Customer Reviews

To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This book is a disappointment, primarily because it is mistitled. It's not the serious and considered analysis and discussion of the biological plausibility and possibility of the alien flora and fauna of the Star Trek TV shows and movies that it should be. It even gets a lot of terrestrial biology wrong. For example: 1)In mentioning prion diseases like kuru and spongiform encephalopathy, for example, she says that, "many scientists are arguing that prions are accompanied by an associated virus." In fact, it has been known for some years that prions are normal brain proteins with abnormal shapes that can induce the same abnormal shape change in other molecules of their kind. It's an amazing blunder since Andreadis is an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School. 2)In discussing symbiosis, Andreadis calls lichens " a union of an alga and a moss. In fact, lichens are symbiotic unions of an alga and a fungus, while mosses are actually plants. She also refers to "angelfish" as being able to live in sea anemones, when it is *clownfish* that do this. 3)Andreadis makes numerous categorical statements that are open to question, to say the least. She asserts "unequivocally," for example, that "humans are sexually dimorphic." In biology, this applies to species like peacocks, in which the males have a very different plumage than the females, or certain spiders, in which the females can be many times larger than the males, or other species in which males and females are very different from one another. Human males and females, on the other hand, are very much alike in almost everything but their genital anatomy, and this is the rational basis for gender equity, of which Andreadis is an obvious supporter. The fact that we can - usually - distinguish men from women does not make our species sexually dimorphic. Even more disappointing and distracting than these errors, though, is the superficiality of most of this book and the many irrelevant digressions and remarks offered by Andreadis. These better reflect late 20th Century politically correct thinking in general and Andreadis' personal opinions and prejudices in particular than what 25th Century biology and medicine might be like. Andreadis, besides being careless, just doesn't seem to have put much thought into this work.

The book is mean spirited and wrong headed. There were some glaring errors in this book that could have been avoided if it was proofread by a trekker or two.For instance the author continually describes Betazoids as merely empathic and not telepathic, when everyone knows they are indeed telepathic. Deanna Troi is merely empathic because she is only half betazoid and is infact telepathic with other betazoids.Also she complains about how the holodoc should not be able to leave the sick bay but is seen all around the ship and on away missions. Does she even watch the show? They talk about the mobile emmitter all the time. I can't see whether it is a pheasable piece of tech or not--but don't just leave it out because it doesn't serve your complaining. It is filled with stuff like this.This book should probably offend people with autism, mental illness, developmental disabilites, anyone with spiritaul beliefs and homosexuals.The author is accused of being a feminist by other reviews (is this a bad thing?) but i would argue that she is nothing of the sort. She provides a very strong heterosexist view when she states that Trill symbiots could not possibly be attracted to humunoids because they can't reproduce with them. This is just ugly heterosexist propaganda.The beginning of this book is playful in its view of Star Trek science but it quickly degenerates into an attack.The author uses sloopy logic to try to prove that many Star Trek concepts are impossible. For instance her reasons for why most tech is imposible (transporters, dna scans) is that it would take too much time for it to work. This seems ridiculous, like someone from the 50's refuting the possibility of the internet based on the time it took their computers to compute. When computers get faster and faster every few months--how are we to know what will be possible a few hundred years from now.Another thing that is incredible annoying and fills up much of the book is that when Star Trek doesn't specificly explain a concept the author says "I can only conclude..." and then proceeds to use her assumption as the basis of her argument against it being possible. Far from being the only conclusion possible--she picks the one of many conclusions a person can make that is most handy in her argument that Star Trek science is wrong.I cannot refute the author's science as she is much more knowledgable in that area then I am. But much of this book is oppinion and not science at all. She ignors the premise of Star Trek, ignores that it is a work of science fiction and bases her arguments on what is true on Earth now. This makes the book very limiting. Instead of explaining scientific knowledge to try to imagine what maybe possible in the future, on planets different from ours, in other timelines, this book uses science and oppinion to weave an ugly web in which everything Star Trek is wrong.This is not for Trekkers who enjoy the show. For us I would reccomend the book LIFE SIGNS: THE BIOLOGY OF STAR TREK, which is not just a book that glorifies Star Trek. It is a thoughtful account on what is possible, and gently points out what is most likely not possible as far as we know. Buy this book if you are one of those people who like to watch Star Trek in order to make fun of it, but if you are a fan of the shows and movies (an books) do yourself a favor and skip this tedious book.Most disturbing to me is the author's lack of respect for anything spiritual, if anything has the hint of religion, any thing psychic or spiritual, anything that cannot be explained away by current scientific knowledge, it is ridiculed by the author, and completly dismissed.

This is a lively and opinionated entry in the "fill-in-the-blank of Star Trek" series and therefore one of the best, certainly up there with Physics and parsecs beyond Computers.

Andreadis brings a strong scientific and biological background as well as an encyclopedic knowledge of the franchise in all its manifestations to bear throughout. She celebrates the more reasonable ideas shown, like silicon-based life forms. But she also deconstructs the silly, unscientific ones and showing just why they're silly and unscientific. (This includes such franchise mainstays as the holodeck, the universal translator, shape-shifters, and interspecies fertility.)

Those wanting a more objective approach and annoyed by the occasional interjection of feminist and leftist commentary might find this book annoying. However, I enjoyed the fresh approach, the clever references, and the very individual and personal viewpoint. It's well worth reading both for Trekkies and for those wanting a different approach to biology.

This book is a disappointment, primarily because it is mistitled. It's not the serious and considered analysis and discussion of the biological plausibility and possibility of the alien flora and fauna of the Star Trek TV shows and movies that it should be. It even gets a lot of terrestrial biology wrong. For example: 1)In mentioning prion diseases like kuru and spongiform encephalopathy, for example, she says that, "many scientists are arguing that prions are accompanied by an associated virus." In fact, it has been known for some years that prions are normal brain proteins with abnormal shapes that can induce the same abnormal shape change in other molecules of their kind. This is an amazing blunder since Andreadis is an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School. 2)In discussing symbiosis, Andreadis calls lichens " a union of an alga and a moss. In fact, lichens are symbiotic unions of an alga and a fungus, while mosses are actually plants. She also refers to "angelfish" as being able to live in sea anemones, when it is clownfish that do this. 3)Andreadis makes numerous categorical statements that are open to question, to say the least. She asserts "unequivocally," for example, that "humans are sexually dimorphic." In biology, this applies to species like peacocks, in which the males have a very different plumage than the females, or certain spiders, in which the females can be many times larger than the males, or other species in which males and females are very different from one another. Human males and females, on the other hand, are very much alike in almost everything but their genital anatomy, and this is the rational basis for gender equity, of which Andreadis is an obvious supporter. The fact that we can - usually - distinguish men from women does not make our species sexually dimorphic. Even more disappointing and distracting than these errors, though, is the superficiality of most of this book and the many irrelevant digressions and remarks offered by Andreadis. These better reflect late 20th Century politically correct thinking in general and Andreadis' personal opinions and prejudices in particular than what 25th Century biology and medicine might be like. Andreadis, besides being careless, just doesn't seem to have put much thought into this work.

This book was entertaining and enjoyable when it remained focused on the title subject. A few of the topics felt incomplete or overly simplified. This book was ruined by the numerous deviations into social commentary and non-biological areas (especially the last several chapters). After reading the first few chapters, I found myself scanning the following chapters so that I could find and avoid the non-biology topics. The biology sections would rate 4 stars, but my overall enjoyment of this book was greatly diminished by the deviations and tangents. Not recommended except for those who like opinions and questionable social commentary mixed in with their science.

I found this book quite by accident at the library and being a Star Trek fan I though that it would answer a lot of questions. Instead all the auther did was go to great lengths to say how this was not possible or how that was not possible (imagine no Spock, no Deanna, etc.) Although she did say that Data was possible. She even went so far as to say that the transporter (a mainstay of Federation technology) wasn't possible. She does not take into account the strides that could occur between now and the 23rd and 24th centuries. I would not recomend this book for any serious Star Trek fan.

Buy this book and then buy it again and then again! Give it to every Trekker, Trekkie, or Star Trek fan you know. Give it to anyone who has ever enjoyed even one episode or one movie. Once you've exhausted this group, give the book to everyone who would like to be on the cutting edge of biology, who would like to know enough to discuss cloning, next generation computer controlled prosthetics, neurophysiology, or home-grown organs intelligently, but who probably had a lousy science teacher in high school and is too easily intimidated by scientific jargon. All these people will sing your praises forever.

Gene Roddenberry gave us the magic and the fascination that was Star Trek, and Athena Andreadis, Ph.D., answers all "zone" of the next dimension of imagination, and how much is prediction, a brief, tantalizing glimpse into what science of the future will accomplish? Can a Scotty of the future beam me up? Will a universal translator make immediate communication with any and all ET's possible? Is translation even going to be necessary once we get proficient at mind melds? Will passengers on Spaceship Earth be able to procreate with the alien visitors, enriching the universe with another Spock or Deanna Troi or B'Elanna Torres? What life forms are possible in our universe, the touchingly maternal silicon-based Horta, the chemically dependent Jem'Hadar, Odo's shapeshifters? How well will the holodeck in my house work? When can we staff our hospitals with holo-doctors?

Reading "To Seek Out New Life", you want to get out the videos and watch all the shows and movies again. This isn't necessary to check up on Dr. Andreadis; her attention to detail in the Star Trek universe is as meticulous as her attention to the details of science she discusses so brilliantly. Yet the book is about all aspects of life, not just biology. Dr. Andreadis analyzes different societies from Vulkan to Klingon; she inspects the challenges of universal translators and the linguistic improbabilities she sees with the portrayed Klingon language. She looks at the social implications of the Federation and the predicted development of planet Earth by the 24th century. Her analysis of the inconsistent implementation of the prime directive in the Star Trek cosmos is unsurpassed!

Dr. Andreadis takes the Star Trek universe seriously and treats it affectionately; her conclusions about what is science and what is fiction are kind; she bends over backwards to give every life form and every phenomenon a chance. As a scientist, she can explain what works in our universe; as a Star Trek fan her admiration and gratitude for the show permeate every sentence. This is one magnificent book! Star Trek gave us the idea of seeking out new life; Dr. Andreadis gives the opportunity to let our thoughts go where no one has been before, to explore all the possibilities of life in the universe. Where we would be lost in big bang of information exploding around us, she organizes, summarizes, and explains. Miraculously, it then all makes sense. More importantly perhaps, this an extraordinarily funny book. There is at least one soft chuckle or genuine laugh on every page. Dr. Andreadis is one of those rare authors who can explain complicated material while making it very entertaining. Without realizing how difficult it is, the reader suddenly understands truly difficult concepts of the natural sciences, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, chemistry, and other fields. Not since Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan has a scientist been able to "translate" cutting-edge science so skillfully into accessible and humorous writing. Having grown up in Greece, Dr. Andreadis has a unique perspective on the unintentional portrayal of American society to be found in Gene Roddenberry's universe. She can step back and describe the forest while everyone else is running into trees.

Again, buy this book and share the pleasure Dr. Andreadis has added to Star Trek!

I enjoyed reading many sections of To Seek Out New Life. Here was combined two areas that I have great interest in. Dr. Andreadis has a thorough knowledge of biology and Star Trek both. She demonstrates a true enjoyment of the medium. Andreadis artfully discusses many biological lines of thought in the Star Trek universe, and teaches basic biology in the process. She brings up a lot of interesting trails in how biology might be applied to a science fiction world. The non-biologically-trained need not fear- this will not be over their heads.

Rather, it's those not well-versed in the Trek universe that will have difficulty. I've seen every episode of Trek, and I often couldn't figure out what Andreadis was referring to when she mentions only the title of an episode and expects us to understand the point she is making.

The book is flawed on the biological side as well. It degenerates to Andreadis' personal takes on life and Star Trek. She goes far beyond biology to discuss philosophy, sociology (which she states she detests), and religion (which she doesn't overtly support). One is confused on why we are reading this- she is admittedly an expert in biology, but hardly in all these other myriad fields. In all this it seems that she is trying to find things wrong in the Star Trek universe- how it doesn't measure up. She makes little allowance for financial considerations (such as the real reason why all the aliens look like humans) or for an evolving culture that produces the TV shows(why TOS treats women as more inferior than TNG or STV). Repeatedly she discovers that Star Trek can't occur biologically. A true devotee of the genre would find ways to make the biology work- at least some of the time. On the plus side she does a good job of showing how the series excels at not meeting possible reality.

I read this expecting an analysis of Trek from a biological perspective. And that means from the heart of biology, evolution. Sadly, there was precious little evolution in this book. Oh, it is present, in some sections on viruses- but not near the extent it should be if one is to consider modern theories of biology. How exactly *did* Klingons or Vulcans evolve? Andreadis throws out a couple lines on the ideas, or on co-evolution of Trills and why it couldn't occur- but the space devoted to this pales in comparison to philosophical musings on the development of cultures or the morality of cloning. As such, while I enjoyed some pericope, I found myself having to skim through long sections to finish this book and get on to something more interesting.

Life Signs: The Biology of Star Trek

I read this because of a biology project I was doing for school--a fun project. My professor recommended this book, and I think he's the best because this book really dealt with all that I was looking for.

Now, don't get scared by the title--you really don't need to have watched every Star Trek episode and series spin-off in order to have an understanding of what the author is talking about. However, being an avid trekker myself, I enjoyed her side-comments and Trek references immensely, because it just showed all the much more how much she enjoyed the subject amtter herself.

This book investigates the Star Trek universe. I've heard that THE PHYSICS OF STAR TREK started this "debunk the Trek" era, but I haven't yet read it, so I couldn't say. Anyway, Dr. Andreadis does a nice job of explaining the Trek reality, then explaining our scientific reality. She uses small words, and explains the big ones. Learn about interspecies reproduction, evolution--you name it, she's covered it.

This book was done not long ago, so it covers the happenings up until Voyager and Star Trek: First Contact. Not too bad, considering Enterprise should be covering all "old" organisms, anyway.

This was really a nice read, and I would have picked it up even had I not had to do a seminar on the biological aspects of Star Trek.

AFTER READING THE EXCELLENT BOOK "THE PHYSICS OF STAR TREK" I THOUGHT THIS BOOK WOULD BE WORTH WHILE. HOW COULD I BE SO WRONG? Dr. ANDREADIS MUST HAVE GONE THROUGH SOME FORM OF CHILDHOOD TRAUMA THAT WAS CONNECTED TO STAR TREK. SHE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION. SHE WOULD HAVE THE STORIES AS BORING AS MOST PEOPLES HUM-DRUM LIVES. SHE DWELLS ON HER OWN OPINIONS REGARDING RELIGION, THE SEXES, SOCIETY ETC... GRANTED THESE THEMES COULD BE EXPLORED IN CONJUNCTION TO "ALIEN BEINGS", BUT NOT WHEN ONE IS AGAINST ALL THESE THINGS. SHE MAY KNOW BIOLOGY, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE HER KNOWLEDGE ENDS, AND HER OPINIONS BEGIN. SHE ALSO SEEMS TO BE OBSESSED WITH USING LANGUAGE THAT THE LAYMAN WOULD NEVER UNDERSTAND. ONE WOULD THINK SHE WAS GOD, BUT ACCORDING TO HER, BELIEF IN GOD MAKES ONE CERTIFIABLE. SAVE YOUR MONEY THIS TIME.