Skip to main content

Tree Stories - Stefano Mancuso (Trans. Gregory Conti) ***

It's always interesting to see something new in popular science, and without doubt plants (and, in this case, trees) tend not to get enough of a slice of the biology market (I don't really count 'nature' as popular science as there's very little science in it). So I had considerable hopes for Tree Stories. But in practice, although there are some genuinely interesting little snippets of information around the way that trees interact with each other through their root networks, the book was problematic. One issue I had was that each 'story' - each chapter in effect - is continuous, without any section breaks. There is no substructure it just goes on and on, which was quite wearing. Worse, though, was that despite this book being labelled popular science, the science content was extremely thin on the ground.

Take the opening story. It comes across as a typical literary tale in which nothing much happens. Two academics become acquaintances after battling over secondhand book purchases. They share an interest in a book on 'liberty trees' - planted across both revolutionary France and post independence America. The book portrays the trees as a network and Stefano Mancuso points out in an actual forest the tree roots form a connective network and tells us that the trees are a superorganism like ants or bees. This is just throwing a thin sprinkle of facts into a self-indulgent story. It's not popular science. How does this network form? No idea. In a superorganism the individual insects are highly specialised - how do the trees specialise? No mention of this. In a superorganism, the individual insects can't survive alone - surely this isn't really true of trees? Is a forest not more like Facebook than a superorganism? Don't know. This is not science.

The second essay on plants, and particularly trees, in cities was much more effective - there was less of a memoir feel and a bit more science content, though it’s odd that with Mancuso's obsession with tree networks, he pretty much ignores the way IT networks are reducing the importance of cities as places to live. The story gives a strong argument for the wider greening of our urban spaces, particularly in the face of climate change. This is mostly about urban planning rather than any underlying scientific principles, but at least it’s interesting.

Most of the rest of the chapters are more like the second with at least a spot of scientific content, though it's often just a few words. So, for example, in a piece on the wood used in famous ancient violins like a Stradivarius there are maybe two lines on why a particular wood might be unusually good in the role. But the rest is atmospheric woffle. And there's a purely anti-scientific statement that blind testing showing these violins aren't better wasn't right in Mancuso's opinion - the only scientific test mentioned gets dismissed out of hand where it's clearly a case where only double blinding could give useful information.

I've no objection to this sort of book (though it's not one I would usually read), but it just doesn't do what it says on the tin.

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

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

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re