Halting the spread of disease involves a combination of health care and societal practices — from access to doctors and vaccines to clean water and adequate resources.

Many of those solutions rely on electricity and transport fuels, whether for refrigeration, diagnosis and treatment, or distribution. But with two of the major energy sources the world relies on now — coal and oil in the form of diesel fuel — global health stands little chance of major improvement, says a ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý researcher.

In a four-part series that launched April 6 in , , a geoscientist and affiliate in the UW’s Jackson School of International Studies, lays out the case for alternative energy within the context of better health. The diseases caused or worsened by air pollution and unsafe drinking water go hand in hand with rapidly growing economies around the world, Montgomery argues. But countries have an opportunity to choose a healthier future.

“Energy is the key to many things dealing with public health, and electricity is the most fundamental,” Montgomery said. “Discussions about this tend to focus on the developing world, but it’s not just happening ‘over there.’ These issues are happening everywhere; it’s just that in some places, it happens a lot more.”

Montgomery focuses the of his series on air pollution, the particulate matter generated mostly by coal and diesel, but also by wood, charcoal and animal dung. The latter fuels, in the developing world, tend to result from open-fire cooking. Fine particulates, which are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, are easily inhaled and absorbed into the bloodstream. Pollution from open-fire sources affects as many as , Montgomery said, disproportionately harming people who traditionally spend more time near the stove: women, children and the elderly.

Montgomery cites a 2016 World Health Organization finding that nearly one in four deaths globally are due to “unhealthy environments,” namely, contaminated soil, unclean water and polluted air. Along with related WHO data concerning the with the most polluted air, he explains how the abundance and affordability of coal perpetuates high rates of conditions such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and chronic respiratory disease. Globally, the existing technology in coal-fired plants includes effective controls on most forms of pollution, including particulate matter. But such controls add significant cost and, despite regulatory demands, are not always used, even when installed. Such has been a problem in China, for example, whose coal consumption is as large as the rest of the world combined. Particulate matter also is produced by atmospheric reactions with sulfur dioxide, whose controls are not implemented in many cases.

Diesel is just as pervasive and hazardous as coal, but is often overlooked in the energy debate, particularly regarding health impacts in developing countries, the researcher said. It is more common than gasoline, and fuels most heavy industrial and military vehicles around the world. It also contributes to fine particulate matter outdoors, where worldwide attributed to air pollution rose by some 700,000 between 1990 and 2015.

Montgomery said that in the immediate term, due to economic development and resource availability, the volume and type of energy consumption is unlikely to change. The task ahead, he argues, is to prepare to overhaul the sources of electricity and to re-evaluate what choices might be made for the long-term — a daunting challenge in this economic and regulatory climate.

“These infrastructure problems have been known, but they tend to not be emphasized because people view them as being so fraught and difficult. Governments need to be working well, and there needs to be private investment,” he said. “At the same time, some of the focus on renewable energy has been on getting technologies like wind and solar to developing countries, but those technologies just can’t deliver the amount of power that’s needed.”

Temporary, “frontier fixes” —  a generator for a makeshift hospital here, a new well for a community there —  certainly help for now, Montgomery said. In the long term, however, there needs to be a commitment to building the capacity for a variety of energy sources, and to encouraging countries to pursue their own fuel and health solutions. Bangladesh, for example, has made much progress against water-borne illnesses through and a related outreach campaign. Yet such improvements will need to be secured with actual water treatment, sewage systems and a piped water supply in order to be sustainable.

This can’t be done via external aid alone. “The attempts to just go in and build things for people have failed. You can’t just give things to people and walk away,” Montgomery said. “Private investment can work, if the people are involved in it at many levels, including leadership. This is especially true when it comes to energy choices.”

Increasing the use of alternative energy is one of the . Those alternatives —   geothermal, nuclear, natural gas, solar and wind —  will be addressed later in the series as means of achieving energy security and global health.

“You need a range of different sources to create a truly modern and healthy electricity supply system,” Montgomery said. “The world is now in the midst of an epochal transition in energy choices, trying to build a much healthier future. This comes at a crucial time for many nations, who are now breaking free or beginning to break free of longtime poverty and high levels of disease. It is essential, I think, to draw attention to the growing awareness of how immensely important energy choices are to global health in this era of massive change.”

###

For more information, contact Montgomery at 206-897-1611 or scottlm@uw.edu.

.

Faculty at the UW’s and will explore these issues in a series of public lectures and discussions through spring quarter.

The series “” will be moderated by , professor and director of the Jackson School.

The lectures will be held Tuesdays from 4:30 to 6 p.m. in Room 220 of Kane Hall, starting March 27, and all are open to the public. For students, the series is a 2-credit lecture class.

The lectures are as follows:

March 27: Japan, with .
April 3: Two Koreas, with .
April 10: Indo-Pacific strategy challenges, with .
April 17: Migration, with .
April 24: Global energy challenges, with .
May 1: Online disinformation, with .
May 8: Israel/Palestine, with .
May 15: The European Union, with .
May 22: Putin and Russia, with .
May 29: The Kurds, and a general discussion with Kasaba.

All the speakers are faculty members in the Jackson School except Starbird, who is a professor of human centered design and engineering.

###

For more information about the series, call 206-543-6001 or write to jsisadv@uw.edu.

A novelist’s thoughts on storytelling, a geologist’s soil restoration strategy, an environmentalist’s memoir, a celebration of Latino music influences, a poet’s meditations on her changing city …

Yes, and a best-selling author’s latest work, a podcast reborn as a book, a collaboration of world-class violists and even tales of brave Icelandic seawomen — at this festive time of year, ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý faculty creations can make great gifts for the Dawg on your shopping list.

Here’s a quick look at some gift-worthy books and music created by UW talents in the last year or so — and a reminder of some perennial favorites.

Charles Johnson, “.” Johnson, National Book Award-winning author of “” and longtime professor of English, discusses his art in a book stemming from a year of interviews. “There is winning sanity here,” the New York Times wrote: “Johnson wants his students to be ‘raconteurs always ready to tell an engaging tale,’ not self-preoccupied neurotics.” Published by .

Marisol Berríos-Miranda, Shannon Dudley and Michelle Habell-Pallán, ““ An extraordinary exhibit at the Smithsonian and Seattle’s Experience Music Project (now Museum of Pop Culture) comes to life as a book, detailing Latino influence on American popular music from salsa to punk, Chicano rock to the Miami sound. Berrios-Miranda is an affiliate associate professor of ethnomusicology, Dudley an associate professor of music and Habell-Pallán an associate professor in the Department of Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies. It’s a dual-language volume — English on the right side, Spanish on the left. And as a bonus the authors have created an American Sabor on iTunes and Spotify; the book flags specific songs with a playlist icon. Published by ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý Press.

David R. Montgomery, “.” Montgomery, a professor of Earth and space sciences, won praise for his popular 2007 book “.” Several books later he returned in 2017 with this view of environmental restoration based on three ideas – “ditch the plow, cover up, grow diversity.” said Montgomery’s well-expressed views “will convince readers that soil health should not remain an under-the-radar issue and that we all benefit from embracing a new philosophy of farming.” Published by .

Margaret Willson, Willson is an affiliate associate professor of anthropology and the Canadian Studies Arctic Program. In her years working as a deckhand she came across historic accounts of a woman sea captain known for reading the weather, hauling in large catches and never losing a crew member in 60 years of fishing. “And yet people in Iceland told me there had been few seawomen in their past, and few in their present,” she said. “I found this strange in a country of such purported gender equality. This curiosity led to the research and all that came from it.” Published by .

Estella Leopold, “.” Leopold is professor emeritus of biology and the youngest daughter of , who wrote the 1949 classic of early environmentalism, “.” She returns to scenes of her Wisconsin childhood in this follow-up, describing her life on the land where her father practiced his revolutionary conservation philosophy. Published by .

David Shields, “.” Shields is a professor of English and the best-selling author of many books, starting with his 1984 novel “.” In 2017 he brought out this collection of essays that the New York Times called “a triumphantly humane book” and him “our elusive, humorous ironist, something like a 21^st century Socrates.” The paper’s praise continued: “He is a master stylist — and has been for a long time, on the evidence of these pieces from throughout his career. . . All good writers make us feel less alone. But Shields makes us feel better.” Published by .

Joseph Janes, “.” The year 2017 saw Janes’ popular podcast “” become a book under a slightly different title. Janes is an associate professor in the Information School who writes here about the origin and often evolving meaning of historical documents, both famous and less known. Some of his favorite “documents” are Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s fictional list of communists, the Fannie Farmer Cookbook and the backstory to what’s called the Rosie the Riveter poster. Published by .

Frances McCue, Well-known Seattle poet, teacher and self-described “arts instigator,” McCue is a senior lecturer in English. She was a co-founder of Hugo House, a place for writers, and served as its director for 10 years. Those experiences fuel this book of poems about the changing nature of the city. “This is Seattle. A place to love whatever’s left,” she writes. Published by .

Scott L. Montgomery, “.” Scientific research that doesn’t get communicated effectively to the public may as well not have happened at all, says geoscientist Montgomery in this second volume of a popular 2001 book. A prolific writer, Montgomery is a lecturer in the Jackson School of International Studies. “Communicating is the doing of science,” he adds. “Publication and public speaking are how scientific work gains a presence, a shared reality in the world.”  Published by .

Odai Johnson, “.” The true cultural tipping point in the run-up to the American Revolution, writes Johnson, a professor in the School of Drama, might not have been the Boston Tea Party or even the First Continental Congress. Rather, he suggests, it was Congress’ 1774 decision to close the British American theaters — a small act but “a hard shot across the bow of British culture.” Published by .

Here are some recordings from 2017 involving faculty in the UW School of Music:

Melia Watras, “.” Music professor Watras offers a collaboration from of world-class violists performing and sharing their own compositions with each other. Her own playing has been described in the press as “staggeringly virtuosic.” Richard Karpen, School of Music director, is among several guests. The title comes from the number of strings on the instruments used: two violas, one violin, and the 14-string viola d’amore. .

Cuong Vu 4-Tet, “.” A live collaboration between Vu, UW Jazz Studies chair, and renowned jazz guitarist Bill Frisell, who is an affiliate professor with the School of Music. Recorded in 2016 at Meany Theater, Vu and Frisell were joined by artists in residence Ted Poor on drums and Luke Bergman on bass. Released on .

Craig Sheppard, “.” Sheppard, longtime professor of music and a world-class pianist, plays sonatas and mazurkas by Frederic Chopin recorded live at Meany Theater in February 2017. The Seattle Times said of an earlier Chopin concert of Sheppard’s that his playing featured “exquisite details … it was playing that revealed layer after layer of music in each piece, as if one were faceting a gemstone. Released on .

Here are some other notable recent UW-authored books:

• Research on poverty and the American suburbs in “,” by Scott Allard, professor in the Evan School of Public Policy & Governance.
• Literature meets science to contemplate the geologic epoch of humans in “,” co-edited by Jesse Oak Taylor, associate professor of English.
• A popular science exploration of machine learning and the algorithms that help run our lives in “,” by Pedro Domingos, professor of computer science and engineering.
• A close look at four of America’s electoral adventures in “” by Margaret O’Mara, professor of history.
• A fully revised second edition of Earth and space sciences professor Darrel Cowan’s popular 1984 book, “.” This 378-page paperback is filled with details about Washington state geology.
• The story of a city’s transition from the Ottoman Empire to Greece in “” by Devin Naar, professor of history and Jewish studies.
• A city that “thinks like a planet” is one both resilient to and ready for the future that the changing Earth will bring, says Marina Alberti, professor in the College of Built Environments in “.
• Todd London, professor and director of the School of Drama, follows the professional theater experiences of 15 actors from the 1995 class of Harvard’s American Repertory Theater in “.”
• Dr. Stephen Helgerson, a UW School of Public Health alumnus and physician in preventive medicine for four decades, uses the novella form to tell of the influenza epidemic’s arrival in his state in “.”
• On the 500^th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, an exploration of faith that results in the common good in “,” co-authored by Steve Pfaff, professor of sociology.
• Calm down from holiday — and tech-induced stresses — by thinking mindfully with “” by communication professor David Levy.

Finally, still-popular and pertinent books from a few years back include the second edition of “” by Jeffrey Ochsner, professor of architecture; “” by Randlett with Frances McCue; “” by Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric sciences; and the ever-popular “” by Bill Holm, professor emeritus of art history. All of these were published by , which has many other great titles.

Nuclear power is not merely an energy option for the future, geoscientist writes in his new book, it is a life-saving and essential way for the world to provide energy and avoid “carbon and climate failure.”

In “,” Montgomery, who is an affiliate with the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý’s , writes that nuclear power is the most reliable form of energy in the world, with the smallest environmental impact and fewest related injuries and fatalities.

“To say that it has saved a good many lives by replacing what would have been many hundreds of coal plants defines a clear truth,” Montgomery writes. He adds, “To say that its expansion will make this even more true in the future, when climate concerns are taken into account, is no less accurate.”

Montgomery — who co-authored the book with Thomas Graham Jr. of the nuclear fuel technology company — answered a few questions about the book.

Public fear of nuclear power is a limiting factor to its expanded use, but you write that such fears are overblown, borne of myths and “dark fairy tales … from the fearful childhood of the Atomic Age.” In light of the accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl, why should the public not fear nuclear power?

Scott L. Montgomery: First, I should say that it doesn’t help to blame or criticize people for being afraid. Public fear is a complex thing, with much history behind it, and I try to clarify this one of the book’s chapters. Yet it’s also true that this fear is a serious roadblock to progress against climate change and lethal air pollution. Moreover, some key reasons for not fearing nuclear power come from the very accidents you mention.

We can say, as a broad average, that 300 power plant reactors have operated worldwide for 50 years. In all that time, three major accidents have occurred, only one of them — the poorly designed reactor — causing any radiation casualties. Multiple, long-term study documents 56 deaths and about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer. Nearly all of these casualties were preventable if first responders had been warned and given protective equipment, and if people living in the greater affected area were given iodine pills and told not to drink the milk of their animals, which had fed on contaminated pasture. But even beyond this, research has repeatedly shown that by far the worst health effects from nuclear accidents come from trauma, PTSD, depression, stigmatization and other forms of mental distress — sourced in the dread of radiation itself.

Coal use has little of such dread, yet today causes over 1.5 million premature deaths worldwide, including more than 3,000 in the United States. No member of the U.S. public has ever been injured by radiation from a nuclear power plant, including . Meanwhile, many hundreds have been killed since the 1940s by failures of hydroelectric dams, explosions at oil/gas facilities and air pollution due to diesel and gasoline use.

You write that the West still views itself as the center of the nuclear power landscape, but this is no longer the case. What is happening instead?

In September 2017, 58 new reactors are being built, with 160 more planned, and over 350 more proposed. Most of this activity is in China, Russia and India, but also in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Nigeria, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia, among others.

China is especially important, as it has major plans for new types of reactors and for exports. The same is true of Russia and possibly South Korea.

How can safety in nuclear power be assured in developing countries, and in places like China and North Korea?

While there are concerns about nuclear power being acquired by nations in conflict zones, with high levels of corruption, low transparency and state support for terrorist activity, there are also measures in place to minimize related problems. Any country that belongs to the (189 do; Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea do not) can only develop a nuclear program under the auspices and close, detailed guidance of the International Atomic Energy Agency, while remaining open at all times to expert inspections. China is on good terms with that agency and is itself extremely concerned about the quality of its nuclear power plants, especially in the wake of . The government has major long-term plans for nuclear power — there has been talk of China building perhaps as many as 500 reactors or more this century — and is very concerned about accidents.

As for North Korea, no one outside the inner circle of that country’s power elite can assure anything. Right now North Korea has no nuclear power, only a small research reactor able to generate plutonium.

Such a reactor was dismantled in Iran as part of the nuclear deal. Also removed was that country’s supply of moderate enriched uranium, most of its centrifuges (for enrichment), and connection between cascades of its remaining centrifuges. Sanctions had a major negative impact on the country’s economy, helping bring it to the negotiating table and providing a sobering example for other nations. North Korea, meantime, is an example for no one.

You write that in 2007 the world crossed a key threshold, with the number of people living in cities surpassing the number living in rural areas. How are urbanization and nuclear power connected? What is the meaning of that connection to the future of nuclear power?

These are essential questions. Population experts forecast that as much as 70 percent of humanity could live in cities by 2040, most with populations of 500,000 or more, and over 700 urban areas having at least a million people.

Cities, we know, are huge centers of energy use, electricity above all else. This is being accelerated by the spread of IT and the diversification and expansion of the service sector in most of the world’s economies. It will receive a significant surge in demand if electric cars become mainstream.

As things stand now, climate change and urbanization are in a mutually reinforcing loop. Carbon sources — coal and natural gas — are used for most new power plants worldwide, with non-carbon sources, such as renewables, lagging far behind.

It is a dangerous fantasy to believe that solar and wind power can both replace existing carbon sources and satisfy the massive new power demands on the horizon. These and other renewable sources are necessary and must be supported and incentivized. But unless you live in the fairyland of idealized computer models, renewables will need lots of help for the future.

Big cities require enormous amounts of steady power at all hours, no matter what the weather. Nuclear is by far the best source to match this and is able to stabilize grid systems as they continue to add intermittent solar and wind power systems. A sustainable, non-carbon, highly urbanized future depends upon the combined use of renewables and nuclear power.

While other nations plan new reactors, as of 2016, you write, more reactors are being shut down in the United States than are being built. You ask, will the west join the new nuclear era or be left behind? What are the dangers of the U.S. falling behind?

There are many, but let me just mention a few to give a sense of what’s involved. First, nuclear power represents 60 percent of all non-carbon electricity generated in the U.S. Allowing it to decay away makes as much sense in the face of climate change as providing large subsidies to coal-fired power.

Second, the U.S. has been the global leader in nuclear science, technology, and nonproliferation for more than 60 years. Letting our reactor fleet go dark, one plant at a time, is to give up this leadership role, leaving it to China and Russia.

Also, an important safeguard for new nuclear power countries is the , by which a nation is granted access to U.S. expertise and technology in exchange for certain nonproliferation guarantees. This powerful tool will weaken as the U.S. retreats from its standing as a global leader. Can we assume China or Russia will adopt such a key role?

Not participating in the new nuclear era at any significant level also means that, in essence, the U.S. does not take the climate challenge seriously. It is a form of climate change denial, nothing less.

Finally, the U.S. stands to render itself a kind of super-pariah in this context. This means spending hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade its nuclear arsenal, maintaining an ability to destroy life on a global scale, while diminishing its ability to deal with climate change and to maintain the world’s competence in avoiding nuclear war.

You describe a new era of nuclear power plants that are “cheaper to build, easier to operate, much more efficient, proliferation resistant, and producing less waste.” What are the best practices for dealing with waste?

It’s been known for many years that nuclear waste isn’t a technical problem but a psychological-political one. We’re all familiar with and the presumed dangers of nuclear waste, but how many Americans know that billions of gallons of industrial waste, some of it highly toxic and lethal, are injected underground every year at hundreds of sites, such as chemical plants, pesticide manufacturers, and oil refineries located on the margins of ports, towns, and cities across the country?

This happens with barely a whimper of resistance at the national level. High-level nuclear waste in the U.S. amounts to about 88,000 metric tons, which would fill a football field to a depth of about 30 feet. In comparison, over 5 million tons of highly toxic chemical substances and waste are produced each year and are stored onsite.

There is a strong international consensus that waste is best handled by underground storage in a geologic repository. This was mandated in the 1980s by U.S. law to be achieved by 1998, but local groups in candidate states mobilized effectively against it and convinced senators and members of Congress they would lose their seats if they supported such a repository. Yucca Mountain became the chosen site because at the time it had the politically weakest Congressional delegation.

That changed in 2008, when became the Senate Majority Leader and forced President Obama to take Yucca off the menu. Today, there exists a storage site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, in thick-bedded salt in southeast New Mexico, but it only accepts low-level waste, not the high-level waste that really needs deep storage.

Fortunately, a precedent is being set in Finland, where a repository in granite for all types of waste will soon open at . This site has three operating reactors at two power plants. The local community is strongly behind the effort.

Nuclear power is a unique technology for modern society, as we have concentrated a great number of our fears about the present and future in it, including our anxieties about the destruction of humanity itself.

But we now have 60 years of evidence that such fears are unfounded. And we have evidence that a very different global threat is real — a threat moreover that nuclear power can act directly to significantly reduce.

As our book says, it is definitely time for us to become sensible about these realities, in our own interest and survival.

###

Questions by Peter Kelley of UW News. For more information about Montgomery and his book, contact him at scottlm@uw.edu.

The blog series began publication July 5 and will continue through Sept. 7 at the World Policy Institute’s website. The first of the student pieces, by Brandon Ray, has been .

Kicking off the series was a piece by , managing director of the UW Canadian Studies Center and lead for the Arctic Fellows Initiative in the Jackson School, with Jackson School lecturer and independent scholar Eric Finke, on “.”

Essays by fellows in the International Policy Institute and their topics and dates are as follows.

July 6: “Is the Arctic Council Still a Visionary Leader?” by

July 10: “Is the U.S. Ready for an Arctic Oil Spill?” by

July 17: “Bonanza Denied – the Double-Edged Sword of Arctic Development,”
by

July 24: “Protecting the Polar Seaways,” by

July 26: “The Ripple Effect — Downstream of the 66^th Parallel,” by
Aug. 2: “Breaking the Ice for Indigenous Voices on the World Stage,” by

Aug. 7: “No No Gain for Indigenous Groups,” by
Aug. 9: “Ships and Ice Don’t Mix,” by

Aug. 16: “Stronger Together: Weaving Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science,” by
Aug. 21: “An Emerging Voice: The Arctic Council Could Lead in Right to Water,” by

Aug. 30: “#SomethingHasToBeSaid: Angry Inuk’s Direct Yet Gentle Crusade,” by

Sept. 6: “Who Needs the Arctic Council Anyhow? Quebec’s Arctic Leadership,” by

Sept. 7: “Asian Tiger Meets the Polar Bear,” by

The Jackson School’s International Policy Institute is funded by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, with the of better connecting higher education research and expertise with the policy world in the area of global affairs.

###

To learn more about the Arctic Fellows Initiative, contact Nadine Fabbi at 206-543-6269 or nfabbi@uw.edu.

Scientific research that doesn’t get communicated to the public may as well not have happened at all, says in his new book, a second edition of 2001’s “.”

“There are no boundaries, no walls, between the doing of science and the communicating of it,” writes Montgomery, a lecturer in the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý’s . “Communicating is the doing of science. Publication and public speaking are how scientific work gains a presence, a shared reality in the world.”

Montgomery answered a few questions about the new edition.

This is, you write, “a book of advice, not rules; guidance, not demands. It is my experience, from years of publication and teaching.” Who is the audience for this book — who can be most helped by it?

SM: I actually had a number of audiences in mind. Grad students, professional researchers at any stage in their careers, scientists with English as a nonnative language, science translators, and also teachers of scientific writing. There are techniques and advice for scientific authors and speakers at every level, from the graduate thesis to grant proposals, scientific papers, letters to the editor, even blog posts and tweets.

I’ve included material on the realities and ethics of scientific publishing, including forms of misconduct, that are probably essential for all professionals. But I also discuss areas that have been growing in importance recently, like forms of open-access, use of social media and how to handle controversial subjects in public settings. There’s significant space devoted to dealing with the media and how to communicate effectively for nonscientific audiences. As the scientific community knows all too well, speaking truth to general audiences has never been more important and necessary.

What’s new in this second edition of “Communicating Science”?

SM: Given the realities of science today, I needed to treat several new topics, plus some previous ones in new ways. Altogether, there are six new chapters, seven if you count a total re-write of the chapter about online science (the first edition came out in 2001, when many journals were still trying to decide if they’d ever go digital).

The new chapters are about how to produce a graduate thesis; the different knowledge sectors (academia, industry, government, nongovernmental organizations, etc.) where scientific communication occurs; plagiarism and authorial misconduct; translating scientific material; communicating with the public; and how to be a responsible source for the media.

“To borrow is to steal,” you write in a chapter that cautions scientific writers to resist all forms of plagiarism. “Using the work of others as a model is one thing; embezzling it is something quite different.” Where is the line between those two, in your view?

S.M.: T.S. Eliot wrote that immature artists borrow, mature poets steal. Doubtless, he wasn’t the first to say this. He didn’t mean it literally, of course, but rather as an acknowledgement of interpersonal inspiration.

Authors of any kind, when they find a piece of writing they admire, may study and emulate it by adopting its form — sentence structures and length, transitions, overall style, other rhetorical elements — while changing the subject and the words. In science, the data, facts and interpretations must be changed too. Drawing the line, however, can be tricky.

Today’s anti-plagiarism software has been known to make this line very sharp indeed, searching for the repetition of only six or seven words as evidence of theft. Such is extreme and wasteful; there are many phrases of this length that can be repeated innocently in science — for example, in my own field (geoscience), the words “collision between the Indian and Eurasian plates” has probably been used hundreds of times in papers dealing with the Himalayan Mountains. For the purposes of irony, we could even point to a phrase like “plagiarism is defined as the verbatim copying of…” as something that has been repeated in many places.

So drawing the line too sharply will be counterproductive. As a crude rule, copying more than, say, 20 percent of the original language is no longer borrowing. But even here, as the “collision” example just given suggests, this may be wrong. If just one or two sentences are involved, the accusation of plagiarism probably isn’t justified, unless a key idea or interpretation is included with no attribution. Repeated use throughout a paper of another author’s language, particularly if such “reuse” goes beyond technical terminology, strongly suggests an act of larceny.

The point here is that examples are crucial for getting a sense of when emulation crosses over into appropriation. I provide several that should help.

You include a chapter for researchers for whom English is a second language. Briefly, what is your message?

S.M.: The most basic message is that communicating should be understood as part of research, not separate from it. Yet learning to communicate research in a foreign language requires much study, practice and patience. With writing, it cannot be done by a focus on grammar; this is a very common and unfortunate error — common, because grammar is still the core subject of English language teaching in many countries. The chapter provides a series of approaches based on the use of model research papers and other publications. The topic as a whole has a huge potential audience, in fact, since English is now the global language of science and there are already many more nonnative speakers in the sciences than Anglophones.

How might this book and works like it help reduce inexact or incorrect reporting of science in the press?  Or even battle what is now being called “fake news”?

S.M.: Teaching in the Jackson School and writing often about energy, I’ve been interviewed fairly regularly in recent years and have also spoken with researchers whose work has been covered in the media much more than my own.

It’s clear that scientists need to be prepared before speaking with media people to ensure the research involved and related issues are handled well. Problems have not been the fault of reporters alone; far from it. Scientists need to understand how the media works, what are its goals, its pressures, its constraints. My book and some other works treat this is detail, offering much that should be helpful about the interview process, what to expect, how to control or guide the message, what kinds of statements to avoid, and much else.

Just as there is “fake news,” there is “fake science” as a subset. I talk about this, too, and provide some charged examples as well. There has been much of this regarding climate change for well over a decade now, but it is also far older than that, as those in such fields as fetal research, nuclear energy and genetically modified organisms well know. Fake science cannot be obliterated, but it can be effectively challenged, using an array of legitimate popular science journals now online, as well as social media.

I would say, in fact, that any truly useful book on science communication today needs to deal with all of these situations. The internet has changed science mostly for the better, but not entirely.

###

For more information, contact Montgomery at 206-897-1611 or scottlm@uw.edu.

The Paris talks were attended by thousands of delegates, including from the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý. At the time, UW researchers in Seattle the expansion of discussions to include public policy and human health, and emphasized the need for a timely, durable international agreement.

Now, a few UW faculty members comment on the signing as countries move toward implementing its contents.

, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences, calls the signing an “encouraging” step forward. But he notes that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992, and the was signed in 1997, but never ratified by the U.S.

Since then, he said, the world has emitted more carbon dioxide than even the highest expert predictions at that time. The ‘s commitments are voluntary, he noted, with no mechanisms for enforcement, and its goals are modest.

“Much more aggressive steps are necessary to keep global warming in check, and time is running out,” Hartmann said. “The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report [on which he was a ] showed that we are about halfway to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that will produce 2 degrees Celsius of warming, and at present rates of release we will get there in about 25 years. We need to stop the increase in carbon dioxide to avert 2 C of warming, and the promises under the Paris Agreement will not achieve that. We need nations to do much more.”

, UW professor of oceanography and director of the UW , said the agreement “represents an important step for the international community in its effort to ‘limit dangerous inference of the climate’ as set out [in 1992] by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

She noted that each country sets its own voluntary . “Because of this bottom-up approach, the country pledges are more aspirational than was found in Kyoto, potentially resulting in much larger emission reductions than many thought possible.”

She added: “While some have said that the bold goal set in Paris of keeping warming below 2 C is unrealistic, the Paris Agreement gives confidence that the international community can work together to solve this defining challenge of this century. I am hoping for swift ratification of this agreement, and that countries with both large and small emissions pledge significant reductions in emissions.”

, a UW professor of political science and director of the UW , said “the Paris Agreement is a good step forward because China and India, along with industrialized countries, are on board.”

But he noted the pledges are voluntary. “Kyoto and other international agreements show that international agreements with mandatory targets face huge problems in domestic translation and implementation.”

He echoed others on the voluntary targets, and the lack of incentives to meet them. “This holds not only for China and India, but also for the U.S., where the Congress remains opposed to climate-change mitigation.” Prakash said he would like to see country-specific plans and budgets “before speculating on the possibility of the success of the Paris agreement.”

, a lecturer in the UW Jackson School of International Studies who writes on international relations and geopolitics, said “overall, it represents an essential step, a major move forward.”

But he wondered about the agreement’s focus on renewables — mainly solar and wind — rather than other options such as hydropower, fossil fuels with capture of carbon emissions, and especially nuclear power.

“We have seen, in the 1970s and 80s, what harm can be done by exaggerated claims about what renewable technologies can actually deliver,” Montgomery said. “Reducing carbon emissions significantly will require every means at our disposal.”

, a UW professor of marine and environmental affairs, called it “mission impossible.” She said: “We have a global-emissions goal we are not sure is correct, national goals that are in no way connected to it, and we really will [have no way to] know if we met it or not.”

She described the agreement’s more than per year to help developing countries enact new technology and mitigate and adapt to a changing climate as inadequate.

, a UW professor of chemical engineering and director of the UW , said that “the Paris Climate Agreement — combined with the [governmental] and [private] pledges to invest billions of new dollars in clean energy — is a signal that the world is committed to accelerating the development of scalable clean energy innovations.”

He noted that Washington state has already invested in the Clean Energy Institute and other efforts that join university researchers and national labs to develop new materials for renewable energy and integrate them into the electrical grid.

“What we need now is an ecosystem that has more fundamental scientific discoveries happening within earshot of the entrepreneurs and investors who share this same sense of urgency to mobilize against an environmental challenge that many of the world’s most powerful nations now recognize as a great threat to humanity.”

, a UW undergraduate in environmental sciences, forestry and economics who attended the summit as part of the International Forestry Students’ Association, said “to me, the signing of the Paris climate agreement is a signal — the sound of a call from the global world to this generation’s young professionals and students.

“It is telling us that we need to begin crafting creative solutions to accomplish these ambitious goals — this need stretches from finance to agriculture, international trade to urban design.”

Abraham recalls meeting people from around the world during her time in Paris.

“We all have a part to play, and the agreement is the reminder that we are not alone. In each country, each city, there will be hordes of people working to meet the goals of the agreement — and it is this new truth that I believe will make all the difference.”

###

The concepts of freedom, equality, evolution and democracy lie at the heart of “.” The new book, published in May by Princeton University Press, is by and , faculty members in the ����Ӱ�Ӵ�ý .

How did this book come to be, and how did you two come to take it on together?

S.M.: The notion emerged from discussions we were having over lunch or dinner about the battles in Congress, fundamentalist religion, major conflicts of the last century, and so on.

It became clear to us that ideas were central in each of these contexts — ideas about the role of government and the free market, about the nature and order of the world, about the reasons that drove leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mao to do what they did, affecting the lives of hundreds of millions.

Moreover, most of these ideas weren’t new, though they had been altered from their original expression, adapted to later contexts. So it seemed to us a book exploring these insights would be a good thing to do.

You write that you intend in this book “to pursue a different type of intellectual history … to show that ideas have been among the primary forces behind modern history during the past three centuries.” How did you present this argument to the reader?

S.M.: Our approach is simple and direct. We chose to write about ideas that have been particularly influential on how people have understood the political, economic, religious and scientific dimensions to modern existence.

The book has two main parts. In part one, we examine the ideas of , , and also and . These are ideas related to freedom, equality, democracy and a secular, evolving universe, all of which have become fully global today.

Nonetheless, the thought of these individuals can be tied to certain parts of the . In the first three cases, they appeared in specific writings, such as Smith’s “” and Darwin’s “.” These are books that have had immense influence and should be studied by every university student, no matter their major. We thus look at these texts in detail, as well as their historical-intellectual roots. We then trace the evolution of their expanding impact down to the present.

In part two of the book, we shift to the major reactions that have played out against the four domains noted above. Such reactions took many forms, leading to much violence in word and deed. To a large degree, they culminated in such authoritarian systems as fascism, Soviet and Maoist communism, and religious fundamentalism in both Islam and Christianity. We borrowed a term from philosopher and called them, collectively, the . But we make clear, too, that they have their own origin in the more intolerant side of Enlightenment thinking itself.

All of this allows us to make some powerful statements about how large portions of modern history, again not only in the West but globally, are the result of people acting in the name of ideas and arguments that are no less present and powerful today.

Among your conclusions you state, “The humanities, we believe, should expand their subject matter to include major political thinkers in all fields. This means analyzing the philosophical, political and social ideas of economists, scientists, even mathematicians, not just of philosophers, authors, artists and social theorists” globally. What would be the results of such a change in higher education, and in student education?

S.M.: At the most basic level, it would provide students with a much better intellectual understanding of the world, as it really is. How can we comprehend a reality like our hostile, gridlocked Congress, the reasons for the recent global economic crisis, or a phenomenon like ISIS, without looking into the ideas that are driving forces behind them?

That Congress has been, in an important measure, replaying a struggle for the idea of “America” itself first bitterly fought between Jefferson and Hamilton can tell us a great deal. That ideas derived from Adam Smith had a direct role in decisions that helped lead to the financial crisis is well known only by some. And it is impossible to understand the actions of ISIS without knowledge of what is motivating them — knowledge that would also reveal the futility of trying to defeat the threat with military power alone.

In short, there is no substitute for the study, analysis and critical evaluation of ideas. This is especially true for those ideas that continue to have great influence and that are involved in how leaders, groups, organizations and nations behave.

Speaking generally, what would you like readers to take away from this book?

D.C.: Ideas are not just important, but vital. If we fail to understand what ideas govern the modern world, and where they came from, we cannot understand what is going on anywhere. The European Enlightenment, which began as a set of ideas that were anything but widely accepted, eventually triumphed and transformed first the West and then the entire world.

If we don’t educate our college and university students to understand how all this happened, they enter the wider world filled with uninformed prejudices and assumptions whose origins and consequences they barely understand. This not only makes them less able citizens, but also deprives them of necessary guidance in their own political and professional lives. Of course, even those who have long graduated from college, including our elected officials, could profit from such understanding, too.

• For more information about “The Shape of the New,” contact Montgomery at scottlm@uw.edu or Chirot at chirot@uw.edu.