Skip to main content

Rebecca Nesbit - Four Way Interview

Rebecca Nesbit studied butterfly migration for her PhD, then worked for a start-up company training honeybees to detect explosives. She now works in science communication and her projects have ranged from a citizen science flying ant survey to visiting universities around the world with Nobel Laureates. Her first novel was published in 2014, and her first popular science book Is that Fish in your Tomato? was published in July 2017.

Why science?

Because truth can be counterintuitive. If we agreed 'facts' simply based on what feels right, we would often be mistaken, so we need evidence to help us out. Take weed control. Intuitively, you would think that ploughing is an environmentally friendly way to control weeds because it is 'natural', yet it releases greenhouse gasses from the soil. The gap between what we feel and what science tells us is even wider when it comes to being human. I feel as if I have rational control over everything I do, but this is an alluring story my brain tells itself. Our beliefs and actions are manipulated by a multitude of factors which our conscious mind doesn't even register. Science can tell us when what seems logical is untrue.

Why this book?

As an environmentally conscious teenager in the 1990s, I was told about the dangers of GM crops in no uncertain terms. However, these strong views were hard to maintain when I studied for my PhD at an agricultural research institute. Here I met researchers working to develop GM crops with environmental goals in mind, and I quickly realised that the full story was more nuanced than the media usually presents. Whilst some of the criticisms of GM crops are valid, they apply to many aspects of our current food system, and GM crops have often become a scapegoat. Amidst the ongoing scaremongering, there seemed to be room for someone to take a look at all the evidence without pushing their agenda. I decided that person should be me. 

What’s next?
I've just finished a novel inspired by a story I read in New Scientist, exploring themes of personal responsibility, criminal justice and family loyalty. Now for the editing...

In terms of non-fiction, my current interest is the Noah's Ark problem. How do we choose the best way to spend our limited conservation resources? I'm having fun debating the relative merits of honeybees and hairworms. 

What’s exciting you at the moment?

Like so many people, I'm particularly excited by genome editing techniques such as CRISPR. The techniques faster and cheaper than genetic engineering, so could potentially open up possibilities for smaller agricultural companies and publically-funded researchers. Perhaps most fascinating will be to see how crops developed through genome editing are regulated and accepted. Countries such as the USA have declared that genome edited crops aren't subject to the same extensive regulations as GMOs, whilst the organic industry has deemed them incompatible with organic agriculture. As for the way they will be received by the EU and most consumers, we shall see.

I'm also excited by promoting my book, and very much enjoy speaking at events.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bewilderment (SF) - Richard Powers ****

Generally speaking, I avoid anything listed for the Booker Prize as being too worthy and pretentious to be bothered with, but I'd heard good things about Bewilderment , and I have found in the past that genre books that manage to get past the literati ( Wolf Hall , for example) are far better than the average entry. The publisher would probably disagree, but the reality is that Bewilderment is science fiction. I wondered to start with if Richard Powers was dealing more in Lab Lit - fiction with a scientific context but where the science isn't the driver in how people's lives are changed - but this is pretty solid SF. Clearly the book is strongly influenced by that SF classic Flowers for Algernon - in fact, Powers does a couple of open hat tips in its direction. Although Bewilderment isn't as ground-breaking as Flowers , it follows the model of a person's brain being changed by science to deal with an issue, but here it's an emotional problem rather than an in

Human-Centered AI - Ben Shneiderman ****

Reading some popular science books is like biting into a luscious peach. Others are more like being presented with an almond - you have to do a lot of work to get through a difficult shell to get to the bit you want. This is very much an almond of a book, but it's worth the effort. At the time of writing, two popular science topics have become so ubiquitous that it's hard to find anything new to say about them - neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Almost all the (many) AI books I've read have either been paeans to its wonders or dire warnings of how AI will take over the world or make opaque and biassed decisions that destroy lives. What is really refreshing about Ben Shneiderman's book is that it does neither of these - instead it provides an approach to benefit from AI without suffering the negative consequences. That's why it's an important piece of work. To do this, Shneiderman takes us right back to the philosophical contrast between rationalism and e

The Genetic Lottery - Kathryn Paige Harden ****

Sometimes you get hold of a book, then keep putting off reading it, because it seems like it's going to be hard work. That's what I did with The Genetic Lottery - in a sense I was right. It could have been more accessible in its writing style, but where I was expecting a woke, knee-jerk response to genetics and social equality, what we get instead is a well-reasoned argument for taking a different approach, combined with more in-depth explanation of the traps it is possible to fall into when dealing with the influence of genes on cognitive ability, earning etc. - and how to avoid them. Kathryn Paige Harden has to tread carefully. Any mention of linking genetics and ability is liable to face an instant accusation of resorting Galtonesque eugenics. However, Harden espouses what she calls anti-eugenics. It is not enough, she suggests to be genetics blind. If we really want equity of opportunity, we need to try to level out genetic favourability just as much as we should try to de