Skip to main content

What's Gotten Into You - Dan Levitt *****

Tracing your atoms from the Big Bang to their role in sustaining your life, this book is very much of the 'Gee whiz wow!' school of popular science writing... and I really enjoyed it. While I couldn't cope reading too many books like this in a row, occasionally they are fun - and the great thing that Dan Levitt does is to dig a little deeper along the way. Not into the science itself, which is presented at a fairly summary level, but instead into the stories of those involved in the discoveries behind the science, including several that are not particularly familiar.

So, for example, in the early stages of the story we get the inevitable names such as Georges Lemaître, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (Levitt sticks with her pre-marital surname) and Fred Hoyle, but also the likes of Marietta Blau, Allesandro Morbidelli and Victor Safronov who are far less familiar, but deserving of introduction to the general public.

What makes the sequence of narratives that fill in the gaps between the Big Bang and complex cellular life particularly interesting is the number of times theories have changed. Although Levitt says that Hoyle always rejected the Big Bang, he doesn't mention the Steady State theory, which at one point (certainly in the UK) had far more support than Big Bang, but with various other stages in the book, such as the formation of the Earth, where Earth's water came from and the structure of cells, it's fascinating to see how the different views competed before coming to the current best theories - in some cases still not 100 per cent settled. 

Levitt does a great job of putting across the difficulties of reaching a solid outcome that get hidden when we present modern understanding as simply 'what's known'. This comes across particularly well when he explores the structures of cells, how these tiny features were discovered and the complexity of the molecular machinery that enables them to operate.

My only real concern is that because the science (and its history) has very little detail, it can sometimes involve statements that aren't entirely accurate. For example, we are told that in 1922 Edwin Hubble shocked the astronomical community by discovery that the universe 'contained an incredible number of other galaxies', where in fact Hubble only had data on a handful of galaxies, and did not go public until later than 1922. I was also a little thrown by the wording 'negatively charged sodium and positively charged potassium' when describing the sodium-potassium pump - negative sodium ions would be a distinct novelty.

There are lots of different ways to look at what makes us what we are, as demonstrated in What Do You Think You Are? - and it is great to have a much more expansive look at how the atoms that we are made from came into being, ended up in us and function in the body. What captivated me about What's Gotten Into You was not so much the science, as those stories of the people behind the theories and how those theories were disputed and specific ones came to dominate. Enjoyable stuff.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

  1. Picked it up on a whim at the library turned out to be absolutely fantastic , the title dosent do it justice though it ties the narrative together it is a wonderful book worthy of a re-read

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's  Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences  (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare

The Science of Weird Shit - Chris French ****

This is a highly engaging topic, but before diving into the content of the book I ought to mention two issues with its title. The first is that in this age of algorithmic censorship, the final word of the title can cause problems - the publisher had an issue with publicity emails being caught by spam filters, and I'm nervous enough about the contents of this review being pulled that I won't use it in the text. The other, more subtle problem is that it's only partially what the book is about - as the subtitle makes clear. Most of it doesn't concern the science of weird stuff, but rather the science of why many of us believe weird stuff. Those aren't the same things. Such is the joy of titles - often hard to get right. But what about the book itself? Considering it's covering what can be quite a showy field, it takes a measured approach (in fact, I'd say occasionally it's a bit too academic in feel, focused on relating facts with limited storytelling). Ho