Most Helpful Customer Reviews
33 of 42 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointing., April 14, 2008
This review is from: When Science Goes Wrong (Mass Market Paperback)
This book was a major disappointment. I'd seen an interview with the author on "The Daily Show" and wasn't that impressed, but bought the book anyway because of the promise inherent in its subject matter. Sadly, that promise remains largely unfulfilled in this pedestrian, and often irritating, effort by LeVay. The book is arranged in twelve chapters, each considering a specific instance of what LeVay deems to be 'scientific failure'. These specific aspects of the book bothered me:
1. Several vignettes (e.g. the 1928 St Francis dam break, a 1961 nuclear reactor explosion at the Idaho National Laboratory) clearly deal with *engineering*, rather than scientific, failures. But throughout the book, LeVay makes little distinction among science, engineering, and technology, which makes the title misleading.
2. "I had hoped to find out more about this from Tudor herself but ... she had died a few weeks earlier"
"Dyer ... seems to have disappeared from public view"
"Williams ... didn't respond to my requests for an interview"
The book is studded with this kind of admission. Failure to represent all points of view adequately may be inevitable in an exercise like this, and LeVay does acknowledge this difficulty. Nonetheless, the reader is left with some niggling doubts about his credibility. In a story about an experiment conducted almost 70 years ago, to miss obtaining testimony of the main protagonist by three weeks seems unfortunate, to say the least. And in almost every chapter, it seems, LeVay is forced to admit that testimony of at least one key person was unavailable.
3. One chapter, about the 'failure' of the BBC Met Office to predict a severe storm in 1988 has no discernibly useful comment to make about science, except maybe that computer weather prediction models are often inadequate. But it does give the unsettling impression that LeVay constructed a 'story' where none existed, then collected a bunch of selective quotes to buttress his preformed prejudices. Several times I found myself wondering about LeVay's status as a neutral observer, not the feeling one wants to come away with after reading a book like this. Similarly, the reason for including a vignette about a patient with late-stage Parkinson's disease, who flies to China for fetal-implant surgery forbidden in the U.S., with predictably disastrous consequences, is murky. What point is LeVay trying to make - that submitting to experimental surgery under poor supervision in an inadequately equipped facility is a bad idea? Well, duh! This type of pandering to lurid curiosity seemed better suited to World Weekly News than to a serious book.
4. Maddeningly, in several vignettes, one feels that an opportunity was missed to write a far more interesting story. A story about confusion of units leading to the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter and its aftermath suggests at least two more interesting possibilities: an analysis of the culture at NASA which made such errors possible, even likely, or a discussion of the high prevalence (with often deadly consequences) of serious dosing errors in U.S. hospitals. Similarly, LeVay's account of the death of Jesse Gelsinger in the now-infamous gene therapy trial at U. Penn was an even-handed presentation of the facts of the case, but left me wishing for a more illuminating discussion of its implications. The reader is left with the impression that the case dealt a death blow to the future of gene therapy (which seems unlikely). Several interesting questions raised by the case are left largely unexamined, e.g.:
* how scientific ambition can corrupt the scientific process
* the potentially destructive hegemony of the status quo in the biomedical and scientific establishment
* direct funding of clinical research by pharmaceutical companies and associated issues
* the appropriate balance of risk and caution in the regulation of biomedical research
Pointing out cases where things have gone wrong is necessary and useful. But ultimately, unless it fuels a discussion of how things can be improved in the future, it starts to feel like a slightly smug exercise in playing Gotcha! LeVay's idiosyncratic selection of case studies, his conflation of science, technology, and engineering, as well as a repeated failure to explore the more interesting questions raised by his examples combine to make this book a real disappointment.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Outstanding read, April 15, 2008
This review is from: When Science Goes Wrong (Mass Market Paperback)
A most enjoyable book. I read other books of this author and have always been
fascinated by his literary style, but in this book the author outdid
himself. Because the stories told in this book lend themselves to mix personal
and scientific aspects, they read like a thriller, but a highly informative
one. The chapters span a wide range of topics relating to science, engineering
and technology, so that there is something for everybody. However, despite the
variety of subjects covered, there is a clear unifying theme: scientists, and
people with highly technical occupations, are as human as everybody else. They
make mistakes, are moved by noble and less noble motives, and have careers to
worry about. In each chapter the author effortlessy switches between the
description of technical issues and the emotions and conflicts of the people
around that issue. It is this mixture that makes the book so enjoyable and
accessible to everyone. Technical details are never presented as dry facts, but
always firmly attached to some key event in the story, and personal details are
always offered to provide a natural context for the more technical aspects. One
aspect of this book which I really appreciated is that it got me interested in
things which, at first look, seemed not terribly exciting, like Mary Tudor's
study of stuttering in orphans, which took place in pre World War 2 Iowa. As the
story in question and the characters became more developed I could see the
orphanage and Mary Tudor in my mind, and started asking myself questions on
ethics and motives which trascended the specific topic. I highly recommend this
book to anyone with an inquisitive mind. The author has an impeccable reputation
for his thourough research, and he clearly conducted an impressive series of
interviews in developing the material for this book. Combined with his mastery
of the English language this led to an excellent product, which makes for a very
satisfying read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3.0 out of 5 stars
Don't judge a book by its first chapter (or two), November 20, 2010
This review is from: When Science Goes Wrong (Mass Market Paperback)
Most books start off with a strong first chapter, not this book. The second and third chapters are also weak.
The first chapter of When Science Goes Wrong concerns a patient with an advanced state of Parkinson's who tries a promising, but untested procedure. The patient died, but likely not, from the untested procedure. Given the patient's debilitated state, undergoing the untesetd procedure was a reasonable decision for patient and his family to make. The untested procedure produced an interesting side effect, but other than this side effect, there wasn't much to the story.
The next chapter concerns a British wheatherman's poor choice of words in his forecast. His forecast was not substantially different than other forecasters which appeared later in the day, but who also got the forecast terribly wrong. The story told is more about the forecaster becoming infamous for his poor choice of words, than it is about "science gone wrong."
Similarliy, the third chapter concers a volcanic eruption in South American. But the storytelling is mostly about this certain city in Columbia, its nearby volcano, and a group of scientists who came to conduct research.
Fortunately, most of the other chapters are much more interesting. There is very intereting story about a dam built by William Mullholland (of Mullholand Drive fame). There is another interesting chapter about a nuclear accident in 1961. Another chapter is about an anthrax accident in the Soviet Union. Another chapter concerns a Mars lander. These chapters are truly stories about "Sciece Gone Wrong." Had there been more stories like these, Science Gone Wrong would easily rate five stars. I gave it just three.
Still, the not-so-interesting chapters are well-written, even if they don't properly reflect the title of the book. Also, as each chapter in an individual essay, it is book that can be read at lesiure. You don't have to remember the first chapter to enjoy the sixth.
Lastly, as there is nothing objectionable in text and the science is written in everyday language, Science Gone Wrong would make a suitable gift for a high school student interested in any branch of science.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
