Disrupting Science By Kelly Moore: Chapter Summary

Science is a study that brings together people from all different realms. It provides people a chance to get involved, and expand human understanding of the universe. In Disrupting Science, by Kelly Moore, a new perspective on this seemingly spectacular opportunity that is science is provided to readers. Their eyes are opened up to the non-scientists, and how they as a group shaped the world. With strategically placed word choice, figurative language, structural evidence, and key ideas, Moore concludes her enticing book in a way that captivates readers, and looks forward to the future for a science for everyone. Within her concluding paragraph, Moore ties together the nature of progress that she speaks about so profoundly. Scientists are

Even though her book was a scientific and sociological look at science itself, Moore pleads with the reader in the conclusion. She challenges and encourages, all at the same time. She opens with a negative view, understanding that scientific ideas may be “distorted” if citizens focus on the values of non-scientists, but a strategically placed paradox shifts her tone (Moore 214). She says, “without ways to understand the power and limitations of the techniques that scientists use… there is no way for nonscientists to assess the validity of scientific information that flows like a river into people’s lives” (Moore 214). This word placement of power and limitations directly next to each other probes the reader to look to the future and assess for themselves what they view as the powers of science and the limitations of science. With a mindset like that, and an open world view, Moore sets up the future generation of scientists and non-scientists, and allows them a chance to never stop at the limitations. She also uses a lone simile in this concluding paragraph, as noted in the previous quotation. This stands out amongst all of her other scientific jargon. It sets the stage for a new viewpoint, just as the paradox was the turning point of her perspective. Science is always flowing, and Moore

Organizations cited, like Science for the People, feature an “…open-ended approach to the development of ways of using scientific ideas and skills in the service of ‘the people’” (Moore 158). She highlights organizations like these to provide a new outlook, and keep people moving forward, as they provide a means of “exploring, and in some cases, institutionalizing ideas about the proper relationship between science and politics” (16). This relationship is amplified in the conclusion, and readers are able to understand that “part of the political power of science has been based on the idea that ‘science’ constitutes a unified field of action, in the sense that its practitioners largely agree on the standards for judging ideas” (Moore 200). She offers ways for readers to no longer judge, but instead view others as brothers and sisters in science. This evidence is proof that her encouraging push towards fairness and equality in science is sincere and effective, and change is needed