I have very mixed feelings about "Next" and I will try to describe them accurately here, although there are hundreds of reviews already and mine will not add much to the discussion probably - but maybe some points will be reinforced by my adding to the subject.
The novel's central theme is genetic manipulations and the ethical issues surrounding them. There are many subplots, all revolving around the famous philanthropist, Jack Watson (is the name a pure coincidence?), who advocates scientific progress and donates money to biotech companies. The plethora of characters includes bounty hunters, lawyers, drug addicts, physicians, teachers, secretaries, security guards, and, of course, scientists of all levels, both from academia and biotech (the difference between the two becoming less and less clear). The animal-human hybrids are made in secret; the genes are patented, the genetic screens are used to the advantage of insurance companies and in numerous trials as a tool to extort money; the scientists are depicted as vicious breed. The only two families who seem honest and, of course, like in a good thriller, win at the end, are the Burnets, who because of Frank Burnet's precious cancer cell line become involved in a massive scheme, and the Kendalls, who decide to adopt Henry Kendalls genetic son Dave, a hybrid between human and chimpanzee.
The novel is fast-paced and the characters flick like in a caleidoscope, some being introduced only for the sake of presenting another problem connected with biotechnology (for example, the whole story of the MD who donated sperm as a resident is very loosely connected to the main plot, only by the implied involvement of Watson).
Initially, I could not stand this book, but after about 200 pages I reflected and realized several things:
1. I am not in the target group, being a scientist in an academic institution and working on cancer. My point of view is not that of a model reader of "Next".
2. The presented issues are important and it probably does not matter so much how they are presented as long as they make an impact on a larger audience.
3. Crichton's technique as a writer is remarkable - although irritated, I kept reading and felt for some characters (mostly for the humanized animals, Dave and Gerard, as, no doubt, was the author's intention). No wonder why he is the best-selling novelist: he is not afraid of weighty issues and he is very good at his craft.
4. At the end, I saw the references and the authors' note and this was very important for me - I could verify some of the facts I did not know (in particular, the art using biotechnology or its remnants) and I realized I agree with the main points Crichton had tried to make (politics and science... Very difficult subject)
Having said all that, I will also say, that the points from the author's note are hardly visible during the course of the novel. The examples are vivid, but the novel reads like a manifesto against science, and will be perceived as such by many readers (and many people do not read the author's note at the end). Also, this is a work of fiction, and, however scientific, this is fiction and should be read as fiction (repetitive, I know, but I want to make my point). Additionally, I appreciate Crichton's knowledge, but there are errors, some because the book is already outdated (there are about 20,500 genes in the human genome, not 32,000) and some perhaps editorial (repeated use of the acronym GPF for green fluorescent protein instead of GFP, which is correct), not counting the ones already pointed out and explained in other review ("gene" instead of "allele" etc.). This should not happen, because it is misleading. Last but not least, an annoying non-scientific mistake is the argument of Bellarmino with his postdoc, when the director forces the poor guy to surrender the first author position in a breakthrough article and put his own first. No group leader would do that, because for professor and team leaders the last author position is far more important than the first author, and anyone who is doing research and publishing it would know that. The last author is always the one who is referred to in the articles about the work ("the study from XYs laboratory...") and this is the position Bellarmino would fight for, if there are several groups or collaborations involved. The first author position would be meaningless for him at his level. I know that it was probably to stress Bellarmino's malice, but it was excessive and erroneous.
Because "Next" evoked all these reflections, I will award it three stars - it is an average between my own contradicting opinions. To be accurate, I should probably write two reviews, one one-star, the other five-star, but sadly, Amazon does not allow this option.
