Skip to main content

The Gene - Siddhartha Mukherjee ****

When this title arrived, before I opened the pack I thought there were two books inside, and my stomach sank a bit at the thought of ploughing through a 600 page wrist-buster. Apart from anything else, very long popular science books are often loaded with affectation, and this impression was not helped by the toe-curling praise of a previous title ('The notion of "popular science" doesn't come close to describing this achievement. It is literature.' Ick.) Not to mention the tedious, very personal prologue.

 Thankfully, though, the writing settles down once Siddhartha Mukherjee gets on to the actual content, though the style remains a little flowery. There are minor quibbles of detail (friars, for example, are described as monks) but what follows is a detailed and well-told story of the development of genetics, from Darwin and Mendel's early work to the modern medical implications and dangers of making changes at a genetic level. In fact the potential negatives of genetic theory come in early and are repeatedly stressed. Starting with eugenics and the Nazis, that sense of threat never goes away - the reader gets the impression that at times that Mukherjee would probably rather we had never found about genes. This is the most original and strongest aspect of the book.

 You will either love or be irritated by the regular return to the author's family story - I'm in the second camp as it really has very little to do with science or history of science, but I appreciate it will help those who find the idea of reading a purely science-based book scary.

 The history of science side isn't bad, though Darwin is given a distinctly old-fashioned lone genius treatment. We are told 'The essence of Darwin's disruptive genius was his ability to think about nature not as a fact - but as a process' - but in reality this viewpoint was very much in the air as shown by Wallace's letter, independently duplicating many of Darwin's ideas, which panicked Darwin into publication. I am not doing down Darwin's contributions, which were huge - but the change of viewpoint we are told about was by no means unique to him.

 I was also disappointed by the lack of coverage of epigenetics, the idea that genes don't have quite the sole central importance that was once thought, as what is more important is the combination of the genes and the various external factors that turn them on and off. In effect we've moved on from the gene being the lone controller to a major part of a much more complex (and hence harder to explain) system.This has had a major impact in the field, but perhaps because of the book's title, Mukherjee hardly gives the concept any coverage.

 Overall there is plenty of material here both on the development of genetic theory and medicine and on the moral implications of such work. For me, Matt Ridley's Genome was a better backgrounder if you don't also want the medical content, and either book needs to be read alongside Nessa Carey's The Epigenetic Revolution. But there is no doubt that if you like the blockbuster approach to science reading - perhaps as something to get you through some long holiday flights - this is an excellent example of the genre.
Hardback:  

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more