The articles cover all science topics on an "educated layman's" level and are well written.
Each article has a specific issue tackled and the authors do a good job of mixing them up to make the reader feel smarter in many different subjects by the end.
BEST AMERICAN SCIENCE WRITING 2007 EDITED BY GINA KOLATA: Since this is the "best American science writing" of the year, you know it's going to be good.
whether technology or biology or revolving around the planets, this collection has the best of the journals providing you with only what you need and deleting the clutter!Published 13 months ago by John S.
Got this book for an English course called Writing For Engineer, teaching us how to write and read analytically, and it was quite a good book. Read morePublished on September 29, 2011 by Aeon
No doubt this is a wonderful book, but I couldn't get past the editor's introduction. This editor, science reporter for the New York Times,announces that scientists have difference... Read morePublished on January 26, 2011
The articles sometimes seemed a bit exaggerated with the story telling, but it kept it interesting and not just the dry science. Read morePublished on August 28, 2010 by D. George
I tried to like this book but I found the selection to be quite uneven. As other have mentioned it is heavy on certain topics and light on others. Read morePublished on March 23, 2010 by Patrick Giagnocavo
Other reviewers have nicely summarized this year's edition. I found only four or five of the selections interesting,none a "Wow". Read morePublished on November 25, 2008 by James S. Kelley
BEST AMERICAN SCIENCE WRITING 2007 EDITED BY GINA KOLATA: Since this is the "best American science writing" of the year, you know it's going to be good. Read morePublished on March 10, 2008 by Alex C. Telander
I thought this year's volume was quite a bit better than usual - hence the fourth star. The selection is distinctly skewed in favor of various neurological topics, with relatively... Read morePublished on February 18, 2008 by David M. Giltinan
I was not so impressed with this book, for two reasons: (1) the science itself was not explained very well. Some of the essays had a "gee whiz" tone. Read morePublished on January 17, 2008 by Stephen Armstrong