| Title | : | The Best American Science Writing 2002 |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0060936509 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780060936501 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 352 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 2002 |
The Best American Science Writing 2002 gathers top writers and scientists covering the latest developments in the fastest-changing, farthest-reaching scientific fields, such as medicine, genetics, computer technology, evolutionary psychology, cutting-edge physics, and the environment. Among this year's selections: In "The Made-to-Order Savior," Lisa Belkin spotlights two desperate families seeking an unprecedented cure by a medically and ethically unprecedented means -- creating a genetically matched child. Margaret Talbot's "A Desire to Duplicate" reveals that the first human clone may very likely come from an entirely unexpected source, and sooner than we think. Michael Specter reports on the shock waves rippling through the field of neuroscience following the revolutionary discovery that adult brain cells might in fact regenerate ("Rethinking the Brain"). Christopher Dickey's "I Love My Glow Bunny" recounts with sly humor a peculiar episode in which genetic engineering and artistic culture collide. Natalie Angier draws an insightful contrast between suicide terrorists and rescue workers who risk their lives, and finds that sympathy and altruism have a definite place in the evolution of human nature, David Berlinski's "What Brings a World into Being?" ponders the idea of biology and physics as essentially digital technologies, exploring the mysteries encoded in the universe's smallest units, be they cells or quanta. Nicholas Wade shows how one of the most controversial books of the year, The Skeptical Environmentalist, by former Greenpeace member and self-described leftist Bjorn Lomborg, debunks some of the most cherished tenets of the environmental movement, suggesting that things are perhaps not as bad as we've been led to believe. And as a counterpoint, Darcy Frey's profile of George Divoky reveals a dedicated researcher whose love of birds and mystery leads to some sobering discoveries about global warming and forcefully reminds us of the unsung heroes of science: those who put in long hours, fill in small details, and take great trouble.
In the end, the unanswered questions are what sustain scientific inquiry, open new frontiers of knowledge, and lead to new technologies and medical treatments. The Best American Science Writing 2002 is a series of exciting reports from science's front lines, where what we don't know is every bit as important as what we know.
The Best American Science Writing 2002 Reviews
-
This book delivered fairly on well on it's title, giving me a nice selection of good science essays around a healthy variety of topics. "Crimson Tide" by Atul Gawande was a fascinating look into something I had never heard of, i.e. an uncontrollable blush response, in this case centered around the story of a woman who wanted to be a newscaster, but was hampered by this unusual physical ailment. "Medicine's Race Problem" by Sally Satel deftly handled the nuance around considerations of race and ethnicity in medicine, where it can matter significantly. "The Thirty Years War" by Jerome Groopman outlines problems with directed research and how it actually hinders progress when done in favor over basic, undirected research. Unfortunately, this is a very difficult message to get across to the general public, particular with respect to high-profile disease like cancer and some auto-immune diseases. Steven Weinberg's piece on the difference between explanation and description, and how the later term is used to deride science was particularly insightful.
There were plenty of other outstanding articles, so I won't go over all of them. The one really bad piece was "Penninger" by Mary Rogan, the started off with the annoying sentence "The greatest scientist of our time worries about you every day." and only gets worse from there. I hate this kind of overblown exaggeration in the context of writing about science. It doesn't serve the communication well, and presents an unrealistic picture, besides the fact of being wrong on multiple levels. The very idea of stating that there is a single greatest scientist of our time is absurd (in what field, by what measure?) and the last part of the sentence is patently false. However one awful essay out of 21 is not a bad ratio.
This book was well worth my time, even over a decade after its publication. -
The best thing about “best” anthologies is that you usually get nothing but great writing. This anthology is no exception. Of note in this collection is Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s piece on new research about cooperative mothering. Julian Dibbell’s essay, “Pirate Utopia,” looked at interesting ways to hide information on the Internet and managed to talk about Hakim Bey’s ideas. Also worth mentioning are essays on the failed war on cancer, a profile on a plastic surgeon, and a look at a guy who has spent the last 25 summers on a frozen island off Alaska, just to study a small group of birds.
-
Definitely interesting to read.. but I had quite a few discrepancies with a lot of the conclusions in this book.
-
I've read the whole series - this one has some truly amazing essays in it.
