Borchelt: Our next speaker I'm just delighted to introduce today. I saw a presentation last year at a Public Communication of Science and Technology International meeting, and there is a large international meeting called PCST, and Bruce, I think, is going to talk a little bit more about that. And Bruce gave what I thought was just a fascinating discussion about an underserved, under-looked, undervalued, overlooked field of public communication, which is the way that popular books drive our dialogue, in the U.S. and elsewhere, about science. And I thought this would be a very appropriate set of remarks for this audience. I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I did.

Bruce wears a number of hats. He's been very active in science communication over the years. He's a science historian at Cornell University who has, you know, just done tremendous things to push both the archival retrieval of information and, sort of, this big picture of science communication writ large on American society; he has done some of the most fascinating work that I know of. Bruce, if you'd like to join us, we're very delighted to have you here this morning.

Lewenstein: Am I properly mic'd? Can you hear me? No. Yes, some people can. The near-by people hear me because I talk loud, but I don't think the mic is on. Let's see. It's not. There we go. Now it's on. That sounds better. Now am I'm overpowering you?

Okay. So, thank you very much. I am based at Cornell, where I teach science communications courses. I am also, this year, partially on leave, and I'm at a place called The Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia. And I mention that specifically because the fellowship I have there is about this topic, about science books, so I appreciate their support. Before I go into my talk, I do want to give a couple of commercials. The first one is, one of the roles is that I'm the editor of - we've all - Carol Rogers and I are friendly competitors. We even jointly sponsor parties and things like that, but I'm the editor of a different journal called Public Understanding of Science, which has, in its current issue, a review of Dan Greenberg's book written by David Guston, so that's the Web site where you can get more information about the journal.

The other thing that I want to do is mention, Rick mentioned this international network, and in his introductory remarks yesterday, Rick called this "the first peer-reviewed meeting on best practices in public communication of science and technology," and this is a - recurring tweaking that he and I have. This is - you'll see that this is the seventh international meeting that we have coming up in 2002. It's a slightly different character, but it has many of the same - this is a group of people from around the world who are interested in various aspects of public communication of science and technology. Many of the same kinds of issues we've been talking about here. I think it'll be a fascinating meeting that we have coming up, and encourage all of you, again, to go to that Web site and find out more about this. I'll also tell you that there is a pre-conference tour. We actually moved the meeting by a day to allow this conference tour to happen. This pre-conference tour will involve going up to the Kruger National Park, doing all the game drives and stuff, and then you end up at the northern end of the Kruger National Park on the day where there will be a total eclipse of the sun, and you'll see totality there before coming to the meeting. Although, Steve Maran tells me that, actually, the weather at that time may be a problem, but I'm going to ignore that.

So, why should we care about books; right? I think it was one of Rick's very last point was to say that we need to think about this "new media" world that we're all a part of. And so the question is what - if we should all be thinking about how to use the Web and how to create public discussions and dialogues and putting in the infrastructure for chat rooms and whatever, then what's the purpose of looking at books? Well, there's two aspects of it that I think are useful, and the first one is that it's so easy to point to some examples if we think about, well, what has been influential in science or in public issues in science over the last generation, we can easily come up with examples, like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, or, you know, we think of sort of the phenomenon of the Steven Hawking book and say, "Well, what's going on there?"

The other issue is that - it's a more general issue about history in particular. I'm trained as a historian, and those of use who are historians don't just do it because it's fun, because we like reading other people's mail, though we do, but also because we tend to think that there's something that you gain from looking at new things with the understanding of old things. So, this is an article earlier this week - those of you who've been following the news, there's a new claim of table-top fusion coming out. It's actually an article published in the current issue that comes out today of Science magazine. Rick mentioned I'm a historian. I do archival things.

One of the things that I did was that I created an archive on cold fusion at Cornell about 10 years - well, 12-13 years ago now- where we looked at not just how the media covered cold fusion, but just the general question about cold fusion and lots of issues about how did it develop, and what were the social issues that led to that development and so forth. It struck me that, looking at this issue of Time magazine, I rather expected next week we'll see an issue that looks something like this, where there will be questions about, again, with all due respect to our DOE funders, to the Oak Ridge physicists. So, I think there is something to be gained by looking back at history. I also think that there's something to be gained by thinking about science communication generally, not just as a, sort of, how do we reach people, but actually thinking in a slightly more theoretical kind of way about what are the models of science communication? How do we imagine that information flows?

We tend to think about science communication as this, sort of, nice formal thing. Science happens in the lab and goes through some meeting and pre-prints, and it's finally published in a formal paper, and then it's "science." And only after is gets to "science" does it get out here to the mass media and textbooks and policy documents. But one of the things that came from studying the cold fusion case, and in looking - seeing whether some of the things we saw in cold fusion applied in some of the other cases, as well, was that it's a lot messier. This is supposed to look like a sphere, but I don't quite have the artistic skills to make that happen, but you can see that there's stuff that happens in lab and field work, and it goes from e-mails and sometimes might go straight to a museum or come out some of the - what we heard last night about Hannah [Holmes] being, sort of, out in the field with people, and then it goes out there into a documentary or a Web thing. We have general books out here, but stuff flows all over the place. And as we think about public communication, we have to think about it in that sense. We have to think about the multiple ways that information is flowing.

The other thing we have to think about from a theoretical point of view are these models of what is it we're trying to accomplish, and this is a slightly different -- the labels I'm using here are slightly different from the one's that Susanna Priest used yesterday, or even the ones that Rick just talked about this morning. But first off, we have - there is this traditional deficit model; this idea that if we simply provide information, things will get better. As we've heard over and over at this meeting, there is a tremendous need to provide information, you know, the kinds of things Joe was talking about, Joe Schwarcz was talking about yesterday. It's not that there's something wrong with the deficit model. It's not that we don't need to provide information It's that it - that only captures part of what the need is. There are these other things, like what I call the "contextual model," which is the idea that, as Rick said, there is no one audience. In fact, there are multiple audiences, and we need to think about them in context. In what situation do they need information? So, we provide information in different ways to different groups.

Somewhat more controversial are ideas called "lay knowledge" or "lay expertise." The idea that sometimes what we're talking about or trying to set up communication situations where ideas from non- what we would traditionally call "non-experts, non-scientists," become part of the research enterprise. An example of this is some of the stuff - so for example, as AIDS activists or cancer activists have shaped the research agenda - they don't change the knowledge itself, but they change what we know and what we think about and where we put our efforts. That's a different kind of communication setting than a setting where we're simply providing information. And then the final one is what I think Susanna called "public opinion model," what I call the "public participation model, " what Rick just called "dialogue," they're all the same thing. The point - we claim we're interested in this issue of public communication because science is important in a democracy, and the key thing about a democracy is public participation in all facets of the discussion, and so we have to be thinking about those. So, I set these things up as, sort of, background so that when we start talking about books, we're thinking about books in the context of that overall web of communication, and we're talking about them in this context of multiple models. What multiple roles might they be playing?

The other reason for talking about books and thinking about books is that, as we've traditionally talked about culture - and I'm taking culture in a very broad sense here - we think about books as being carriers of culture. We don't think about, sort of, the Web - the Web is a part of culture, but it doesn't carry culture. Maybe it does, and maybe we need to be thinking about it that way, but books are where we traditionally turn. So, we want to think about that as a long-range issue.

So what I want to talk about is some data and some ideas from this ongoing project I'm looking at. I'm looking at the history of science books since World War II. I am a historian, but I also - I focus on recent science. One of my colleagues is very proud of the fact that he taught himself Latin at the age of 60 so that he could read Kant in the version that [Ampere] had access to. I'm not that kind of historian; you know? I only work on things type written in English. But, I'm looking both at books, sort of, within science, so text books and conference proceedings and so forth, but then I'm also looking at this more public part. So today I'm just going to talk about the public part.

The data that I'm going to be using - I'm trying to understand what books should I be looking at. And there's a couple of different ways of identifying books. There are the ones that have some kind of an official presence. They've won an award, a Pulitzer Prize, a National Book Award, something like that. They have been certified as being "popular" by virtue of being on some best-seller list or another, and I'll talk a bit about that. And then there's the books that I call "the remembered books." The ones that if I start talking about this project with people, people will come up to me and say, "but you're going to include that book, aren't you?" Because there are certain books that have some kinds of touchstones for us.
Looking at those kinds of things, let me start with the Pulitzer Prize winners. If you look at the Pulitzer Prize winners since 1945, there's a couple of interesting points. In the first 30 years, there were almost no, there were almost no science books there. There's one book, Baxter's Scientists Against Time, right after the war, which was a story about the Atomic bomb, and the Goetzmann's book on Exploration and Empire, which was a sort of exploration of the West.

But then beginning with Sagan's Dragons of Eden in 1978, look, every year, or every other year, we start having a book which is a science book. And they're not all history books. They show up in both the general non-fiction and in the history category. That's an interesting point. Something happens in the prize winners in the late 70s. There's some kind of change, and some sense in which science becomes a part of the general discussion that's going on. Those of you who went through that period remember that's also about the time of the science boom. There were new science magazines that started late 70s, early 80s. There were some new science television shows. Nova itself starts in '70 - it's first broadcast, I guess, was in '73 or '74, but there's something that's going on there in that time period. And this data, sort of, seems to fit similar kind of things. If we look in more recent years, again, just the pattern of every couple of years continues. These are some of the more recent ones: Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel or John McPhee's Annals of a Formal World, those of us who are science-attentive have been reading McPhee for years, but only now does it begin to show up, you know, it's just this one which has recently won an award - The evolution book, Larson's Summer of the Gods, and so forth.

When I look at best sellers, I see a similar kind of pattern. This is data from, looking at the weekly New York Times best-seller lists, and looking for books that are about science on those best-seller lists since 1945. I have to thank very much and undergraduate student, Diane Ransbarger, at Cornell, who is what we call a Cornell Presidential Research Scholar. These are students we identify at the time they're admitted and say, "You might be interested in research, and we're going to give you money so you can get engaged in research throughout your entire academic career. So, poor Diane, for the last year - she's now a sophomore, finishing her sophomore year - spent six months looking at micro films every week finding these, and plotted science books, and don't worry so much about the noise in the data, but again, look at this period. In the late 70s, there's a jump, and although there's still noise in the data, clearly that post-70s period, there's more interest; there are more science books being sold. And that's another of these markers that tells us that there's something going on. Books are carrying some kind of conversation. Between the Pulitzer Prize winners and the best sellers, what these are suggesting to us is that this notion of two cultures, this notion that these are separate worlds doesn't quite fit, because somehow the best sellers and the Pulitzer Prize winners mean that, at least among some segments of the community, science is part of the general discussion. It's the kind of thing you're expected to read. I'll come back to that point.

When we actually start looking at those best sellers, what it is that got included on the list, there are at least two kinds. There's the "science as science," they're the books that are about physics or about astronomy or about biology or so forth - and I'll - that's actually where I'm going to spend most of my time. But, there's a whole other set of books here that I'm calling "public science," which are books that draw on sex, but they draw on, sort of, the science of sex. There are inspirational books that are often drawing on some psychological themes. There's a lot of diet and health and fitness and medicine kinds of books. There's some - a few humor books. I don't want to claim that all these books are using science well. We heard a lot of good examples yesterday from Joe Schwarcz about books that are claiming to be scientific but are not. But these books are getting some of their authority from science. Again, if people start saying, "Well, science is not valued in our society," the reason these things are becoming best sellers is precisely because they are claiming to draw on science; precisely because they're using the authority of science to say, "We deserve respect in the community of ideas." And to me, that's a piece of evidence that suggests science actually plays a very important role, in that there is a tremendous willingness to look at science.

These are some of the best sellers. These are some of the annual best sellers drawn from the Annual Publisher's Weekly list. There's lots of methodological problems I won't bore you with in dealing with best-seller lists. Don't count anything too precisely; I'll say that. But if you see what is it that makes it onto the best-seller lists, again, we see this sort of "sex" piece. I mean, the two Kinsey books, any of you who have ever looked at the two Kinsey books, I mean these are not things one would predict would be best sellers, once you get past the title. But the title, alone, seems to have sold a fair amount. But we also see, you know, Sherry Hite's Hite Report and the Masters & Johnson book there. A lot of the other books, especially in this early period through 1979, 1980 are exploration books: Kon-Tiki, Carson's earlier book - Rachel Carson's earlier book called The Sea Around Us - she was a best-selling author 10 years before Silent Spring came out.

Heyerdahl's later book. Or the sort of, grand books, Brownowski's Ascent of Man. Brownowski and Sagan are probably the first of the books that most of us would think of as the "science" books - "science as science" books - well not counting the Kinsey and Masters & Johnson - ones that, somehow, are about scientific ideas. The breakthrough comes in 1980 with Carl Sagan's Cosmos. The TV show, of course, is tremendously powerful as what's well known and partly what drives this, but the book itself was also a best seller. A best seller so great that shortly after the book is published and becomes a best seller, Sagan is given a $2 million contract for what becomes the novel, Contact. At the time, that was the largest advance ever given for a fiction book that was not even in manuscript form. It was tremendously powerful in a, sort of as sense that there's something new here going on.

We go from Sagan, and then we jump to the Hawking, Brief History of Time. Hawking's book, which is the book that, of course, everybody bought and nobody read, because although as he says in the introduction, he left all the formulas out, all the mathematical equations, it's still a pretty tough read. It sold 700,000 copies in hardcover in its first year; 400,000 copies in its second year. That's just in hardcover. It sets a new feeling about what books can accomplish. Now, there's some changes in what counts as a best seller during this period, and so you'll notice the numbers start going down. Instead of being second or third, we're now down in the 20s and 30s. That's partly because of some changes in the marketing of books, which is why we see so many Garfield comic books and things like that up there. But it's Hawking's book which opens up this notion of the book - the science book - as something that there will be an entire aisle in the bookstore about that will open up the possibility for authors like Hannah we heard last night talking about being able to write her kind of project.

All of that was evidence to suggest that, I think, books have played a role. They're important. There's evidence to show that they are more important in even recent years than they had been in an earlier time. Even with all of the changes in media. So, now what I want to do is talk a little bit about what kind of thing do I think these books are doing, and think there are four areas where books contribute to public discussion.
The first one is the intellectual development of science itself. That even though some of these books are targeted out to the public, they're also targeted to the scientific community, or play a role within the scientific community. This comes back to that "web of science communication" idea; the notion that there's feedback, there's loops that go through here. A second role that they play is recruiting people into science. It should be clear that some of these ideas I'm talking about are relevant not just to books, but they're ideas that I think we should think about.

This is an idea which there is no good translation for. Those of you who've been in France or in French-speaking Canada, culture scientifique is a notion of culture as infused with science - everyday culture, saying we live in a scientific culture. And if we say a scientific culture in English, it doesn't carry the same meaning that seems to carry in the French-speaking countries. But I want to capture this idea that one of the four things that some of these books do, and I'll show you some examples, are things that show this integration of science and culture in our everyday lives.

And then there's a public debate function that books serve. So, what are some of these examples? Let's look at some of this intellectual development in science. These are some of the books that are on best-seller lists, prizewinners, or in some cases, they're key remembered texts. So you take a look at something like E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology: this is a book which was partly intended for the science-attentive public, for the, sort of, elite intellectual community, but it was also an argument within science itself. It was Wilson's full, complete statement of the sociobiology program, and it was intended for use within the scientific community as a statement of that program. And it, in a very real sense, pulled that field together. A similar function was played by one of the textbooks I've looked at, James Watson's Molecular Biology of the Gene, which was published in '65, and was a book that pulled together the field of molecular biology in a way that had not existed before. Whole courses were created to teach that textbook. In the same way, courses were suddenly created called "sociobiology" based on this textbook, and yet at the same time it also, especially because of the last chapter on humans, becomes part of a general public discussion about the nature of who we are.

The Computer Power and Human Reason book is a key text within artificial intelligence, within that community of sorting out, "What do we think about artificial intelligence?" It's also part of the general discussion about the role of computers and how does the brain work and all to that.

Gleick's Chaos is interesting, because that was written as a popular science book, yet was only, you know, another journalist going out and writing a book that would explain some area of science, and yet it served a function of pulling that field together, the field of complexity and chaos, in a way that it had not previously been pulled together. So that if you look at some of the more recent books that are histories of the fields of chaos or complexity, they will cite this book as being one of the things that pulled all those people together, that made them suddenly realize they were all talking to each other in ways that they hadn't done. And so, the public discussion shakes the intellectual discussion, as well, and it's books that do that.

If we look at recruitment, pulling people into science, these are books that people cite as, "Hey, the reason I'm a scientist is because I read that book," and I've included De Kruif's Microbe Hunters, even though it's before my general time period of post-war, just because it's so frequently cited. The number of people who are, today, senior scientists, people who became biologists in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, who read Microbe Hunters, and that's what turned them on, it's just astonishing how frequently that comes up in remembrances.

Watson's Double Helix, a very different kind of book, but again, if you look at the people who are, today, at the forefront of biotechnology or of genomics, the number of them who read that book as graduate students and said, "Yeah, that's the kind of scientist I want to be. I get to go make a Nobel Prize winning discovery, and then I get to go play tennis and then I get to go get the girls," that sounded like a cool kind of career.

And more recently, particularly in astronomy and physics, you get people for whom Cosmos, either the TV show or the book, they often are people who were so turned on by the TV show that they then went and got the book and read it. It has that same, sort of, "Why are you an astrophysicist or an astronomer?" "Because I saw Carl Sagan's Cosmos, " or "I read Cosmos."

We get this book, this culture scientifique idea. This idea that these are books which you were expected to have read if you wanted to call yourself "cultured." And particularly, Asimov is a problem. How do I deal with the Asimov phenomenon? What Asimov is really known for is his science fiction books. If you look at his best seller list, I wanted to be sure I had this data right. Out of his 400 plus books, Amazon lists about 285 of them. And the foundation series is first, and it ranks about 9,700, so --below 10,000 on the Amazon list. The first of his non-fiction-science-oriented books is the book that I showed on that previous slide, this one, Atoms: Journey Across the Subatomic Cosmos, and that book ranks about 50,000 on the list. It's the 26th book on the list. So, it's 10% of the way down the list.

Asimov is also interesting because he reflects that commitment to the scientific view. In the late 80s, I wrote an OP-ED piece for The Scientist, the weekly newsmagazine, newspaper for scientists, in which I was talking about what I call "the arrogance of pop science." There was a question of, "Who should popular science be relating to?" I was arguing that a lot of the popular science magazines that had been produced at that time and that were actually in trouble in the late 80s - many of them had failed - had failed not because they weren't pretty; they were like the Whitehead Web site, but they had failed because they were speaking from the scientific point of view and were not starting where audiences were. Asimov got a little annoyed at that, and he wrote a letter to the editor. I'm proud, I generated a letter to the editor by Isaac Asimov. And he said, "Yeah, I don't understand what this Lewenstein nut is saying. Because he's saying that if people are stupid that I need to start where they are. That doesn't make sense."

"By Newton!" he thundered, (not by God,) "By Newton, I'd rather be arrogant than stupid."
But it captured this sense that the Asimov books or the Brownowski or -you couldn't have considered yourself a cultured person if you hadn't read the essays of Lewis Thomas and the ideas about science that were there. Far more recently, Sobel's Longitude book. People with argue about whether there's much science, especially in Longitude, but you were expected to have read those books, you were expected to have seen the excerpts of them that were in The New Yorker, in certain kinds of elite cultures that are often part of that attentive public, I think.

Then there's a final role, which is this role of public debate, public opinion. And these books are the books that are not just providing information, not just exciting people, but in fact, are making some kind of argument.

Silent Spring in the most obvious one; the book cited as being the founder of the environmental movement. Carson's book was not attacked just by chemical companies, it was attacked by science writers. In 1963, a well-known science writer named Lawrence Lessig won the ACS's Grady Stack Award, and as part of his award speech, he called this book, "highly emotional with a biased thesis," and much of his talk was, in fact, an attack on Silent Spring. So, there was an argument which many people felt they needed to take up. Similarly, The Feeling for the Organism in 1983, the biography of Barbary McClintock, was part of a discussion about the nature of science, and about whether feminine science is somehow different. Did she do science differently? Did she have some kind of, sort of, female connection with her materials that males don't have. And there was an argument that was being made and it's an ongoing argument, and people have been, and they're been lots of people who have criticized, sort of, the technical details of this research for Kellery 's book, but more importantly is, it was engaging in a public discussion.

The Herrnstein and Murray book on the bell curve, again, a book that many people will argue with the science in it - will argue whether it properly reports or whether it interprets data correctly, but the point is that it became a topic of discussion. This was the kind of book where there were, again, public debates, OP-Ed pieces, magazine pieces, further newspapers, policy discussions and so forth. And so, books can play a role there, as well.

So, how do I think books drive public discussion? First off, I think they drive it simply by being part of that mix. I think books are there, and while we focus on the Web and on those new models that Rick was talking about, we can't forget that there's lots of other pieces in that web of communication. I think that books are there.

I think they function by addressing some of those different models of communication that I talked about. In terms of "deficit model," they provide information. They bring new perspectives into science. That "lay knowledge" idea, I mean, the notion that a journalist, James Gleick, would write a book that then pulls together a field, is a different way of thinking about what the role of some of this public communication can be.

And then, by stimulating discussion about lots of topics, they can not just make you feel good in the way a Lewis Thomas book did, but make you argue with the book in the way that the Herrnstein and Murray book did - is a role that books can play. And that's that "public participation" or "public opinion" model.
Ultimately, what I think books - and if you wish you can substitute public communication of science and technology there - ultimately, what I think books do is they create the culture that we live in. They are elements both of the scientific culture and or our more general culture, and by looking at them, we can actually see the ways in which science and modern culture are not separate but are - to use a jargon word from The Sociology of Science - they are "co-produced." Neither one exists without the other one, and books provide and example of that, and I think if we think about the multiple ways that books do that, we can also see the ways in which a lot of the kinds of activities that other people in this room are doing also contribute, not just to solving some particular issues, but in fact to creating a scientific culture. Thank you.

Borchelt: What we'd like to do is take maybe two questions and then save the rest for discussion with Bruce over the break. And then what I'd like to do is come back in here by 11:00, after our break, to start the next panel. So, two questions for Bruce, and then catch him during the break.
One back here in the corner.

Question: Very interesting talk and I think -is this on? Yes. One thought is that one other aspect about the books, particularly the popularization of science, I mean, thinking about Sagan and others, that really were done by scientists, were seen as popularization; it seems to me that if may have served in some other things that you didn't, at least explicitly, address here, which is that it made legitimate to some degree, with arguments, but it, to some degree legitimized the popularization of science by scientists in this sense. Not that that wasn't done, but I think it became a broader part of culture, perhaps more so even in America then elsewhere, but I think it also served in another sense or is serving in another sense which is I think it's provided new models and tools for engaging scientists in that process, as we've discussed many times. I just think that might be -

Lewenstein: Yeah, certainly there are some specific items. In the late 1970s- as part of the science boom of the late 70s and early 80s - the Sloan Foundation funded a series of books by scientists that are, sort of, quasi-autobiographical. I'm thinking of Freeman s Dyson's Disturbing the Universe, Mark Kac had one [Enigmas of Choice] , I forget what some of the others were - that there was validation, as you say, there for a senior scientist to write a book and to go out and do it. And I think that that's certainly - books are something which are less threatening - we were having this discussion over breakfast: the question of whether a scientist like Joe Schwarcz - whether there's approbation from the community, whether people object to a scientist engaging in outreach. And, in fact, all of the people who we've talked with, I mean, Joe was saying this, Ilan and I organized a session a couple of weeks ago at AAAS where the answer was, "No, scientists don't feel" - in fact, despite the myth that they get attacked for what's sometimes called "The Sagan Effect," that in fact they don't feel attacked.

Lewenstein: Clearly, books are one of the places where even those who are worried about being attacked don't worry so much, because that's an acceptable outlet. And the last question, we have to wait for the mic to get to the middle of the room.

Question: Thanks so much. I really enjoyed your talk, and I was thinking about how you gave an overview of adult books, and I was thinking about my experience and our previous discussion about how we need to reach children. One of my favorite books as a child was Madeleine L'Engle's book called The Arm of the Starfish, in which this theme of neuro-regeneration is interwoven into this great story, and so my question for you is, "Do you have general thoughts on how science in children's books influences science literacy, and do you have any plans to maybe do an overview of children's literature?"
I mean, we can talk about this at the break if it's too hard to answer.

Lewenstein: Right, right. I don't have any immediate plans to do the overview, just because this project keeps growing every time I turn around, but - and I've got to get it done. But, clearly, children's books have some kind of role. I mean actually this is one where I need to think a lot about whether this is one of those places where the media mix changes now and what kids do is different. On the other hand it is clear that children's books about science continue to sell very well and are a big market. They don't seem to have quite the -what I haven't got is that sort of set of remembered texts that everybody has read in quite the same way, so that it's harder to pinpoint a specific ones. Any of you who've written for children know that, purely as a writing exercise, that it's a wonderfully challenging writing exercise to do some work - when I was a science writer, I worked for a brief time for National Geographic Society's book division working on some of their kids' books and magazines. There you have these highly-designed texts, and you've got five lines of 42 characters, you know, that's a wonderfully challenging writing assignment. So there's a lot of opportunity there. I haven't really thought that much about it.

Borchelt: Thanks a bunch. Please try to come back in by 11:00, and let's give Bruce a round of applause.