Customer Reviews

The Best American Science Writing 2005

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Each year I am thrilled when this book comes out, along with its equally good competitor of the same format (Best of Science and Nature Writing, 2005). This year, my kids gave me one of each for Christmas. This book has 27 articles from 16 magazines. Without further ado, I will briefly summarize or provide a provocative quote from each essay for you. If at any time you feel inspired to quit reading this review in favor of the real thing, you will not be disappointed.

Introduction, by this year's editor, Alan Lightman, who made the final selections: "So far, not a shred of experimental evidence supports string theory. However, some of the best theoretical physicists in the world are infatuated with it."

Oliver Sacks: The story of how scientists have created new elements based on what could be predicted from the Periodic Chart of the Elements.

James Gleick: The grand new exhibition on Isaac Newton at the New York Public Library correctly portrays him as the genius of rationality and order that he was. His fingerprints mark every part of science, but they left out a major part of the story. Newton was heavily into alchemy and other pseudoscience, was a social disaster who had no friends, and was chronically poisoned by the mercury he experimented with. His works ended up being a pivotal event in the emergence of the age of science from centuries of dependence on superstition. His complex and tormented soul might represent the conflict between science and superstition.

Frank Wilczek: A discussion of Newton's second law of motion, F = ma. Force is "insubstantial" and has no independent meaning. For these reasons and that it has no algorith, Wilczek had problems with it as a student. He elaborates...a little over my head, but that's OK.

Peter Galison: As any pilot knows, the standard compass is problematic in aircraft because it leads and lags in turns, acceleration, and deceleration. Einstein addressed this problem as an expert witness because of technical skills he learned in the patent office.

William Broad: Reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields appears to have started in earnest about 150 years ago. The author discusses earth's long history of magnetic reversals and present implications for power grids, satellites, ozone holes, migratory animals, and extinction of species.

K.C. Cole: The only life we know is built on a scaffolding of carbon that floats in bags of water. As we search (SETI) for other life in the universe, why are carbon and water necessary - or are they?

Dennis Overby: Looking for planets: "What seems indisputably clear is that our knowledge of the universe is dwarfed by our ignorance."

Jim Holt: Some of the more fanciful speculations of top cosmologists about the eventual fate of the universe.

Natalie Algier: Women in top-level science are scarce - A close look at multiple award-winning chemist, Jacqueline Barton.

Jennifer Couzin: The competition and conflict between two prominent researchers studying the genetic causes of aging - in graduate school, one was the mentor of the other.

Robin Henig: Should we look for biological determinants of race. Sociologists say no, calling race a social convention, even its study causing a variety of pernicious consequences. Genomics and Medicine says yes, and a new drug, BiDil, has been niche-marketed specifically for African-Americans.

Mark Dowie: Dr. Stuart Newman applied for a patent for a "chimera" - half human, half something else. Not that he wanted to create one - the idea of a chimera so revolted him that he wanted to keep anyone else from doing it for 27 years. Six years later, it's still in court.

Gina Kolata: Some groups focus on cells taken from human embryos. Some focus on adult stem cells that have mysteriously survived long after their original mission is over. As the two lines of research proceed along parallel lines, researchers say it is too soon to bet on which, if either, will yield cures first. Meanwhile, the political problems over the use of human embryonic stem cells goes on.

Philip Alcabes: "The stranger spreading germs is a metaphor, and largely an empty one. Bioterrorism is not a public health problem, and will not become one."

Laurie Garrett: AIDS is poised to explode in Vietnam. US money is being held up because the Bush administration will not support condom use or a needle exchange program.

Atul Gawande: The WHO is in the closing stages of a campaign to wipe out polio. The author accompanies a WHO team to a poor region in India, where they try to limit the damage from a new outbreak.

Jerome Groopman: Can a positive attitude lead to a better outcome in fighting disease? Can the natural anxiety that accompanies cancer do the opposite? New information collected in scientifically valid ways suggests that the answer is in contradiction of the popular belief. "As to the mind-body connection, I told Julie that I knew of no data whatsoever that supported the notion that her natural feelings of anxiety or her moments of despair would accelerate the growth of her disease."

Ben Harder: Maggots still work in removing dead and infected tissue. While most US medical institutions don't use maggot debridement therapy, it is still a viable option for ulcers from bedsores, diabetes, trauma, burns, or flesh-eating bacteria.

Jennifer Ackerman: The author follows a group of "craniacs" who are trying to bring these remarkable species back from the edge of extinction.

Edward Hoagland: This author spent his childhood in a love affair with nature that has continued throughout his adult life. He now wonders whether humanity will survive current assaults on our environment.

David Quammen: Since about half of Americans doubt evolution, National Geographic magazine commissioned the author to compose a primer for the general public. The evidence is there, and it is not "just a theory."

David Berlinski: Although evolutionary psychology is convincing and is one of my favorite subjects, the author correctly points out how difficult it is to gather hard data on a soft science.

Mark Solms: By the 1980's, Freud's notions of the id and ego were considered hopelessly antiquated. New developments in brain research, however, are producing results that fit surprisingly well with his theories. Certainly it's becoming increasingly clear that a good deal of our mental activity is unconsciously motivated.

Ellen Ullman: The author caricaturizes the difficulties researchers have in creating artificial intelligence (AI) by pointing out the problems a robot would have in enjoying fine cuisine. In a moment of introspection - while in the supermarket check-out lines with its conveyor belts, credit card machines, and bar-codes - it occurred to her that we should perhaps worry more about humanity becoming robotic. This is the only article that was chosen for both books.

Andrea Barrett: This novelist was thrust into a situation of working independently, but alongside, various other scholars from varied disciplines. She was forced to think about how very differently scholars, on the one hand, and poets and novelists on the other, approach their material.

Diane Ackerman: "I remember one chilly morning in California, when a colleague and I held just-tagged monarch butterflies in our open mouths and warmed them with our breathe, so that they could fly to safety."

A delicious treat to read and a definite 5 stars.

I am a scientist. U of Michigan. I am 61
I make synthetic gem and laser crystals for a living. I read many scientific journals weekly. I think this series of "The Best American Science Writing" is extremely good with always very up to date topics. An absolutely great selection of articles written by or about top people and topics each year. I use this series to help keep me up to date on everything scientific. I highly recommend the entire series.

I look forward every year to the annual edition of this series and its competitor, Best American Science and Nature Writing. Since there are way too many good magazines published I gave up long ago trying to keep up with them, and this book/series serves two useful functions. First, it provides a delightful sampler of science-related writing of the past year, and, second, it often introduces me to some new writers as well as familiar names. It is the kind of book that has repercussions: I have never failed to follow up by buying additional books, either books by the authors represented or books referred to in the selections (WARNING: This book could be dangerous to your budget!)
The series editor provides a certain stability and may ensure some breadth to the selections, but each volume bears the stam of the interests of the guest editor. Given Alan Lightman's literary bent, it was therefore not surprising to see someone like Diane Ackerman included.
This was probably not the best of the series, but it nonetheless was not one I would want to miss.

Alan Lightman in this sixth anthology of ` The Best American Science Writing' ( Previous anthologies were edited by James Gleick, Timothy Ferris, Matt Ridley, Oliver Sacks, Dava Sobel) points to three different kinds of science writing." There is reportage, in which the writer "gets the story," interviews the experts, and largely stays out of the way. There is the essay, in which the writer goes inward rather than outward, casting himself or herself center stage and unashamedly inviting the reader to watch as the writer personally grapples with an idea. Yet, a third category might be called experimental narrative.Here, the writer the writer may be trying to capture a scene or a moment of life, as in fiction wwriting, without full explanation or understanding, or may be constructing a fantasy that demonstrates important principles of science." Lightman then goes on to say that the `best writing is clear, captivating, intelligent, provocative, imaginat6ive, graceful and funny when the humor is natural'. His concluding observation is a remark of Henry James indicating that the one essential quality of good writing is that it be interesting.

There are twenty- six essays in the anthology.
Oliver Sachs in his essay `Greetings from the Island of Stability' writes of the discovery of two new elements, and in doing so considers the work of Glenn T. Seaborg and his colleagues at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in the making of new elements beyond element ninety- two. In the course of this Sachs reawakens his own childhood interest in chemistry.

James Gleick in his essay considers the other non- scientific side of Newton, his mystical religious researches and how they mark the great pioneering figure of the New Age as somehow belonging also to the pre-scientific world before.

Frank Wilicek speaks of his own difficulty in understanding a certain area of fundamental physics, and this leads him into a deeper exploration of the meaning of Newton's second law of motion.

Peter Gallison turns to a small bypath in Einstein's career the time when he used the compass( which had first drawn his scientific interest) to explore certain qualities of magnetism.

William J. Broad writes about the perhaps impending reversal of the Earth's magnetic field , and some of the great disturbances that might result.

K.C. Cole considers the various possibilities for forms of life which do not have water as prime component.

Dennis Overbye considers the recent discovery of a larger number of planets which might be suitable for life. He concludes with his own optimistic observation that he expects Earth- like planets will be found in his own lifetime.

Jim Holt in a sense goes in the operation direction and explores scenarios as to how the universe will end. He speaks with some of the most well- known cosmologists( Freeman Dyson, Ed Witten, Frank Tipler) theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, astrophysicist Richard Gott, Nobel Laureate in Physics Steven Weinberg and most pessimistic of all Lawrence Krauss( who speaks about this being the worst of all possible universes) . His tone is often humorous and he concludes with the sobering observation of the philosopher Thomas Nagel, " It does not matter now that in a trillion trillion years nothing we do now will matter." And nonetheless Krause's observation that it is encouraging ` that sitting in a place on the edge of nowhere in a not especially time in the history of the universe, we can , on the basis of simple laws of physics , draw conclusions about the future of the life and the cosmos' . The problem however as the article clearly shows is that those conclusions are `theoretical speculations at their most speculative'. Apparently, we will have to wait and see how the Universe will end.

Natalie Angier speaks with Jacqueline Barton on what it means to be an outstanding woman scientist, role model , and chemist.

Jennifer Couzin examines the conflict between two prominent researches studying the genetic causes of aging.

Robin Marantz Henig shows how the question of the genetic investigation as to whether there are differences in race beyond superficial features has again become significant.

Mark Dowie studies how a biologist Dr.Stuart Newman is trying to find against the possibility that `genetic engineering' will bring into being `chimeras' strange frightening hybrid creatures.

Gina Kolata looks at ` stem cell science' its ethical implications and its viability.

Philip Alcabes suggests that our obsession with bioterrorism may be leading us to ignore more real, if more mundane medical threats.

Laurie Garret looks at what she sees as an impending AIDS epidemic in Vietnam, and whether there will be a global effort to prevent it.

Atul Gawande goes with a World Health Organization team to a remote area of India where they work to limit the damage from the few remaining cases of polio in the world.

Jerome Groopman investigates how researchers investigating the body- mind reveal how hope `can overcome pain, and has observable physiological effects on respiration, motor control and cardiovascular function. And how `more crucial , hope is the foundation upon which cogent clinical decision making and a patient's resilience are built."

Ben Harder considers the not very alluring subject of how doctors are using maggots in certain healing processes.

Jennifer Ackerman joins a group of `craniacs' seeking to help bring the `crane' back from near- extinction.

Edward Hoagland meditates on his growing- up with nature, and on the preservation of the natural world.

David Quammen writes a piece for `National Geographic' which works to convince the broader public that Darwin was not wrong about evolution.

David Berlinski explores evolutionary psychology and genetics in relation to the subject of our mind's development. His major emphasis is on emphasizing how imperfect our knowledge is in these areas.

Mark Solms shows how some research discoveries in brain research seem to fit in well with Freudian theory.

Ellen Ullman explores the subject of what Robots are lacking , this in connection with our own culinary history.

Andrea Barret in meditating on how 9/11 influenced his life considers the differences in the ways artists and scientists research their own experience.

Finally Diane Ackerman in an early morning encounter with a sleeping bumblebee reveals a bit of wonder from the natural world.

All in all, an excellent collection.

Today's science writing is growing more interesting and timely in its presentation. These annual collections are nearly always a delight to own. Each essay presents an issue demanding reflection and sometimes action on the reader's part. Lightman introduces this series with a brief overview of the progression of science writing over the years. He cites such classics as "The Silent Spring" and "The Double Helix" as examples. Stephen Gould's and David Quammen's columns paved the way for a wider audience for science writing, he notes. Enough production of this sort has led the way to a variety of styles, formats and topics. He presents just such a spectrum in this collection. With more than two dozen articles offered by an excellent array of authors, Lightman aptly demonstrates how far science writing has come.

With such a span, the reviewer has the choice of summarising them all [see "Synaptic mogul's fine synopsis, below], or selecting a few favoured examples. Given the range of topics and high quality of the writers, that's no easy chore. Choosing Oliver Sacks to begin the series was a wise choice. Sacks, always an expressive narrator, returns with an account of the "creation" of "new" elements. Another "regular" in this series, Natalie Angier, portrays the work of Jacquiline Barton. A woman of remarkable abilities and dedication to further research in the properties of DNA, Barton may well be making substantial changes in our understanding of "the molecule of life". Another biology specialist, Jennifer Ackerman, offers us a story of the quest to save one endangered species, the North American whooping crane. The method of preserving these magnificent birds may seem bizarre, but past efforts have fallen short of expectations. Ackerman's subject, crane biologist Richard Urbanek, leads a programme in which young cranes never encounter humans. This technique, he avers, will make transforming the chicks into their regular environment more natural, enhancing their chances for survival.

Although atomic physics, cosmology and recovering animals into their natural environments are always enticing reading, most of us remain concerned about human affairs. In dealing with our species and its many aspects, Lightman proves at his best and worst in assembling this collection. A campaign to eradicate polio in India, related by Atul Gawande, portrays the paucity of resources available to the medical workers. While expensive wars continue to impede progress by diverting resources, dedicated technicians strive to overcome the limitations imposed on them. In protecting public health, artificial issues such as "bioterrorism" have diverted attention from more immediate and pressing concerns. Philip Alcabes tots up the funds and personnel used in combating a minimal threat in contrast to the real problems of natural epidemics. He finds the Bush administration's focus a medical boondoggle. A new, more socially challenging topic has emerged in recent years. Some health issues, Robin Marantz Henig reports, may deserve focus on your "ethnic" origins. Certain afflictions appear to attack blacks more often or virulently, than whites. The first "ethnic medicines" are already on the market, with more to follow. Is this "racism" on the part of the pharmaceutical firms, or is it a valid market niche that should be followed by other drugs? And who will determine how they should be prescribed?

Inevitably, "American Science Writing" collections must deal with evolution by natural selection. Darwin's great insight is still subject to challenge in that nation. Lightman turns to one of the great nature writers, David Quammen, to provide a case for the defense [why Darwin needs "defending" is left unsaid]. Quammen, in one of the leading articles here, provides an excellent overview of how natural selection works. Quammen's style clarifies many aspects of evolution and is readable by anybody's standards. The only problem seems to be in bringing those who need to read the article to it.

Natural selection in the animal kingdom must raise the question of where humanity fits in the scheme. Many commentators have resisted the inclusion of our species in the process. In this collection, Lightman inexplicably inserts one of these objectors. David Berlinski's article on evolutionary psychology is less an example of "science writing" and more of an assault on a nascent science. His approach is formulaic by now - decry the lack of "hard evidence" on the roots of human behaviour. Since nearly everything in behavioural studies is by inference and comparison with other species, his complaint is groundless. Unless he's indirectly advocating detailed, controlled experiments on a wide segment of the human population, the chances of providing for his demands is close to nil. Berlinski, who must know of studies in sociobiology and palaeoanthropology, steadfastly ignores these indicators. Why Lightman felt the need for this kind of polemical blather remains a mystery. It can't be from a paucity of available material. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Reading this book will get you current on some of the hottest topics in the science world. The stories are well-written, flow smoothly, and understandable. The variety of science topics covered was very appealing to me. Topics ranged from the fate of the universe to how the human mind works. I bought this book to broaden my knowledge and to satisfy my renewed interest in science. I recommend this book for anyone who wants to round out their reading and expand their science horizons. There are stories from 26 writers, and I enjoyed them all.

As a layperson interested in science, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. There's something in this collection for everyone; biology, chemistry, physics, evolution, astronomy, psychology. There are soft, touchy-feely articles, and articles that are pure, rock-hard science. I learned a lot of interesting things about Sir Isaac Newton and man-made "heavy" elements that could potentially last thousands of years. Fascinating stuff.

This is a great series. Don't miss any of it. Back order old issues... it's worth it.

Every year these little anthologies deliver a wealth of essays and articles. Whether they are "best" or not is in the eye of the reader, but nearly all of them are always more than worth reading, and some of them can change the way you see the world. Not bad for a few bucks.