Edited by Sylvia Nasar, bestselling author of A Beautiful Mind and former economics correspondent for the New York Times, The Best American Science Writing 2008 brings together the premiere science writing of the year. Distinguished by the foremost voices and publications—among them Pulitzer Prize-winner Amy Harmon, Nobel Prize–winner Al Gore, and award-winning and bestselling author Oliver Sacks—this anthology is a comprehensive overview of our most advanced and most relevant scientific inquiries.
| |||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Sylvia Nasar is the author of A Beautiful Mind. A former economics correspondent for the New York Times, she is the Knight Professor of Journalism at Columbia University.
Jesse Cohen is a writer and freelance editor. He lives in New York City.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
32 of 33 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
In a series that's usually reliably interesting and intellectually stimulating, this year's collection was somewhat disappointing, due to an unusually narrow focus. In her introduction, Sylvia Nasar tells us that she gravitated to the stories that "people were talking about". An idiosyncratic interpretation of the criterion "best", and it shows. The articles in this book come from -
The New York Times : 9
The New Yorker : 6
The Wall Street Journal : 1
Wired : 1
Scientific American : 1
Policy Review : 1
Biomedical research : 15
The environment : 4
Based on this collection, one would be led to believe that there was nothing of note during the past year in - for example - astronomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, oceanography, marine biology, economics, game theory, artificial intelligence, or nanotechnology.
One can only wish that Ms Nasar had cast a broader net in deciding what to include in this volume.
That said, the articles, by such established science writers as Jerome Groopman, Oliver Sacks, Stephen S. Hall, Richard Preston, Amy Harmon, Carl Zimmer, and Tara Parker-Pope, are interesting and well-written. Ms Harmon's piece on living life with the gene for Huntington's disease is exceptional. One might argue that, with four articles beating up on the pharmaceutical industry, coverage in that area could have been a little more balanced.
In summary, the articles included in this anthology are interesting and worth reading. However, anyone who subscribes to The New Yorker and The New York Times will find little new in this disappointingly narrow selection.
The New York Times : 9
The New Yorker : 6
The Wall Street Journal : 1
Wired : 1
Scientific American : 1
Policy Review : 1
Biomedical research : 15
The environment : 4
Based on this collection, one would be led to believe that there was nothing of note during the past year in - for example - astronomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, oceanography, marine biology, economics, game theory, artificial intelligence, or nanotechnology.
One can only wish that Ms Nasar had cast a broader net in deciding what to include in this volume.
That said, the articles, by such established science writers as Jerome Groopman, Oliver Sacks, Stephen S. Hall, Richard Preston, Amy Harmon, Carl Zimmer, and Tara Parker-Pope, are interesting and well-written. Ms Harmon's piece on living life with the gene for Huntington's disease is exceptional. One might argue that, with four articles beating up on the pharmaceutical industry, coverage in that area could have been a little more balanced.
In summary, the articles included in this anthology are interesting and worth reading. However, anyone who subscribes to The New Yorker and The New York Times will find little new in this disappointingly narrow selection.
22 of 26 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
I anxiously await the publication of this annual edition and the 2008 version does not disappoint. The guest editor this year (Sylvia Nasar - "A Beautiful Mind") picks which articles she thinks are the best and the selections reflect her interests. Whether you consider it good or bad, there is not a single hard science article. The selections are heavy on medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and the pharmaceutical industry. For a guaranteed good time - grab a copy, curl up, and enjoy yourself.
Amy Harmon - *one of my favorites - Would you want to know if you had the gene that led to an inheritable disease that was both physically and mentally crippling? The subject of this essay is a young woman whose grandfather died of Huntington's chorea.
Richard Preston - Lesch-Nyhan syndrome - so rare that one of the researchers knows almost every individual on earth that has been diagnosed. Those afflicted show dramatically the link between a single genetic mutation and aberrant behavior.
Thomas Goetz - Start-up companies that evaluate and interpret your DNA.
Carl Zimmer - Women in the US have a 39% chance of being diagnosed with cancer. Men have a 45% chance, and evolutionary biologists assure us they are not about to find a cure.
Tara Parker-Pope - NIH misread the hormone study of 2002. Women who use hormones to treat menopausal symptoms do not increase their risk of heart attacks or strokes. Their long-term health outlook may even improve.
Gardiner Harris, Benedict Carey, & Janet Roberts (two articles)- *another of my favorites - Pharmaceutical companies have figured out a legal way to influence psychiatrists to recommend their drugs for off-label use in pediatric patients with supposed bi-polar disease. They pay them. Having been a drug representative and subsequently a doctor, this article rings true to my experience.
Daniel Carlet - *another of my favorites - A psychiatrist recounts his experience hawking drugs part-time for Wyeth - making an easy $30,000.
Tina Rosenberg - *another of my favorites - Doctors who deal with chronic pain patients may be putting their own futures at risk. The nature of the work attracts the attention of medical boards and even district attorneys. This well-meaning (but disorganized) doctor is serving 30 years in the pokey.
Jerome Groopman - The diagnosis of bi-polar disorder in children has increased since 1990 more than fourfold, to the delight of - and with the help of - the pharmaceutical industry. Is it real or a fad? Are the benefits of treatment worth the risk of serious side effects?
Sally Satel - Who is going to get that coveted organ? Choosing "is not playing God; that is playing man - the all-too-human affair of people deliberating strenuously and in good faith to determine what is right." Maybe - just maybe - we should rescind that law against paying kidney donors.
Oliver Sacks - Clive had encephalitis in his mid-forties. He lost his ability to remember anything from one minute to the next. Everything happens to him as if it had never happened before - with two exceptions. He can still play and conduct beautiful music (which requires memory) and he still knows he loves his wife.
Ben McGrath - People used to feel luck if they got a peg leg after an amputation. Today's artificial limbs, however, are things bordering on science fiction.
Margaret Talbot - *another of my favorites - How do you spot a liar? Jurors certainly can't figure it out, and polygraph "lie detectors" are only in the 90% range of accuracy - not good enough for court use, but better than juries. What about fMRI - brain scanning? The kinks have certainly not been worked out, as this fascinating article points out.
Stephen Hall - *another of my favorites - What makes a person wise? It's not just age, although that might help, to a point.
Al Gore - A short inspirational essay with recommendations as to where we go from here.
Jim Yardley - One of two essays about China's burgeoning self-induced environmental nightmare. This one is the overall view.
Joseph Kahn - The other essay about China's capitalistic excess at the expense of it's environment. Kahn profiles one man who crusaded against pollution of the area lake. He is now in jail. If you think US corporations are polluters, take a look at this!
John Seabrook - *another of my favorites - The planet's ultimate safeguard against global famine is a seed bank containing unaltered seeds from all over the world. This comprehensive article covers facts about seeds, agriculture, genetically modified foods, seed-banks, and the politics thereof - that you wouldn't think you would be so interested in. I'll bet you won't be able to put this one down.
As usual, a brilliant collection.
Amy Harmon - *one of my favorites - Would you want to know if you had the gene that led to an inheritable disease that was both physically and mentally crippling? The subject of this essay is a young woman whose grandfather died of Huntington's chorea.
Richard Preston - Lesch-Nyhan syndrome - so rare that one of the researchers knows almost every individual on earth that has been diagnosed. Those afflicted show dramatically the link between a single genetic mutation and aberrant behavior.
Thomas Goetz - Start-up companies that evaluate and interpret your DNA.
Carl Zimmer - Women in the US have a 39% chance of being diagnosed with cancer. Men have a 45% chance, and evolutionary biologists assure us they are not about to find a cure.
Tara Parker-Pope - NIH misread the hormone study of 2002. Women who use hormones to treat menopausal symptoms do not increase their risk of heart attacks or strokes. Their long-term health outlook may even improve.
Gardiner Harris, Benedict Carey, & Janet Roberts (two articles)- *another of my favorites - Pharmaceutical companies have figured out a legal way to influence psychiatrists to recommend their drugs for off-label use in pediatric patients with supposed bi-polar disease. They pay them. Having been a drug representative and subsequently a doctor, this article rings true to my experience.
Daniel Carlet - *another of my favorites - A psychiatrist recounts his experience hawking drugs part-time for Wyeth - making an easy $30,000.
Tina Rosenberg - *another of my favorites - Doctors who deal with chronic pain patients may be putting their own futures at risk. The nature of the work attracts the attention of medical boards and even district attorneys. This well-meaning (but disorganized) doctor is serving 30 years in the pokey.
Jerome Groopman - The diagnosis of bi-polar disorder in children has increased since 1990 more than fourfold, to the delight of - and with the help of - the pharmaceutical industry. Is it real or a fad? Are the benefits of treatment worth the risk of serious side effects?
Sally Satel - Who is going to get that coveted organ? Choosing "is not playing God; that is playing man - the all-too-human affair of people deliberating strenuously and in good faith to determine what is right." Maybe - just maybe - we should rescind that law against paying kidney donors.
Oliver Sacks - Clive had encephalitis in his mid-forties. He lost his ability to remember anything from one minute to the next. Everything happens to him as if it had never happened before - with two exceptions. He can still play and conduct beautiful music (which requires memory) and he still knows he loves his wife.
Ben McGrath - People used to feel luck if they got a peg leg after an amputation. Today's artificial limbs, however, are things bordering on science fiction.
Margaret Talbot - *another of my favorites - How do you spot a liar? Jurors certainly can't figure it out, and polygraph "lie detectors" are only in the 90% range of accuracy - not good enough for court use, but better than juries. What about fMRI - brain scanning? The kinks have certainly not been worked out, as this fascinating article points out.
Stephen Hall - *another of my favorites - What makes a person wise? It's not just age, although that might help, to a point.
Al Gore - A short inspirational essay with recommendations as to where we go from here.
Jim Yardley - One of two essays about China's burgeoning self-induced environmental nightmare. This one is the overall view.
Joseph Kahn - The other essay about China's capitalistic excess at the expense of it's environment. Kahn profiles one man who crusaded against pollution of the area lake. He is now in jail. If you think US corporations are polluters, take a look at this!
John Seabrook - *another of my favorites - The planet's ultimate safeguard against global famine is a seed bank containing unaltered seeds from all over the world. This comprehensive article covers facts about seeds, agriculture, genetically modified foods, seed-banks, and the politics thereof - that you wouldn't think you would be so interested in. I'll bet you won't be able to put this one down.
As usual, a brilliant collection.
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I'm a huge fan of this series, vastly preferring it to the competing "Best Science and Nature Writing." But this is easily the weakest volume yet, largely due to an amazingly lazy job by editor Sylvia Nasar. There are four basic problems with the book:
1. The ridiculously narrow range of publications from which the essays are drawn. See "David M. Giltinan"'s review for details, and I completely agree with his analysis. To me, it seems like Nasar, a Columbia U journalism prof, essentially picked articles in publications she herself reads regularly and did little if any digging around in other sources. Pretty pathetic, really. But one can only blame Nasar so much. This has been a trend in the series as a whole. Someone should make a chart to confirm my impression, but it seems early volumes were much, much more diverse, with an increasing New York-centrism in recent years. Maybe series editor Cohen needs to be more adventurous in choosing volume editors? Give them firmer directives? Or just pay them more? Who knows, but it's becoming a real problem.
2. The even more ridiculously narrow range of topics covered. Here again, "Giltinan" has the numbers in his review. I read these volumes precisely to find out what's going on in non-biology fields, particularly mathematics, the various branches of physics, chemistry--even the occasional social science like archaeology, which has made appearances in years past. But this year it's all about jumping on the "it all about the new biology" bandwagon. Sad.
3. The pieces on genetics are themselves surprisingly weak. This is one field where I have some minimal competency to judge the quality of the "science talk" and the writers have generally failed to learn the basic science or ask critical questions about what's become an absurdly over-hyped, near religious, and very profitable endeavor.
4. Even within this narrowness, there's an incredible amount of redundancy. We get five--yes FIVE--essays on pharmaceuticals, all one after another (apparently thinking carefully about chapter sequencing was also above Nasar's pay grade). Now I happen to think the pharmaceutical industry can use all the bad press it can get, but FIVE articles? Give me a break. And not one of them is as ambitious as, say, Helen Epstein's stunning piece on HIV drugs in South Africa several years back. Then, near the end of the book, we get three environmental essays in a row. The first, by Al Gore, is interesting enough. But is there anyone in the audience for this book who doesn't already know what Gore has to say? Then we get two articles on the environment in China, again back-to-back. The first is fine, but the second is essentially in the Sinophobic vein of much recent know-nothing US commentary on China--ooo, scary Chinese people are ruining the environment and those mean, authoritarian government officials are lying and covering it all up. Probably true, but presumably a study of the Bush-era EPA would turn up hundreds of stories of scientists heroically supported by their government in their efforts to document environmental crises, right? Please. (In passing, that jingoistic tone pops up elsewhere in the book, particularly in Nasar's intro, which starts with paper-thin paens to free markets and democracy, and where the intentional destruction of biodiversity in US-occupied Iraq is described as "random" [essay author Seabrook by contrast uses words like "encouraged" "distributed" "prohibited" and "forced"--hmm, sounds very random] so as to provide the p.c. contrast with Stalin's "deliberate" destruction. Nasar must have been angling for a science position in a McCain administration. Woops.)
I don't have time to go through each chapter, but as an overview of the opening genetics pieces:
Disappointing: Ch. 1: Starts w/ an interesting premise: 24-year old woman learns she has a genetic disease that will incapacitate her by age 39 and struggles with the implications of that knowledge. I disagree w/ "Giltinan" here: Other than a bit of detail about the disease, the author adds nothing to that premise that you or any reasonably reflective person could spin out in an afternoon of brainstorming. Will she change how she lives her life? Would everyone want to know if they were going to die young? Etc. Etc. Stay tuned for the Lifetime movie. Yawn. Ch. 3: Essentially an extended advertisement for a Google spin-off that provides consumer "genetic testing" (of a non-FDA approved sort). Hope someone got some ad revenue here. But Wired, the publication of origin, isn't exactly known for its insightful critiques of technology or hard-hitting reporting.
Not bad: Ch. 2: Author seems to have done some real research and adds a historical perspective. Not that the essay actually covers any new (post-2000) discoveries, but it has a nice human touch.
Anyway, this might be the year to go over to the competing "Science and Nature" series. I haven't read its 2008 offering yet, but it couldn't be any worse.
PS Just noticed: while the back cover describes Nasar as "Knight Professor of Journalism at Columbia," according to wikipedia her actual position is "Knight Chair in Business Journalism". Business journalism. Pretty much explains it all, no? Nasar also co-wrote the "scary Chinese mathematicians" article in the 2007 volume, so Sinophobia is nothing new to her. Still fighting her father's cold war, apparently.
1. The ridiculously narrow range of publications from which the essays are drawn. See "David M. Giltinan"'s review for details, and I completely agree with his analysis. To me, it seems like Nasar, a Columbia U journalism prof, essentially picked articles in publications she herself reads regularly and did little if any digging around in other sources. Pretty pathetic, really. But one can only blame Nasar so much. This has been a trend in the series as a whole. Someone should make a chart to confirm my impression, but it seems early volumes were much, much more diverse, with an increasing New York-centrism in recent years. Maybe series editor Cohen needs to be more adventurous in choosing volume editors? Give them firmer directives? Or just pay them more? Who knows, but it's becoming a real problem.
2. The even more ridiculously narrow range of topics covered. Here again, "Giltinan" has the numbers in his review. I read these volumes precisely to find out what's going on in non-biology fields, particularly mathematics, the various branches of physics, chemistry--even the occasional social science like archaeology, which has made appearances in years past. But this year it's all about jumping on the "it all about the new biology" bandwagon. Sad.
3. The pieces on genetics are themselves surprisingly weak. This is one field where I have some minimal competency to judge the quality of the "science talk" and the writers have generally failed to learn the basic science or ask critical questions about what's become an absurdly over-hyped, near religious, and very profitable endeavor.
4. Even within this narrowness, there's an incredible amount of redundancy. We get five--yes FIVE--essays on pharmaceuticals, all one after another (apparently thinking carefully about chapter sequencing was also above Nasar's pay grade). Now I happen to think the pharmaceutical industry can use all the bad press it can get, but FIVE articles? Give me a break. And not one of them is as ambitious as, say, Helen Epstein's stunning piece on HIV drugs in South Africa several years back. Then, near the end of the book, we get three environmental essays in a row. The first, by Al Gore, is interesting enough. But is there anyone in the audience for this book who doesn't already know what Gore has to say? Then we get two articles on the environment in China, again back-to-back. The first is fine, but the second is essentially in the Sinophobic vein of much recent know-nothing US commentary on China--ooo, scary Chinese people are ruining the environment and those mean, authoritarian government officials are lying and covering it all up. Probably true, but presumably a study of the Bush-era EPA would turn up hundreds of stories of scientists heroically supported by their government in their efforts to document environmental crises, right? Please. (In passing, that jingoistic tone pops up elsewhere in the book, particularly in Nasar's intro, which starts with paper-thin paens to free markets and democracy, and where the intentional destruction of biodiversity in US-occupied Iraq is described as "random" [essay author Seabrook by contrast uses words like "encouraged" "distributed" "prohibited" and "forced"--hmm, sounds very random] so as to provide the p.c. contrast with Stalin's "deliberate" destruction. Nasar must have been angling for a science position in a McCain administration. Woops.)
I don't have time to go through each chapter, but as an overview of the opening genetics pieces:
Disappointing: Ch. 1: Starts w/ an interesting premise: 24-year old woman learns she has a genetic disease that will incapacitate her by age 39 and struggles with the implications of that knowledge. I disagree w/ "Giltinan" here: Other than a bit of detail about the disease, the author adds nothing to that premise that you or any reasonably reflective person could spin out in an afternoon of brainstorming. Will she change how she lives her life? Would everyone want to know if they were going to die young? Etc. Etc. Stay tuned for the Lifetime movie. Yawn. Ch. 3: Essentially an extended advertisement for a Google spin-off that provides consumer "genetic testing" (of a non-FDA approved sort). Hope someone got some ad revenue here. But Wired, the publication of origin, isn't exactly known for its insightful critiques of technology or hard-hitting reporting.
Not bad: Ch. 2: Author seems to have done some real research and adds a historical perspective. Not that the essay actually covers any new (post-2000) discoveries, but it has a nice human touch.
Anyway, this might be the year to go over to the competing "Science and Nature" series. I haven't read its 2008 offering yet, but it couldn't be any worse.
PS Just noticed: while the back cover describes Nasar as "Knight Professor of Journalism at Columbia," according to wikipedia her actual position is "Knight Chair in Business Journalism". Business journalism. Pretty much explains it all, no? Nasar also co-wrote the "scary Chinese mathematicians" article in the 2007 volume, so Sinophobia is nothing new to her. Still fighting her father's cold war, apparently.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
2.0 out of 5 stars
A narrow selection
Every year I look forward to this usually superb anthology. The 2008 edition was a disappointment. Instead of representing the broad range of science, the editor focused only on... Read more
Published on April 1, 2011 by Sasha Alyson
2.0 out of 5 stars
Why just biology?
Have enjoyed all editions of this series for almost a decade because of the wide range of their articles. Not this one, as almost all articles covered the same limited area. Read more
Published on April 15, 2010 by Stanley A. Shatsky
5.0 out of 5 stars
inheriting fatal diseases(pre-existing conditions ?)
From the author of "A Beautiful Mind" this collection of significant advances in knowledge illuminates the collision of human health and corporate "voice". Read more
Published on February 10, 2010 by E. T. Dumiru
4.0 out of 5 stars
Same great stuff, but could have been more varied.
As usual, this year's editor has put together an excellent collection of Science Writing. But the thing I tend to like about the series is that it contains a little bit on a lot of... Read more
Published on March 11, 2009 by Julee Rudolf
3.0 out of 5 stars
Weak
Too much focus on genetic/health issues. With all the amazing things going on in science, I would have expected a broader group of topics. Read more
Published on March 7, 2009 by Michael Oren
2.0 out of 5 stars
The Best?
Disappointing in light of the previous books in this series. I missed the awe inspiring and thought provoking articles of previous years. Read more
Published on January 16, 2009 by John Dykstra
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointing "best of" volume
I agree with some of the other reviewers. The topics included in this "best of" volume are far too narrow. Read more
Published on January 8, 2009 by M. Frary
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
