{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02701165766278078, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011657662780779073, 'mean_word_length': 5.338738738738739, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Burrough, Bryan, Jason Stanford, and Chris Tomlinson, Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth

15, No. 4 [October 2016]: 418–45.) The colonial aspect of meteorology persisted into the Cold War era, but the more nefarious aspects of US science, such as nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, only lurk in the margins of Fleming’s narrative. It is possible, I would argue, to celebrate the achievements of well-intentioned scientists such as Simpson, even while more explicitly acknowledging their proximity to broader militaristic and imperialistic histories of science. The Cold War–era state provided much of the impetus for the weather modification programs detailed in the central portion of the book. Fleming has been sharply critical of weathercontrol efforts in his previous work, including his book Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control (Columbia University Press 2010). Simpson participated in several controversial weather-modification projects, including Project Stormfury, a hurricane-control effort, and an early 1970s attempt in Florida. As Fleming shows, Simpson and her third husband and collaborator, Robert Simpson, were initially overconfident in the scientific potential of these weather-control initiatives. In addition to generating tremendous political contention and opposition, weather-control projects struggled to verify their results in complex, real-world settings. Joanne Simpson appeared ambivalent about the wider implementation of weather modification, preferring to view the experiments as an opportunity to learn more about the processes shaping clouds and storms. Fleming seems sympathetic to Simpson’s efforts to pursue meteorological science amid state-driven projects with potential military applications, laying much of the blame for the dubious projects on “mendacious administrators” (123). After leaving NOAA, Simpson endured a painful interlude at the University of Virginia, marked by yet more sexism and tense politics. Finally, in 1979, Simpson joined NASA, where she enjoyed a productive final chapter of her career. The closing sections of First Woman are similarly rewarding. In addition to her prominent role at NASA, where she oversaw a hugely successful satellite program, Simpson found contentment in her personal life. Her eventual success and happiness prompted Simpson to note in 1990 that many of the obstacles she had encountered had actually been “immense benefits in disguise” (166). This notion seems to be in tension with her sobering words from a 1972 speech delivered to the New York Academy of Sciences, in which she remarked that neither her position nor her “scientific contribution” were sufficient to “compensate for the terrible price exacted from her and from those close to her” (120). To his credit, Fleming allows readers to form their own judgement about these and other seemingly divergent declarations. Throughout First Woman, Fleming deftly balances his narrative and Simpson’s own words, allowing the reader to gain a sense of her voice and personality. The text is also enriched by numerous photographs, sketches, and cartoons by Simpson and her associates. Some readers may be less interested than others in his account of her personal life or in the workings of academic power struggles, but First Woman should resonate with many different audiences. Anyone interested in meteorology, twentieth-century science, or women in science will find much to enjoy and learn from in First Woman.