Skip to main content

Sex, Drugs & DNA – Michael Stebbins ****

“Science’s taboos confronted,” shouts the subtitle, and that’s a fair summary of Michael Stebbins’ thought-provoking and readable book, though perhaps it should be “biological and medical science’s taboos”, because the hard sciences don’t get much coverage, not entirely surprising as Stebbins is a geneticist.
The first section of the book is a fascinating look at the reality of working in science, taking a fictional character through a typical career, and emphasizing how difficult it is to be a working scientist – a useful background to the rest of the book, which is largely about the inability of politicians (and to some extent the general public) to deal with science. Stebbins largely puts this down to ignorance, in part the fault of science education, which we’ll come back to in a moment.
His book is a real indictment of US policy. It reads like a rather more moderate, but still very passionate scientific equivalent of a Michael Moore book. Chances are, if you enjoy reading Moore (whether or not you agree with his manipulative methods), you will want to read this book too. If Moore irritates you intensely, so will Stebbins, though with less reason, because he is less sweeping in his claims.
You will see how badly the US government has handled everything from its approach to GM to global warming, from medical care to science education. For a European reader, the description of the US primary medical service is terrifying, while Stebbins rightly lays into the sort of witless testing that can result in increasingly good test results while at the same time a nation’s children become less and less capable in the sciences.
There are a couple of problems with this book, which is why it got four stars rather than five. I don’t mind the fact that it’s something of a polemic – what’s said needs saying – but I do think in the list of a science publisher that aims to be global in reach, Stebbins should have put some effort into taking a more global view. This is a totally parochial US view, and after a while, for the rest of us, “Senator this said that” becomes a little tedious. The non-global view at its worst when he’s talking about science education. “Next time you crack a joke about the Brits or French, remember: their children are smarter than yours,” he says. The only Brits I crack jokes about are the Brit Awards (the UK’s pop awards, sometimes dire events), and “their” children aren’t smarter than mine, because my children are Brits.
I also found his tendency to throw in excreta related swearing every couple of pages just to show how trendy he is, a little wearing after a while. Generally the book’s style is admirably light and well phrased, and it’s not an objection to the swearing per se, but he could have used more than about two words for a bit of variety. (Having said that, as my mother would have said, it really isn’t clever, Michael. You don’t have to show off this way.)
Don’t be put off by the US content if you aren’t American, though. The US has a huge influence on the rest of the world, and it is vital we all know, US citizens or not, what’s going on there. And Stebbins rightly points out the bizarre inconsistencies and idiocies that science policy throws up. This is, without doubt, a book that anyone who really wants science to succeed should read.

Hardback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...