As I see it, there are three major problems with Genetics for Dummies so, for the sake of clarity, I'm going to split them into categories:
READABILITY
This book is obsessed with minutiae. A representative passage from the first half:
"Another set of cyclins and CDK work together to push the cell through the second checkpoint located between G2 and mitosis. As the cells grow, the chromosomes, now hooked together as sister chromatids are alike in every way"...
Now, I recognize that this is a detail-oriented subject, but I felt that sometimes the minutiae got in the way of the big picture. For example, in the section on genetic engineering, I was very interested in how scientists know that putting a fish gene into a tomato (or whatever) will make it spoil more slowly. I still don't know. But I do know that "the all-purpose promoter often used in transgenes for plants is from a pathogen called Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV.)"
ACCURACY
I haven't taken biology for 25 years, so you could tell me that cell division is caused by gremlins and I'd have little choice but to take you at your word. Every once in a while, though, the author stumbled into an area that I do know something about and virtually every time her information was wrong. A few examples:
From pg 314: "Francis Galton is best remembered for his contribution to law enforcement. He invented the process used to identify people by their fingerprints."
No he didn't. William Herschel did. Galton just worked out the classification system. But even if he had invented it, it would be an aside. The man was a freakin' giant. Admittedly, often misguided, but geez...
"In direct and vocal opposition to the US Constitution, Galton was quite sure that all men were NOT created equal" (with regard to intelligence--km)
Setting aside for a moment that Galton was British and therefore not bound by the US Constitution, I think there are very few historians who read this passage as a guarantee that we can all become brain surgeons. It was a piece of political philosophy offered as an alternative to monarchism.
On 152, we find a full-page rant about the dangers of anabolic steroids. What do `roids have to do with genetics? Not that much, really. But what concerns me is that the author provides no evidence that these dangers exist and just follows the mealy-mouthed political party line. In truth, the dangers of steroids are wildly overstated and have little scientific or statistical evidence to back them up (not that I'm suggesting anyone should take them.)
"The view that intelligence is heritable is still widely accepted despite abundant evidence to the contrary."
This should read "almost uniformly accepted by the scientific community." Also, I am unaware of a single credible study that does not support a heritable component to intelligence. How did we humans evolve our big brains and how do we breed such clever little dogs if there is nothing for the selection process to act on? More on this subject later...
With regard to melanoma: "Always use sunblock with an SPF rating higher than 30."
In fact, SPF 15 blocks 94% of UVB rays, 30 blocks 97%, and 45 blocks 98%. Far more important is how much you put on and how often you reapply. Also, and I'm not 100% sure about this, I don't think sunscreen protects you from melanoma.
"progeteria (a disease that causes rapid aging in children) [is] also associated with older fathers."
It's actually `progeria' and it doesn't cause aging, it causes some of the symptoms of aging. The older fathers thing is right.
"The highest rates of prostate cancer occur among African-American men, probably because of lack of screening and delayed treatment."
I threw that one in there because it's such a head-shaker. How would screening and treatment affect how many people get prostate cancer? Whether you survive it, yes. But whether you get it?
Now, I know some of this seems nitpicky, but how can I feel confident in the incredibly complex information found in this book if the simple stuff is wrong?
EVOLUTION
I believe the word appears once in the text and not at all in the index. The vast majority of discussion on the topic consists of a tepid commentary about the publication of Origin of Species. Probably less total ink than we got on steroids.
Worse, there seems to be a vaguely schizophrenic effort to obscure the subject. Consider the following from page 199:
"A gain of function mutation creates an entirely new trait or phenotype. Sometimes a new trait is harmless, like a new eye color. In other cases, the gain is decidedly harmful."
Notice anything missing? That's right, the new trait can also be beneficial. (As blue eyes probably were based on how quickly they seem to have proliferated. An example of sexual selection?) To be fair, there is a section in which the author says that all living things appear to be related, which is why I use the phrase "vaguely schizophrenic."
Then we have this gem toward the end of the book:
"Biological determinism assumes that genes are expressed in precise, repeatable ways--in other words, genetics is identity is genetics. However, this assumption isn't true. Gene expression is highly dependent on environment, among other things."
Great. Couldn't she have told me that genes don't matter before I slogged through her book on genetics? Long live Lamarck.
Look, I understand that Natural Selection offends liberal and conservative alike and it makes sense to tread lightly in many situations. But this is a book on the SCIENCE of GENETICS. Evolutionary theory is the foundation for the whole thing and is one of the areas most affected by advances. Can I get a shout-out to Chucky D?
So, I don't know. I guess I learned something. Some of it is probably right. But, overall, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable rolling any of it out at a cocktail party full of geneticists.
