Skip to main content

The Dance of Life - Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz and Roger Highfield ****

There is without doubt a fascination for all of us - even those who can find biology a touch tedious - with the way that a tiny cellular blob develops into the hugely complex thing that is a living organism, especially a human. In this unusual book which I can only describe as a memoir of science, Magalena Zernicka-Goetz, assisted by the Science Museum's Roger Highfield, tells the story of her own career and discoveries.

 At the heart of the book, and Zernicka-Goetz's work, is symmetry breaking, a topic very familiar to readers of popular physics titles, but perhaps less so in popular biology. The first real breakthrough from her lab was the discovery of the way that a mouse egg's first division was already asymmetrical - the two new cells were not identical, not equally likely to become embryo and support structure as had always been thought.  As the book progresses, throughout the process of development we see how different symmetries are broken, with a particular focus on mammals, producing the different structures we see in a living organism.

We also read a fair amount on chimeras, where cells from different organisms can be combined (causing some dramatic newspaper headlines) and why they are valuable for research, with important and balanced discussion of the ethical limits of human embryo research, plus some fascinating material on effectively creating artificial embryoids. Part of the appeal here is the way that the authors portray the slow and not always steady progress - sometimes under significant attack from opposing scientists - that typifies real science, as opposed to the simplistic picture we often get, particularly from the way what we're taught at school simply delivers the end results without following the way the ideas and experiments have developed through a lot of grunt work.

 Although the book is very well written, as someone from a physics background I do find the sheer quantity of things that have to be named a struggle. When I tell people physics is vastly simpler than biology, most non-scientists are non-plussed, but in physics, almost everything matter does can be dealt with using just three particles and two forces. Here, in one page alone, the authors feel the need to tell me about methylation, argenine residues, histones, trophectoderms, CARM1, H3, SOX2, NANOG and pluripotency transcription factors  - and that's by no means an unusual page.

 Despite this, though, there was no doubt the book is fascinating. The only reason I've not given it five stars is that I'm not a fan of memoirs. It's not that I want a science book to be impersonal, and I appreciated some insights into Zernicka-Goetz's background (there were interesting parallels in her ingenuity arising from initially doing science under the limitations of working in 1980s Poland with Andre Geim's novel approach based on his early experience in Russia that led to the development of graphene) - but there was far too much autobiographical material for me. I appreciate a lot of readers love this, but I found it got in the way a little. (It was also weird, reading a book with two authors, written in the first person singular.) 

 Ultimately, though, this remains a truly remarkable story and a book that deserves a place on any serious science bookshelf.

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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

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