The Best American Science Writing 2000 [Paperback]

James Gleick (Editor)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0060957360 | ISBN-13: 978-0060957360 | Publication Date: September 5, 2000 | Edition: 2000-

The New York Times best-selling author of Chaos and Genius introduces an exciting new science series featuring the best science writing of the year The first volume in this annual series of the best science writing by American writers carries the imprimatur of Pulitzer Prize nominee James Gleick, one of our foremost chroniclers of scientific social history. Debuting with a stellar collection that includes the writings of Nobel Laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, Pulitzer Prize winner Natalie Angler, eminent Harvard professor and prolific writer Stephen lay Gould, mathematician and cognitive theorist Douglas Hofstadter, foremost writer on astronomy Timothy Ferris, and many more, this first volume will cover the full range of scientific inquiry -from biochemistry, physics, and astronomy to genetics, evolutionary theory, cognition, and ants.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Avid science readers know the value of good judgment. There's just too much out there to go through it all in one lifetime, so we learn to appreciate the recommendations of those we trust. Editors James Gleick and Jesse Cohen took it upon themselves to select 19 eclectic pieces for The Best American Science Writing 2000, resulting in a delicious, engrossing volume with something for nearly every reader. Whether relying on well-known authors like Stephen Jay Gould and Oliver Sacks or surprising us with a selection from humor publication The Onion ("Revolutionary New Insoles Combine Five Forms of Pseudoscience"), they choose works that combine the best of exposition and aesthetic delight. The scope of topics is broad: physician Atul Gawande reports on medical mistakes, Douglas R. Hofstadter ruminates on natural and artificial intelligence, and Deborah Gordon gives an inside look at southwestern American ant life. Though the editors cheerfully admit that they can't define science writing with any precision, they still please the reader with this important and enjoyable volume. --Rob Lightner

From Publishers Weekly

Assembled by a famous nameAalong with a series editor who usually manages the initial siftingAannual Best American anthologies have become a useful way for busy aficionados to keep up with a year's developments in (among other areas) spiritual writing, erotica, literary essays, movie writing, poetry, and sports writing. This volume adds science writing to that list. Gleick (Faster) and series editor Jesse Cohen have put together a stellar collection of accessible scientific papers, science-related personal essays and journalistic prose about evolutionary biology, medicine, paleoanthropology, particle physics and more. A cluster of work focuses on neurology, thought and mind. Douglas Hofstadter shows why he considers "Analogy as the Core of Cognition"; Floyd Skloot sharply and movingly describes how he has coped with his own cerebral damage, which (for example) causes him to ask in a music store for "sombrero reporters," not "soprano recorders." Oliver Sacks pops up with an uncharacteristic memoir of his "Uncle Tungsten," who introduced him to the natural sciences. Physicist Francis Halzen covers the ongoing hunt for neutrinos, carried on most recently at the South Pole. And the volume opens with Atul Gawande's memorable report on medical errors, which provoked much discussion when it appeared in the New Yorker. The anthology makes a good read (and, perhaps, an even better gift). But Gleick and colleagues do draw heavily on the few most prominent venues. The New Yorker, the New York Times and its Sunday magazine, Salon.com, Harper's and the New York Review of Books account for nine of 19 entries; Science, The Sciences, Scientific American and Natural History for half of the rest. People who've kept up with popular science writing during 1999 will have read half of this book already; they should give it to their busy friends and colleagues. (Sept.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 272 pages
• Publisher: Ecco; 2000- edition (September 5, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0060957360
• ISBN-13: 978-0060957360
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,216,673 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Very Mixed Bag, November 25, 2000

By A Customer

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Best American Science Writing 2000 (Paperback)

The best essays were actually on the history of science. There were memoirs of very little scientific interest, some pop-observations of the field of science, some decent philosophy, some medical adventure stories. Not bad, but certainly not a general survey of good science writing spread over all the sciences, so not what I was hoping for at all. I would have to browse the 2001 edition before buying; certainly not an automatic purchase based on this edition.

14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting, but not "The Best", February 5, 2001

By 

John "John" (PHOENIX, AZ USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: The Best American Science Writing 2000 (Paperback)

Although I enjoyed most of the articles, this was not exactly what I was expecting. It appears as though many of the articles came out of popular non-scientific publications (many from the N.Y. Times) and were written for a mainstream audience. Too many of them were articles of the "I'm a scientist and here's my story . . ." genre. One story was about an author's "nervous breakdown" and his decision to pursue a career in music rather than chemistry. A few were about the practice of medicine or medical research. They were interesting articles but didn't contain as much scientific information as I expected - I didn't really learn that much. I don't want to sound overly negative. I did enjoy many of the selections. However, calling this "The Best" science writing of the year is a real stretch.

9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An amazing collection, October 23, 2000

By 

Ruben Gamboa "Ruben Gamboa" (Jelm, WY USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Best American Science Writing 2000 (The Best American Series) (Hardcover)

If you're reading this review, I assume you have a deep interest in science. If so, you're in for a treat. *The Best American Science Writing 2000*, Edited by Gleick and Cohen, is one of the best science books in my large bookshelf. The first article in the collection, a first-person account of a dangerous medical error and an introspection on the root causes and methods to prevent such errors in the future, is absolutely wonderful. The remaining articles cover a broad spectrum of science -- physics, biology, genetics, even scientific humor -- and scientists. This book is a treasure.