we’ll take it from there…

More videos from the expedition are available at Dive Into Your Imagination.