Bit strange to run across one at this time of year - like Christmas in July - but this is one of the better “I went to the MLA” pieces I’ve read. It deserves a comment box. (Also, I’m sort of curious whether this post will work - sort of like a bat signal - to draw Chun out of retirement.)
There’s a lot here that exercises me tremendously. But if I started I’d never shut-up. You go first. But here’s a polite suggestion. Since the piece is in “The Believer” - and they so stern against snark - let’s try to keep the anti-MLA hatchet-work sub-Peckish, shall we? (Just a suggestion.)
Given the responses that MLA-related blog entries typically receive, consider this a pedantic sidebar to the story:
“What MLA Panels Really Look Like”
When the Scott McLemee piece came out, I condemned it as lazy. Most reporters writing their annual MLA attacks at least attend the sessions they’re attacking.
This piece manifests a different sort of laziness. Unless an MLA paper is clearly wrong, it’s described as incomprehensible. Which means he didn’t take the trouble to comprehend it. English papers really aren’t that hard. But then he excuses himself for not attempting understanding, since this stuff really doesn’t matter. Only the teaching does. That’s what they’re paid to do after all. Not write this incomprehensible stuff.
Except they are. Paid to write the incomprehensible stuff, that is. Tenure track faculty typically teach a 2/3 or a 3/3 load. Non-tenure track faculty, those that have no scholarship/research requirement, typically teach a 4/4 or a 5/5 load. The difference is paid time expected to be spent in scholarship.
It is amazing to me that pieces like this get published.
In all their shared characteristics, professional level chess has this crowd beat to hell. Rarified, incomprehensible,
useless….and about 500 people make a living off it.
And if the audience is any bigger, if there is entertainment value provided to the patzers by the pros, perhaps it is like a magic show, the gap between what a patzer understands and what confuses him, and some kind of pleasure derived there.
A non-academic, I used to read MLA-type publications for kicks. I don’t think I am unique. The MLA just needs better marketing.
Tenure track faculty typically teach a 2/3 or a 3/3 load. Non-tenure track faculty, those that have no scholarship/research requirement, typically teach a 4/4 or a 5/5 load.
Actually, quite a lot of tenure-track faculty teach 4/4 (or, whimper, 5/5). Some of them are even expected to do research—although they usually aren’t required to produce a book. At my own college, our 3/3 load is actually a 4/4 with one course release per semester for research.
The interesting part of this article is the author’s doe-eyed surprise at being told how the academic world works by Kim Emery, who must have the patience of a saint, when anyone, even an autodidact, who bothered to pay even the slightest attention would already know.
And, as an academic, I read cretinous blog comments for kicks. I don’t think I am unique.
Another thing, following Miriam’s comment: the pitiably ignorant author of this article seems to think that the bft-requirement is universal, when it only applies to (many) doctoral institutions and some liberal arts colleges. The overwhelming majority of tt jobs do not require a book for promotion.
Another, even less flattering, interpretation is that the author believes that only faculty at doctoral institutions and select liberal arts colleges produce scholarship—or perhaps that only they produce scholarship that matters.
So, if you can’t get even the basic facts right, what’s the point? It’d be like expecting a libertarian blogger to make sense of Davos, except of course that none of those masters-of-the-universe would allow themselves to be interviewed.
betcha this thread brings some real creeps and touchy losers out of the proverbial woodwork.
oh, wait. sorry! please continue.
Miriam:
Yes. All statements about academia ought to begin with a disclaimer:
There are somewhere north of 1500 accredited four-year colleges in the US. The only generalization which is true of all of them is they all award degrees whose name contains the letter “B”.
And when one talks of the MLA, some of whose members teach at community colleges, generalizations become even more tenuous.
I was very impressed by Kim Emory’s responses to tacky questions about her sexuality and her scholarship. I’m a lit grad student who studies descriptions of tattoos in literature, and I often find myself fielding similar tacky questions about the existance, nature, and location of any tattoos I may or may not have. For showing new strategies for answering tacky questions, the Believer article was worth reading.
As a teacher of English, my first instinct is to pay attention to context. I read The Believer from time to time. This piece seems pretty consistent with the excessively long first-person pieces they run. It’s annoyingly tony at times, perhaps, but I suspect that the reason for that has to do with the author’s desire to make people laugh. At any rate, I thought the not-so-funny bit about the stupidity of present-day academic publishing in the humanities was pretty well done, for an outsider to the MLA world.
There is nothing wrong with the MLA that could not be solved through a process internal to the MLA, if the oppressive hegemony of corporatism were not operative.
(And just so everyone knows, at this point I am planning on attempting to publish a book before applying to a PhD program, so that I can know I’ll get into a really good one.)
Y’know, I hadn’t read a Believer piece before. This, this is what they call dropping the snark?
From an academic angle, Charlie finds the Hyatt most interesting. “It’s got one modern tower and one postmodern tower!” he says, and laughs. I can’t tell which is which or why, but I trust that he knows what he’s talking about. I figure if he says something like, “OK, then, let’s meet up at the postmodern tower,” I’ll just ask someone else.
Christ, save me from po-faced ironist manqués. Charlie deserved better.
A seriously patronizing article, didn’t even seem to think it was worth trying to figure out what anybody there was talking about. But patronizing in a warm and friendly kind of way. I guess that’s an improvement on the usual sniggering contempt. Left me to wonder if the author felt there was any effective difference between the MLA and, say, a Scrabble convention.
Hooray! I finally got the article to load.
Despite my own oft-admitted statistical illiteracy, I still want to know where the following two memes come from:
a) Most people need a book for tenure.
b) “Some” colleges want two books for tenure.
To my knowledge, nobody has surveyed English departments about either requirement, but there is a survey available of history departments: Robert Townsend’s analysis of 441 departments at 4-yr.-to-Ph.D.-granting institutions in “A Survey of Tenure Practices in History: Departments Indicate Books Are Key and Success Rates for Tenure High,” Perspectives 42.2 (Feb. 2004): 5-8 (which I discussed here). Townsend’s subtitle is a bit misleading, since, in fact, what he reports is that while books are awfully helpful, they are actually required far less than one might think. 37.7% of all respondents expected a book for tenure; 1.4% wanted a second book.
I suspect—and this is not an empirically-tested statement—that the monograph log-jam partly derives from the over-production of folks like yours truly, with Ph.D.s from research institutions but careers at teaching colleges.
Only research institutions give PhDs.
“Left me to wonder if the author felt there was any effective difference between the MLA and, say, a Scrabble convention.”
left me to wonder if someone with such difficulty reading should bother to make the effort.
but good on you for trying, even so.
Only research institutions give PhDs.
Yeah, but not all Ph.D.-granting institutions have 2/2 loads + tons of $. (I would hazard that faculty at Texas Women’s University and at Yale have rather different outlooks on life.)
When did being nice and good-natured become patronizing? Or maybe it was the earnestness that got you?
I took his remark on the “postmodern building” to be self-deprecating more than to be saying that Charlie is so silly for knowing things. I’m as defensive of academia as anyone, but I really don’t think that the author was going for the Mockumentary effect.
“Left me to wonder if the author felt there was any effective difference between the MLA and, say, a Scrabble convention.”
Actually, I thought he was saying that there really isn’t any difference. Scrabble fanatics are obscure specialists, MLA folks are obscure specialists.
Its good to read this. The sooner our society realizes this exact point, the better. The sooner we all know that MLA opinions on politics are no more relevant or valuable than the local plumbers union’s opinion on politics (or morality, or international affairs, or whatever), the better off we will all be.
Steve,
Isn’t it possible that the stuff that MLA members are obscure specialists in is more relevant to politics, morality, etc., than the Scrabble dictionary or the International Handbook of Plumbing is?
I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of novels, for instance, than with someone who had read a lot of car manuals.
While we’re on the topic of incomprehensible professional jargon, can somebody tell me what the difference is between 2/2,3/3, 4/4, and 5/5? The term 2/3 I can manage, being .666 recurring, but all the others seem to be 1.0. So it’s not a ratio; it can’t be days on T or R, because it couldn’t then sum to more than 7; it is surely deeply untransparent.
The term 2/3 I can manage, being .666 recurring, but all the others seem to be 1.0.
That’s just appearance. They’re all actually .999 recurring. Hope that helps. :)
(I always figured that’s the number of courses taught first/second semester, but I’m an undergrad, so I’m not sure)
chris: the numbers are x/y where x=the number of courses taught the first semester, and y=the number taught during the second. I don’t know how people talk about the courseloads at schools with trimesters, come to think of it; I guess 3/3/3 or something.
I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of novels, for instance, than with someone who had read a lot of car manuals.
I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of moral philosophy. Anyone else is an amateur, and that’s completely fine, so long as their amateur status is acknowledged and we don’t pretend that an undergrad degree and five years of monomania over, say, the early novels of Ford Madox Ford, ipso facto makes you any more intelligent than a smart plumber. God knows if there’s one thing academia has no shortage of it’s people who are the World’s Greatest Experts on one subject but couldn’t find the arse of any other with both hands and a map.
Why would a plumber’s opinion on politics not be relevant? Don’t plumbers vote too?
I’d be happy to TALK morality with MLA members. But that doesn’t mean they are better at actually being moral. To paraphrase WFBuckley: I’d rather be governed by the first 1000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty at Harvard.
Schwa’s notion of “expertise” in moral philosophy should be compared with the trolley-car parody that Novalis brought up in the comments to the Fafblog post above this one.
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm
The idea that Kant had a deeper understanding of moral issues than did Sophocles or Proust is purely risible. Give me the novel-reader any day.
What Andy said, in spades. What passes for moral philosophy these days seems sorely lacking.
Schwa’s Ford Madox Ford reference is obnoxious, and his idea that the world of thought consists of expert specialists of various kinds is wildly wrong.
Furthermore, the name “Coventry Patmore” is even more ridiculous than Ford’s (true name Hueffer, btw), and Coventry himself was sort of stupid, unlike Ford. Ya have to be careful about these things.
The circle-the-wagons mentality here is distressing indeed.
schwa, talking to someone who had read a lot of moral philosophy wasn’t one of the options: do you choose the novel-reader or the car-manual-reader?
Or did you just change the subject because you don’t want to admit that someone who spends all of her time reading literature might actually have spent more time thinking about moral issues than the average person and thus would be more informed and thus would have opinions that are more worthy of consideration?
I tend to think that, say, Kafka had as much grasp on morality as Rawls.
“Kafka had as much grasp on morality as Rawls”
Well, Rawl being a political philosopher aside, no.
Rigorous argument, peer review, an exhaustive knowledge of the history of the field and current work, the ability to express very abstract ideas cogently….moral philosophy and litcrit may or may not be sciences but they try to approach the standards of science.
There are wisdom and morality, which we can get from Kafka and Sophocles. They do provide evidence and argument, and are to a degree peer-reviewed. But they do not believe they are doing philosophy.
How about this: Barry Bonds does baseball;Roger Ansell describes baseball; and Bill James analyses baseball. Ghandi;Sophocles;Moore
(Don’t tell Chun I am here)
“I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of novels, for instance, than with someone who had read a lot of car manuals.”
Is this to say that the reader of car manuals does not have to make moral decisions, or has no comprehension of the various issues to be weighed in making moral determinations? If yes, then this is a fatuous, and disturbingly self-inflated view point.
Ah, but then we’re talking about academics, and so fatuous and self-inflated are standards of the territory.
“Ah, but then we’re talking about academics, and so fatuous and self-inflated are standards of the territory.”
don’t be so mean. chun can’t help it.
The trouble with G. Lewis-Kraus’s piece on the MLA is its shallow knowledge of recent history—since the mid-80’s, say. Lewis-Kraus echoes the now-frequently-heard plea that the practitioners of esoteric literary theory and its offshoots constitute a hermetic community of initiates whose effusions are solely of interest to that community. Therefore, they have no real political effect. Consequently, that community ought to be immune from outside political pressure and interference, particularly when it comes from the political right.
This view founders, however, on the fact that the “apolitical” stance of its proponents is a rather recent adaptation to an inimical political and intellectual climate. The same folks who now take this position only a few years ago proudly embraced the mission of bringing political wisdom to the masses and were unashamed to describe their teaching as a species of ideological evangelism. One might note, for instance, the defenders of Paul de Mann, at the time the posthumous scandal broke forth, were by and large strongly identified with certain brands of left-activism, and clearly viewed de Mann’s theoretical hijinks not as an abstractly-worthy intellectual exercise divorced from political concerns, but rather as a very useful tool for delegitimizing capitalism, racism, the patriarchy, heteronormativity. and so forth. That the issue is now couched in terms of a supposedly insular and apolitical deconstructionist theory reflects little more than the fact that many of these same people are now running scared. But this does not mean that their basic political views or their sense of themselves as catalysts of political and social change has really changed.
Note as well that the alarm is raised about”politicization” only when the pressure is from the presumed Right. About political pressure from the Left—the derisive term “PC” is hardly obsolete—little is said. A number of the scholars Lewis-Kraus cites for their rather sanctimonious praise of an academy insulated from crass politics have frequently been on the warpath against fellow-professors whose views or methods are deemed politically retrograde. The long clamor against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is one example. Another, briefer, episode, which I mention since Judith Butler was prominently involved, was the campaign against “Left conservatism,” by which was meant left-wing political activism that disdains to be guided by postmodern rodomontade.
Political posturing of the kind with which the MLA has frequently been charged may be a relatively unimportant matter—but that is because it has been laughably ineffectual in the real world, not because its practitioners have restricted their ambitions to impressing a tiny collegial in-group. Of course, it should go without saying that universities as a whole are in dire need of protection from the doctrinal bullying and outright rascality of the Bush-era Right. Scientists have come to recognize this even more than humanists. But this fact doesn’t get the MLA Left-establishment off the hook for its arrogance, its sharp elbows, and its intolerance of those who don’t hop aboard its wheezy bandwagon. Even accepting the honesty of the now-fashionable contention that literary studies and the like should be insulated from political programs and dicta, it is hardly clear that the postmodern extravaganza that has dominated the humanities, volume-wise, at least, in the last decade or so, should be the chief tenant of this ivory tower. The high-flyers of postmodernism, including a few that Lewis-Kraus praised along with those he damned, are nowhere near as bright as they think they are.
The trouble with G. Lewis-Kraus’s piece on the MLA is its shallow knowledge of recent history—since the mid-80’s, say. Lewis-Kraus echoes the now-frequently-heard plea that the practitioners of esoteric literary theory and its offshoots constitute a hermetic community of initiates whose effusions are solely of interest to that community. Therefore, they have no real political effect. Consequently, that community ought to be immune from outside political pressure and interference, particularly when it comes from the political right.
This view founders, however, on the fact that the “apolitical” stance of its proponents is a rather recent adaptation to an inimical political and intellectual climate. The same folks who now take this position only a few years ago proudly embraced the mission of bringing political wisdom to the masses and were unashamed to describe their teaching as a species of ideological evangelism. One might note, for instance, the defenders of Paul de Mann, at the time the posthumous scandal broke forth, were by and large strongly identified with certain brands of left-activism, and clearly viewed de Mann’s theoretical hijinks not as an abstractly-worthy intellectual exercise divorced from political concerns, but rather as a very useful tool for delegitimizing capitalism, racism, the patriarchy, heteronormativity. and so forth. That the issue is now couched in terms of a supposedly insular and apolitical deconstructionist theory reflects little more than the fact that many of these same people are now running scared. But this does not mean that their basic political views or their sense of themselves as catalysts of political and social change has really changed.
Note as well that the alarm is raised about”politicization” only when the pressure is from the presumed Right. About political pressure from the Left—the derisive term “PC” is hardly obsolete—little is said. A number of the scholars Lewis-Kraus cites for their rather sanctimonious praise of an academy insulated from crass politics have frequently been on the warpath against fellow-professors whose views or methods are deemed politically retrograde. The long clamor against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is one example. Another, briefer, episode, which I mention since Judith Butler was prominently involved, was the campaign against “Left conservatism,” by which was meant left-wing political activism that disdains to be guided by postmodern rodomontade.
Political posturing of the kind with which the MLA has frequently been charged may be a relatively unimportant matter—but that is because it has been laughably ineffectual in the real world, not because its practitioners have restricted their ambitions to impressing a tiny collegial in-group. Of course, it should go without saying that universities as a whole are in dire need of protection from the doctrinal bullying and outright rascality of the Bush-era Right. Scientists have come to recognize this even more than humanists. But this fact doesn’t get the MLA Left-establishment off the hook for its arrogance, its sharp elbows, and its intolerance of those who don’t hop aboard its wheezy bandwagon. Even accepting the honesty of the now-fashionable contention that literary studies and the like should be insulated from political programs and dicta, it is hardly clear that the postmodern extravaganza that has dominated the humanities, volume-wise, at least, in the last decade or so, should be the chief tenant of this ivory tower. The high-flyers of postmodernism, including a few that Lewis-Kraus praised along with those he damned, are nowhere near as bright as they think they are.
Having read both the article and the comments, I feel I deserve a cookie. The MLA critic doeth protest too much, methinks. Forget about politics for a moment. A lot of wonderful things have come out of English departments and English professors: transformational grammars (have had a huge impact on the scientific and computing communities), “Herzog” (a book about, if not by, a liberal arts professor that actually made money), and millions of hours of English grammar and composition classes (the interlingua of global capitalism itself, whatever that means).
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review