Amazon.com

Scientists love to speculate about the direction research and technology will take us, and editor John Brockman has given a stellar panel free rein to imagine the future in The Next Fifty Years. From brain-swapping and the hunt for extraterrestrials to the genetic elimination of unhappiness and a new scientific morality, the ideas in this book are wild and thought-provoking. The list of scientists and thinkers who participate is impressive: Lee Smolin and Martin Rees on cosmology; Ian Stewart on mathematics; and Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies on the life sciences, just to name a few. Many of the authors remind readers that science has changed a lot since the blind optimism of the early 20th century, and they are unanimously aware of the potential consequences of the developments they describe. Fifty years is a long time in the information age, and these essays do a credible and entertaining job of guessing where we're going. --Therese Littleton ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Quite an eclectic mix but came good in the end
When I started this book, my first reaction was - who are all these authors? I only recognised 20% of the names. Hardly had I thought this then the Introduction told me exactly who they were - very timely.

However, as I progressed through the book, there was quite a variance in the quality of the writing. Some authors, such as those on Cosmology, communicated well, but then others were far too high-level for a general audience. It was the latter chapters that brought me considerable delight & education when discussing the Mind, Psychology etc (not my favourite subjects I may add).

If all the contributors had tuned their work to the same general audience, then this would have deserved 5 stars; if it wasn't for the redeeming work by the psychologists & neuroscientists I'd have probably rated the book as 3 stars.

Thinking about the next fifty years
John Brockman has brought together a group of thinkers to create an online think tank called the EDGE. In an attempt to overcome the great divide between literary intellectuals and scientists that C.P. Snow defined as the "Two Cultures", Brockman created the EDGE to be "The Third Culture".

The Next Fifty Years, is a collection of essays from some of the thinkers from the EDGE. They explore the next fifty years on different topics ranging from Csikszentmihalyi's engineered IQ and Dawkin's thoughts on the genome to colonization on Mars and the importance of Mathematics in the year 2050.

The essays were stimulating and I found this book to be well worth the effort to read. Any book that triggers new thoughts and ideas is one that I will treasure. As many of the scientists point out, trying to predict the future is a futile endeavor, but for me it gives a great insight into the present to see what these minds are pondering today. The ideas that might shape the next fifty years, might not turn out to be accurate, but the ideas and research that are happening today will effect us one way or another in the next 10 years. As humans we over estimate what can be achieved in year, but under estimate what can be achieved in a decade, and in general completely miss the mark when trying to estimate anything that exceeds those time lines. But I think Brockman chose fifty years, to give the thinkers some creative freedom.

If you are interested in science, and you are interested in what some of our best brains are mulling over at present, then you will enjoy this diverse collection of essays on the future.

A fairly good overview
The making of predictions is necessary and important, for it can instill both optimism and caution. There is only a modest collection of predictions in this book, but they do give a fairly good representation of the different scientific fields and what to expect in these fields by the end of the fifth decade of the 21st century. Here is a brief summary and commentary of a few of them:

- "The Future of the Nature of the Universe" (Lee Smolin). The author predicts that quantum computing will become a reality in 50 years, as long as quantum mechanics remains true when extrapolated to macroscopic systems. COMMENT: Due to studies in decoherence and more honest interpretations of experiments testing the phenomenon of entanglement, quantum theory will instead be viewed in more "classical" terms in its formalism and foundations. Research into quantum computation, as understood presently, will fade from the scene.

- "Cosmological Challenges: Are We Alone, and Where?" (Martin Rees). The author is optimisitic about the SETI project and other attempts to detect the presence of life external to the Earth. COMMENT: Due to advances in solid state device physics, life on other planets will be detected via the by-products they put into their atmospheres. The information theory behind the SETI searches will become more refined also, increasing the probability of understanding a real message from another civilization.

- "Son of Moore's Law" (Richard Dawkins). The author predicts an exponential increase in DNA sequencing power, which he labels as the "Son of Moore's Law." The author also expresses a fear that there will still be theologians in 2050, this being done in the context of ethical debates on the genetic sequencing of "Lucy" and the possibility of the reintroduction of dinosaurs. COMMENT: The sequencing projects and the number of sequenced organisms will increase hyperexponentially. In addition, tens of thousands of new "transgenic" organisms will appear, all of them optimized to carry out certain biological functions. The field of horticulture will explode, with thousands of new species of ornamental plants appearing before 2050. The university will meet its demise by 2050, but theologians will not disappear. On the contrary, and perhaps unfortunately, the major religions will be with us for many centuries to come, and they will accompany humankind on their voyages to other worlds, for better or worse.

-"The Mathematics of 2050" (Ian Stewart). The author predicts major revolutions in mathematics, due partially to the increasing influence of the computer, bioinformatics, and financial engineering. He also predicts that the current split between "pure" and "applied" mathematics will end, with the result being just "mathematics". He mentions also the "Milennium Problems", one being the Riemann hypothesis, which he predicts will be solved by 2050, its solution being hinted at by considerations in physics. The P/NP problem will be proved undecidable, the Hodge conjecture will be disproved, the Birch/Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture will be proved, the Navier-Stokes equations will turn out not to have solutions in certain circumstances, the Yang-Mills mass gap problem will be settled but will be deemed irrelevant by physicists, and the Poincare conjecture will be "wide-open". Interestingly, the author is one of the few who have mentioned the role of "quantization of mathematics" via quantum algebra, quantum topology, and quantum number theory. COMMENT: The Poincare conjecture will be resolved by 2010 with its resolution being in the context of the "quantization of mathematics" mentioned by the author. In fact, the quantization of mathematics will be the driving force behind whole new areas of mathematics. Pure mathematics will continue to be viewed as disjoint from applied mathematics. In fact, there will be an intense effort, as evident from the last two meetings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, to keep pure and applied mathematics as separate disciplines. Mathematical finance will continue to explode and there will be intense competition between financial firms to develop highly sophisticated algorithms for financial prediction and portfolio manangement. Financial mathematics will also have more overlap with physics and meteorology, as energy and weather derivatives take on even more importance. The next fifty years will see the rise of financial firms, and others, managed, staffed, and run completely by intelligent machines. In addition, due to hardware advances and the development of highly sophisticated algorithms in mathematical biology and bioinformatics, the entire biosphere will be sequenced by 2050. Complete mathematical models of the entire human body will be developed by mathematicians working in the biotechnology industry, and drug discovery will be viewed as essentially mathematical, with the actual physical chemistry and manufacture being essentially automatic. In this same light, combinatorial chemistry will become a branch of mathematics in its own right, attracting the attention of hundreds of mathematicians. Advances in artificial intelligence will bring about, with indications by the year 2040, of intelligent machines able to construct original concepts and theories in pure mathematics. Skepticism as to the possibility of thinking machines will be alleviated because of these developments. "Artificial" mathematicians will begin to become competitive with "natural" ones by the year 2050. Further, cryptography will continue to explode as a field of mathematics, due to the increasing need for online security and individual privacy. Increased computer power will fuel this need, and the competition between encryption and de-encryption algorithms will become very intense. lastly, by 2050 it will be accurate to say that mathematics will enter into every phase of human and machine activity. There will be no process, no business transaction, no entertainment function, no leisurely activity, that will not depend predominantly on mathematical structures or algorithms.

An exciting glimpse into the future
As Yogi Berra said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." However, if anyone can make meaningful predictions, it's the twenty-five leading scientists and authors whose essays grace The Next Fifty Years.

It's an exciting book. Almost every piece is enlightening, stimulating, and remarkably well written. I read a lot of books and articles about science, but still came across dozens of new ideas, convincing arguments and sparkling insights. Here are a few items that got me thinking:

Physicist Lee Smolin points out that subtle changes in light waves as they cross space may provide the first test of quantum theories of gravity--we won't need to build accelerators the size of the solar system to gain this information.

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller speculates that gene activation chips will soon allow researchers to map the changes in our brains caused by "every state of mind lasting more than a few hours." The result will be a far richer understanding of human consciousness.

Mathematician Steven Strogatz expects that new methods for creating complex, evolving systems on computers will mean that we humans will "end up as bystanders, unable to follow along with the machines we've built, flabbergasted by their startling conclusions."

Richard Dawkins predicts that by 2050 it will cost just a few hundred dollars to sequence one's own personal genome, computers will be able to simulate an organism's entire development from its genetic code, and scientists may even be able to reconstruct extinct animals a la Jurassic Park.

Computer scientist Rodney Brooks thinks wars may be fought over genetic engineering and artificial enhancements that have the potential to turn humans into "manipulable artifacts."

AI researcher Roger Schank foresees the end of schools, classrooms and teachers, to be replaced by an endless supply of virtual experiences and interactions.

In many cases, the bold ideas of one writer are challenged or balanced by another, making the book a kind of high-level dialogue. Cosmologist Martin Rees, for example, takes on Smolin's idea of evolving universes, and neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky is much less optimistic about our ability to conquer depression than is psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

It's not all perfection, however. A few of the essays seemed relatively uninspired. These included psychologist Paul Bloom's pessimistic view of our ability ever to understand consciousness or the nature of thought--"We might be like dogs trying to understand calculus." And I found computer scientist David Gelernter's essay on the grand "information beam" that will transform everyone's lives an unconvincing one-note techno-fix. Also the book really needs an index--that simple addition would have made it much more useful.

However, it's a book that tackles big questions about our future in as thoughtful, insightful and well informed a manner as I've ever encountered. It's worth reading and re-reading.

Robert Adler, author of Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science of Creation (Wiley, 2002).

Why good scientists rarely make good futurists
A wonderful example across the sciences as to why people working in a field have excellent visibility over the next 5 years, and very poor visibility (or at least very unoriginal) when asked to speculate over longer time periods. For those of you familiar with the research of these people, their vision of the future looks extraordinary like the work they do, only extrapolated in ways that are obvious to those in the field. What I expected was the "creative destruction" by people of their own agendas. All the computer scientists (Brooks, Holland, Gelernter and Schank) disappointed in this regard. Richard Dawkins was the only intriguing one.

Just to calibrate the thought again. If you want to learn the views of some pretty good scientists on the larger backdrop of their research, this is a good book to read. However, other than the fact that they are working on what they are working on, there is no convincing argument as to why the world will turn out the way they envision. Not to mention, good scientists tend to be spectacularly wrong on long term visions (remember Lord Kelvin's claim about the end of chemistry a century ago).

I still look forward enthusiastically to a book with this same title, but a different cast of contributors. ... Read more

Book Description

This entertaining examination of everyday science from the fanciful to the factual covers topics ranging from pesticides and environmental estrogens to lipsticks and garlic. Readers are alerted to the shenanigans of quacks and are offered glimpses into the fascinating history of science. The science of aphrodisiacs, DDT, bottled waters, vitamins, barbiturates, plastic wraps, and smoked meat is investigated. Worries about acrylamide, preservatives, and waxed fruits are put into perspective, and the mysteries of bulletproof vests, weight loss diets, green-haired Swedes, laughing gas, and "mad honey" are unraveled. Even those with very little knowledge of science will come away informed and delighted at those humorous and accessible explanations. ... Read more

Book Description

Book Description

Jennifer Kahn's "Stripped for Parts" was selected as the lead story of this year's Best American Science Writing because, as Dava Sobel, best-selling author of Longitude and Galileo's Daughter, reveals, "it begins with one of the most arresting openings I have ever read." In "Columbia's Last Flight," William Langewiesche recounts the February 1, 2003, space shuttle tragedy, along with the investigation into the nationwide complacency that brought the ship down. K. C. Cole's "Fun with Physics" is a profile of astrophysicist Janet Conrad that blends her personal life with professional activity. In "Desperate Measures," the doctor and writer Atul Gawande profiles the surgeon Francis Daniels Moore, whose experiments in the 1940s and '50s pushed medicine harder and farther than almost anyone had contemplated. Also included is a poem by the legendary John Updike, "Mars as Bright as Venus." The collection ends with Diane Ackerman's "ebullient" essay "We Are All a Part of Nature."

Together these twenty-three articles on a wide range of today's most current topics in science -- from biology, physics, biotechnology, and astronomy, to anthropology, genetics, evolutionary theory, and cognition‚ represent the full spectrum of scientific writing from America's most prominent science authors, proving once again that "good science writing is evidently plentiful" (Scientific American).

Book Description

The first collection of essays from renowned scientist and best-selling author Richard Dawkins is an enthusiastic declaration, a testament to the power of rigorous scientific examination to reveal the wonders of the world. In these essays Dawkins revisits the meme, the unit of cultural information that he named and wrote about in his groundbreaking work The Selfish Gene. Here also are moving tributes to friends and colleagues, including a eulogy for novelist Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; correspondence with the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; and visits with the famed paleoanthropologists Richard and Maeve Leakey at their African wildlife preserve. The collection ends with a vivid note to Dawkins's ten-year-old daughter, reminding her to remain curious, to ask questions, and to live the examined life. ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Darwin's Dangerous Disciple strikes again!
To some, Richard Dawkins is threatening. His phrases pry open shut minds. His words bend and flex rigid thinking. His ideas trash dearly held dogmas. And, of course, he idolizes The Devil's Chaplain - Charles Darwin [the title is from a letter of Darwin's]. He performs all these feats with a graceful style - one which anyone writing science should study. This collection is comprised of letters, book reviews and even eulogies - an unusual vehicle for espousing the cause of rational thinking. If much of his writing seems intense, it's because he recognizes his role in waging an uphill battle against "established truths", no matter how false they prove. To show the validity of truth over myth requires a direct approach.

Dawkins recognizes that people abhor being called animals. The continuity of life, one of the major themes in this collection, remains an indisputable fact, he stresses. This series reinforces Dawkins' attempts to make us aware that we are part of Nature. He is always witty, using his sound scientific basis and rationale to keep us informed. Science, in his view, must not be eroded by baseless tradition nor false dogmas. The goal of living, he argues, is the understanding of life itself. Religion and philosophy have failed abysmally, the realm of science should be given its opportunity. It's a broad view, sustained by an ability to grasp it firmly. Better yet, for us, it's presented here with verve and dedication.

Segregated into [lucky!] seven sections, each addressing a general theme. He covers many topics in this anthology - evolution, of course, but medicine, genetically modified foods [many foods are hybrids resulting from genetic manipulation], jury trials, intellectual heresies, and even government policies are included. The arrangement presents no difficulty - in fact, each offering might be chosen at random without losing any impact. Selecting a favourite is an arduous task [although it promotes re-reading] but the review of Sokal and Bricmont's "Fashionable Nonsense" ranks very high. The review demonstrates Dawkins' many talents, from insight to incisiveness. Few essayists provide the imagery he can attain to explain an idea.

There are those, particularly adherents of the idea that science lacks morality, who see scientists as cold and distant. Dawkins shows how false this idea is with his laudatory comments on John Diamond, Douglas Adams and William Hamilton. He even extends an olive branch to his academic opponent, the late Stephen J. Gould. As fellow evolutionists, Dawkins and Gould forged a rapport against the rants and duplicities of the Christian creationists. It requires a broad mind to take such steps, and narrowness isn't among Dawkins' blemishes. He's a feeling human being and a tireless campaigner. We would all do well to heed and emulate him. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

A response to middle America
I'd just like to briefly respond to the "reader from middle America" who I feel is over-reacting a little to Dawkins' book.

Dawkins' main target is not what I'd call 'traditional theists', but that group of what's usually labelled "fundamentalists" who are trying to suppress science teaching and replace it with their bogus "creation science".

I know plenty of intelligent people who believe in a God. I don't know any that believe in the literal "created in six days" word of the bible or who think a belief in evolution is absolutely antithetical to religious belief.

The majority of denominations - and thus Christians - don't subscribe to the fundamentalist view (don't take my word for it, do a quick search). In fact most explicitly disavow a literal reading of Genesis. So it's entirely wrong for "middle America" to speak of creationism as a "majority" belief.

Dawkins does take a fairly militant stance. Although I share his views, I initially felt he was being a bit hard on those he disagrees with. However when I read of people seeking to have creationism ranked as "science" in schools at the exclusion of real science I think he's right to get stuck into them.

Dawkin's target isn't "middle America" or the majority of believers for whom belief in God and science can coexist. His target is what we call in Australia "the loudmouth ratbag fringe" who want to foist their view on others. And he's got me on side.

Incidentally, his broadside at postmodernism is just as much fun to read as his views on 'creation science'.

Evolution is the art of the developable
This selection of Richard Dawkins' essays is an absolute delight and a clear-cut illustration of the author's strong anti-tradition, anti-authority and anti-revelation opinions.
It deals with very important problems like the real nature of natural selection, its cruelty and blindness to suffering.
The author's life goal is nothing less than a combat with the cosmic progress and its clumsy, blundering waste, and that with one of the products of evolution itself: our brain.
Crucial is his war of words with the late S.J. Gould about the question if evolution is progressive. No, for Gould. Yes, for Dawkins. For the latter, progress cannot be defined in terms of complexity (Gould), but rather by the accumulation of features contributing to adaptation. I believe now that Dawkins is right.
Other very important issues are his battle with the creationists, his lucid pro-opinion on genetically modified food, his brilliant refutation of genetic determinism via the blueprint/recipe distinction or his necessary virulent anti-religious viewpoint (religion is a virus of the mind and the most inflammatory enemy-libelled device in history).
I have only a few remarks.
Richard Dawkins writes that 'Every time we use contraception we demonstrate that brains can thwart Darwinian designs'.
But, ceteris paribus, the outcome here is a certain defeat. The genes of those who use contraception will be overrun by those who don't. Contraception is itself a component of the Darwinian design.
In his essay 'What is true', he misses some important points.
As Tarski said, truth = accordance with the facts or processes.
Popper's importance was mainly the refutation of inductivism and its demand for infinite corroborations. As long as a theory has not been falsified we can continue to work with it. Popper's proposition constitutes a progress and time gain of lightyears for science as a whole. Also testing remains the cornerstone of scientific research.
Presenting Popper as a truth-heckler seems to me a little overdone, when we don't know 90% of the matter in the universe, perhaps 1 % of the existing virusses; when 'I' doesn't exist (V. Ramachandran) or when 'is' is an illusion (L. Smolin). As Popper said, the more we know, the more we see how little we know.
Richard Dawkins' essays are thought-provoking analyses and comments, written by a splendid humanist and a superb free mind.
This book is a must for all those interested in the fate of mankind.

A MANUAL TO THE TRUTH REVEALED BY SCIENCE
Dawkins is a well known biologist whose "The Selfish Gene" revolutionized the way we think (or ought to think) about evolution.

In this book, he puts together a collection of essays which, in the essence, is a guidebook to non-scientists to debunking pseudo-science. He does so in a variety of ways:
1. He demonstrates how complex physics concepts are used in literature to seem more scientific.
2. He shows how creationists seek legitimacy in the public eye with scientific sounding ideas like "intelligent design" and others which are nothing more than pseudo-science. He also offers ideas on how to deal with them.
3. He points out, in an open letter to his daughter, how to know what is truth and what isn't, what are good and bad reasons to believe something.
4. He recommends a number of follow up readings in his book reviews. These are mainly on Stephen Jay Gould and Peter Medawar, two other famed biologists who write for the general public.

The essence of the book is reflected, I believe, in the last essay, in which he makes the point that evidence is the only way to truth and knowledge, and the basis of science. He shows that evidence is a better reason to believe something than its three foes: authority, revelation and tradition.

I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for intelligent arguments and thoughts on a wide variety of subjects, all related to science, its importance and its usage (or lack thereof) in society.

In Defense of the Scientific Method
If you only read one book by Professor Richard Dawkins, I recommend The Selfish Gene. That book is a remarkable tour de force covering the latest thinking about how evolution really works by taking into account our understanding of genetic qualities in reinforcing the evolutionary struggle of the survival of the fittest.

By contrast, A Devil's Chaplain is a book that will appeal primarily to people who have read several books by Professor Dawkins and would like to know more about him as a person and his views outside of neo-Darwinism.

If you have not read anything by Professor Dawkins, I recommend you skip this book unless you have a thorough understanding of the latest evolutionary theories. Much of the book won't make sense to you otherwise.

A Devil's Chaplain is a series of essays (some published before and some not), laments, eulogies and a letter to his daughter. From these materials, you can learn more about how Professor Dawkins sees his colleagues, those who oppose evolutionary teachings, postmodernists, and his personal views on religious beliefs and "alternative" medicine. Much of what he says will not surprise you. As a scientist, he favors the scientific method and is rationally skeptical of anything that cannot be proven by this method. He is also annoyed by a society that grants prominent opportunities to share views that are not proven by scientific methods. As a result, he is also an atheist . . . but one who draws great joy from considering the world around him and the methods by which it has been created.

Many people think of atheists as gloomy people, or people without much emotion. Professor Dawkins is neither. His loving descriptions of relations with his colleagues, rivals and mentors show just the opposite. His concern for using scientific methods is obviously also based on a desire to help people live better lives.

Catholics may find the book a little annoying in that Professor Dawkins likes to challenge some of the "faith"-based beliefs that that religion espouses.

As I finished the book, I found that I was most attracted to the advanced speculations that Professor Dawkins used in his book that speak directly to evolutionary studies. I especially recommend the essay, "Son of Moore's Law," where he describes the timing of when individual genomes will be economically affordable and how that will influence health and medical treatments. I was also drawn to the essays that describe his optimistic belief that we can escape our evolutionary heritage and evolve into people who produce the best possible future for all.

There's much food for thought here. I doubt if any religious believers will be undone by his arguments. I also doubt that he will convert any people who believe in the literal creation as described in the Bible to change their views.

Ultimately, I was left wondering how other prominent scientists bridge the gap between their scientific methods and having a rich religious life.

I graded the book down one star because the editor presumes the reader has a little too much familiarity with the leading lines of thought about evolution. The book could have used more footnotes to explain the background of the points Professor Dawkins is making for those of us who are not evolutionary biologists . . . but simply like to read books about the subject. ... Read more

Reviews (31)

The Ultimate Biology Watcher
Lewis Thomas' book is a beautifully written collection of essays. He writes much in the style of the 13th century author Frederick Montaigne, whom he later writes an essay about in another book. The essays, combine to bring a truly penultimate view of biological life. His observations, more than conclusions, bring one very close to a belief that in some way, all life is connected.

In a particularly interesting essay on "organelles" Thomas points out that mitochondria, the engines of the cell in every animal, do not exchange DNA like every other part of the body in sexual procreation, but in fact, are passed directly from the ovum to the zygote in the cytoplasm, and never change or recombine their DNA. This apparently being a protective mechanism developed over 100's of thousands of years because the preservation of the exact mitochondrial DNA sequence is so important, that it could not be left to chance, as are most every other characteristic of the animal.

Throughout the book, Thomas reveals truly extraordinary facts about biology and microbiology that tend to leave the reader in actual awe. For an incredibly interesting and fast education about cellular biology this National Book Award Winning collection is truly a fascinating read.

Biology On A Cellular Level: Impressive
Lewis Thomas' book is a beautifully written collection of essays. He writes much in the style of the 13th century author Frederick Montaigne, whom he later writes an essay about in another book. The essays, combine to bring a truly penultimate view of biological life. His observations, more than conclusions, bring one very close to a belief that in some way, all life is connected.

In a particularly interesting essay on "organelles" Thomas points out that mitochondria, the engines of the cell in every animal, do not exchange DNA like every other part of the body in sexual procreation, but in fact, are passed directly from the ovum to the zygote in the cytoplasm, and never change or recombine their DNA.

This apparently being a protective mechanism developed over 100's of thousands of years because the preservation of the exact mitochondrial DNA sequence is so important, that it could not be left to chance, as are most every other characteristic of the animal.

Throughout the book, Thomas reveals truly extraordinary facts about biology and microbiology that tend to leave the reader in actual awe. For an incredibly interesting and fast education about cellular biology this National Book Award Winning collection is truly a fascinating read.

Appeals to both the artist and the scientist
I strongly disagreed with the review titled "Fake Science," so I was amused to see that the review's author used the word "applauded" where I believe s/he meant to use "appalled."

This book clearly isn't, and doesn't pretend to be, "scientific," in the sense of data acquired by rigid adherence to the scientific method and presented in dry academic format. It is more a lovely ride along the currents of Lewis'philosophical meanderings upon life, at various levels of complexity, in various contexts. This book instilled in me a sense of wonder at the wonderfulness of it all. P.S. I am a scientist.

oh my god... so good...
I like this book... a lot, especially the last few chapters. This book covers a lot of topics. A lot. Each chapter is only a few pages long, which is nice for people who don't chunks of time to read. Everything he says builds up to the last chapter. It's eloquently written and a fun/easy/intellectual read.

An intellectual stroll through biology and medical science
This book is a collection of essays written by Thomas covering various subjects. There is no formal structure or scientific process to them. It is more like an intellectual stroll through the park, something you might have a professor mention in passing, elaborated. Being a medical student myself, I found the book extremely interresting, but make no mistake, the vocabulary assumes some sort of degree in biology or biochemistry or medicine.

For those of us used to reading journal articles, this is nothing like one. He doesn't have firm conclusions or hypotheses. He just sort of proposes an idea and lets it float around in our collective consciousness.

The only criticism I have of this book is that Thomas can be repetitive at times. He will reiterate ideas and points and if you are reading the book cover to cover, that fact can be annoying. However, if you read an essay every now and then, stopping to digest the material, I believe you'll find that Thomas has some interesting insights into the world of science. ... Read more

Book Description

Since its inception in 1915, the Best American series has become the premier annual showcase for the country's finest short fiction and nonfiction. For each volume, a series editor reads pieces from hundreds of periodicals, then selects between fifty and a hundred outstanding works. That selection is pared down to the twenty or so very best pieces by a guest editor who is widely recognized as a leading writer in his or her field. This unique system has helped make the Best American series the most respected -- and most popular -- of its kind. The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004, edited by Steven Pinker, is another "provocative and thoroughly enjoyable [collection] from start to finish" (Publishers Weekly). Here is the best and newest on science and nature: the psychology of suicide terrorism, desperate measures in surgery, the weird world of octopuses, Sex Week at Yale, the linguistics of click languages, the worst news about cloning, and much more. ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (11)

Evolutionary morality.
Of all the differences between man and the lower animals, Charles Darwin believed that "the moral sense or conscience" is the most important. "It is the most noble of all the attributes of man," he wrote in THE DESCENT OF MAN (1871), "leading him without a moment's hesitation to risk his life for that fellow-creature; or after due deliberation, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or duty, to sacrifice it in some great cause." Drawing from evolutionary ethics, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, anthropology, and ethology, Michael Shermer (WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS; HOW WE BELIEVE)takes on the difficult subject of the origins of morality and the foundations of ethics from an agnostic and nontheistic position, and contends that moral behavior can be scientifically traced to humanity's evolutionary origins. For those unfamiliar with his work, Shermer is the editor in chief of Skeptic magazine, and a frequent contributor to Scientific American.

THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL picks up where HOW WE BELIEVE ended, defining religion as a social institution that "evolved as an integral mechanism of human culture to create and promote myths, to encourage altruism and cooperation, to discourage selfishness and competitiveness, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperate and reciprocate among members of a community" (p. 7). Shermer divides his book into two parts, first examining how morality evolved as a species-wide mechanism for survival to enforce the rules of human interactions before there were such things as state laws and constitutional rights, and then by disputing the religious position that without God, there can be no morality. In developing his notion of "provisional ethics," Shermer observes that some form of The Golden Rule (i.e., "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you") provides the foundation of morality in all human societies.

Calling himself a "free rider" (p. 22), Shermer argues that humans don't need God to be moral, but that evolution has equipt the human brain with a tendency toward moral behavior. In other words, humans are moral by nature. "I may be free from God," he writes, "but the god of nature holds me to her temple of judgment no less than her other creations. I stand before my maker and judge not in some distant and future ethereal world, but in the reality of this world, a world inhabited not by spiritual and supernatural ephemera, but by real people whose lives are directly affected by my actions, and those actions directly affect my life" (p. 22).

G. Merritt

Raises the bar for the all too human.
Shermer's discussion of morality in this book is a continuation of that he started in How We Believe, though that book was less dry and more complete. Still, he bravely tackles morality with an approach not unlike Nietsche's (one must drop the crutch of religion and take responsibility for their own morals) only less angry and more scientific (hence the dryness). Shermer does do a fair job of trying to explain the beauty of individual moral responsibility, but the book concerns mainly the historical or 'evolutionary' explaination of morals, in that they serve a societal function. (A good companion book to this would be Sagan's Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors.)
Shermer's lens seems greatly shaped by Darwin. That may be because one of his books between How We Believe and this on was In Darwin's Shadow (about Alfred Wallace), or perhaps Darwin's science is pretty solid stuff. At any rate, to apply a scientific approach to morality is to try and replace thousands of years of mythology which did the job until recently. Can morality be explained without religious ties? That's the interesting part of it.

I was going to give this book 4 stars because of the slight disappointment I had with Shermer's writing style, but the topic is so vast and this book gives one of the best discussions of it I've seen in a long time. So it's a Fiver!

Can there be morality without God?
Can there be morality without God? This is the question tackled by the Skeptic Society's Michael Shermer and while he definately deserves a five for his effort, the resulting book shows a man straining against inherent limits.
The first inherent limit Shermer struggles against his own upbringing wherein he indicated that his mother did not believe in God. It is very fascinating that regardless of what education one goes on to attain they invariably ultimately return to the religous views of their upbringing later in life. This is not a bad thing but it is interesting that whenever writers attempt to assert some grand new theory all they're really talking about is what their parents believed. Perhaps it is for this reason that truly revolutionary religious thought is such a rare thing.
Shermer also struggles against the evidence. In the first part of his book, Shermer is quick to assert that morality is the natural product of human evolution. However, and this is according to Shermer's own cited figures, for 84% of the people on this planet that morality ACCOMPANIES MEMBERSHIP IN AN ESTABLISHED RELIGION. In other words, one cannot fairly gainsay that morality is an evolutionary by product without also conceding that religion as well is an evolutionary by product. To be sure, an absence of religious belief cannot be said to be an absence of morality any more than the presence of religious belief can itself be said to be evidence of morality. Still the same there has been, and remains, an undeniable and as yet unfully explained relationship between religion and morality. In this sense, Shermer's first half of his book serves as a great starting point for further study of this important topic.
However, and again, we are talking about a starting point and definately not the last word.
Finally, Shermer is limited by logic. If one is to believe his earlier referenced studies that humans only appear to have free will, then why should recourse be made to the many philosophers he cites in the second half of his book? For that matter, if human behavior really is a "science" then why resort to philosophy at all? Logically, one would have to concede that that which is possible would have to yield to that which is. Phenomenon, not paradigm, is paramount.
In all, the book had a certain endearing quality. After having read the two predecessor works by Shermer in this series -- Why People Believe Wierd Things and Why We Believe -- it's strangely comforting to see Shermer admit to such a detailed knowledge of the television program Star Trek. (As he was quoting the Kirk monologue, I found myself mentally inserting the appropriate pauses between the words...just as Kirk did in the original TV episode.)
So in the end the question remains: Can there be a morality without God?
I don't know. Maybe this question should be asked when we can really be sure that we even have morality with God.

Shermer should be ashamed for minimizing the evils of 9/11!
In his latest book, The Science of Good & Evil, Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer suggests that President Bush was mistaken in calling the 9/11 terrorist attacks "pure evil." According to Shermer, no such thing exists.

On page 81, Dr. Shermer writes: "September 11, 2001, comes to mind here. United States President George W. Bush described what happened that day as an act of pure evil. Yet millions of people around the world celebrate that day as a triumphant victory over what they perceive to be an evil American culture. What we are witnessing here is not a conceptual difference in understanding the true nature of evil. Nor is it simply a matter of who is in the right. It is, at least on one important level, a difference of perspective. To achieve true understanding and enlightenment it might help to understand what the other side was thinking."

He should issue a public apology for trying to minimize the moral gravity of these actions and ignoring the human pain they caused. He should be ashamed of defending terrorists who killed thousands of innocents in the name of God. None of us will move any closer to "enlightenment" if we join him in dismissing the specific actions that caused the 9/11 mass murders as a "difference of perspective." The degree of evil of the 9/11 murders does not depend on the fluctuating measures America's popularity in foreign public opinion polls. Exploring every delusion held by the 9/11 terrorists won't make their crimes less vicious or bring their victims back to life.

According to Dr. Shermer "pure evil" is nothing but a word. Any morally blameworthy act can be nothing more than what Shermer names "provisional evil." If we accept his limited concept, an ethical and moral gray area must always exist when thousands of innocents are brutally murdered in the name of God.

In truth, the ultimate value of human life transcends space, time, material reality, and Darwinian evolution because we are loved by, and created for, eternal friendship with an eternal God who exists independent of the Big Bang and all material reality. The intentional mass murder of innocent human life is "pure evil" because it rejects the God-given inherent worth of the human person.

In a recent e-mail, Dr. Shermer told me he supports the current war in the Middle East. He also said he doesn't endorse or excuse the 9/11 attacks.

He can't have it both ways, however. The statement he chose to publish in his book gives comfort to all current and future enemies of human life, and he should print a retraction on his website at www.skeptic.com. Shame on you, Dr. Shermer.

A Reasonable Effort
This is a good overview of how ethics might have originated, but not a particularly good (pun intended) justification of ethical rule. Shermer is always entertaining, but he lacks philosophical rigor. A much better exposition on both can be found in Michael Berumen's: Do No Evil. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Further Feynman
Yet another glimpse inside the mind of one of the most brilliant and most peculiar physicists of recent times, this book is perfect for those who enjoy physics or even just a good story. If you enjoyed the other semi-scientific Feynman books, you will not be disappointed by this one.

A very different book.
In this series of lectures and interviews, Feynman lays out his, sometimes surprisingly philosophical given his aversion to such things, outlook on science, religion, and life in general. As an added bonus, you get a lecture or two on his "absurd and crazy" ideas, like nanotechnology, that give you a real feel what Feynman was about.

This book held a lot of credibility with me. First, Feynman was a singular individual, unswayed by pomposity and false pretenses, with no hidden agenda, and little desire to have other people like him - a rare thing. Second, the book is poorly written. The editors, on purpose, left it raw and unrefined, just as Feynman spoke it, to let more of Feynman come across. The result is uneven, jarring, and a little hard to read, and this, to me, is a good thing. Whenever I see fresh, sparkling, vibrant prose I don't believe it, because show me a more effective speaker than Hitler or a more electrifying call to action than the "Communist Manifesto". Without the swaying torrent of rhetoric, the message of the book stands on its own merrit.

Read this book. You'll walk away from it a little wiser.

Fun Read - More Insight into the Totality of Feynman's Views
I had a lot of fun reading this book. We are exposed to a broader array of Feynman's views in his typical iconoclastic and fiercely independent style.

Although Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman and Genius present Feynman as he should be presented, this work is a nice addendum to fill in a few blanks. Good reading.

GREAT COLLECTION OFFERS INSIGHT INTO MAN OF SCIENCE
This book is a collection of Feynman's most memorable essays and speeches, in which he talks about the Manhattan project, his childhood, the future of physics, the unscientific nature of society, among other topics. This is a book for the non scientist, as there is very little physics required, and it talks as much about the future of science as it does about the future of society.

Feynman is a remarkable character, which many virtues and flaws which are readily detectable in the book. It is a short, quick read that left me wanting to learn more about him. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Two Panda's thumbs up.
First published on 1980, The Panda's Thumb is a collection of slightly edited essays from Professor Gould's monthly column at Natural History Magazine.

The thirty one essays are grouped in eight chapters according to their similarities. The Chapters are:

Perfection and imperfection: A trilogy on a panda's thumb - that deals with comparative anatomy;

Darwiniana - that brings the context of Darwin's revolution and the preceding ideas;

Human evolution - that also brings an article on Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse evolution;

Science and politics of Human differences - that shows how science used to foster or justify prejudice and sexism.

The pace of change - in which Gould introduces his and Niles Eldredge's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium;

Early life - a chapter on pre-Cambrian biology or early ideas about pre-Cambrian biology.

They were despised and rejected - on evolutionary dead ends or not quite as in the essay about birds descending from dinosaurs and;

Size and time.

Most essays are very interesting and surprisingly up to date despite the fact that many were written almost thirty years ago. The essays can be read one by one in no particular order since they bring references to each other when necessary. The scope of the book goes way beyond biology including also geology, history of science, gender and race relations, and the ever lasting debate between science and religion. The style is again accessible and witty. After introducing the only exponential equation on the whole book the author almost apologizes.

In my opinion some of the most interesting essays are The Death Before Birth of a Mite; Caring Groups and Selfish Genes; Dr. Down's Syndrome; Nature Odd Couples; Our Allotted Lifetimes; Time's Vastness; and all essays under the chapter The Pace of Change.

The Pace of Change is the most original and still controversial chapter of the book. It introduces Gould and Eldredge's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium that is, in short, a slight correction on Darwin's belief of slow and continuous change throughout the process of evolution.

This is a very interesting and enjoyable book. I doubt anyone interested in science, just by reading a random article of this book, would not feel compelled to read the rest of the book and also other Stephen Gould's books.

Leonardo Alves - January 2001

Gould's best
Stephen Jay Gould is probably the finest scientific writer working today. His books, based on the column he has written for Natural History magazine since the 1970s, mix evolutionary biology with references to baseball, Mickey Mouse, and anything else he can use to teach the reader. As head of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, he is an authority on modern evolutionary theory. In what I believe is his finest book, he argues that it is the imperfections in life's design, like the panda's thumb formed out of its wrist instead of as a full digit, that prove evolution by natural selection. In one essay, he teaches about neotony, some animals' tendency to stay younger-looking, by describing the "evolution" of the drawing of Mickey Mouse. A great read for experts and laymen alike.

Evolutionary theory meets Mickey Mouse and selfish genes
The second collection of Gould's articles from Natural History continues to explore Darwin's themes and the resultant ideas since. There's several interesting essays here, including my favorite one in which the evolution of Mickey Mouse is discussed.

One of the essays here dealt with Richard Dawkins' controversial stand (in The Selfish Gene) on genes in which he states that a person is just a gene's way to make another gene. (This is different from normal evolutionary thought in that genes there are the subject of random variation which then is subject to the environment and tested.) Gould is not convinced by Dawkins' theory, mainly because, he says, there is no evidence that genes can be linked to specific attributes, i.e., there isn't an "eye" gene. Gould wrote this some years back, so it will be interesting to see if he revisits this subject now that researchers have indeed discovered the "eye" gene (through testing on flies).

Gould also covers Robert Bakker's theories about warm-blooded dinosaurs (later written up in Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies) and the link to birds, a good essay for people to review prior to the hullabaloo that will follow Jurassic Park 2 (it's always fun to check up on an author's source material).

Enjoyable but dated
An entertaining and elegantly written collection of discursive essays on natural history and evolution. The nature stories and the anecdotes about eccentric naturalists are interesting.
It has a 1980 original publication date. Perhaps because of this date there is very little about DNA and nothing about HLA and tissue-typing. I shall check his later books to see if he ever got up-to-date on these. (He died a month ago). He was concerned to defend his field as being real science against "haughty and high-riding mathematicians and experimentalists." In fact this sort of biology seems more akin to history and archeology than to hard science, but that adds to its readability rather than detracts from it.

The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History
The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould is classic Gould with a more open and approachable style. This is Gould's second in a series of books gleamed from his essays in "Natural History" and they have a timeless value to them.

As Henry Adams said, "A teacher... can never tell where his influence stops." So it can be said of Stephen Jay Gould as these essays are twenty plus years old they still have inherent and intrinsic value as they are essential in historical character. Gould's writings here are compassionate, well founded, plausible, and spot-on. As Gould explores evolutionary biology, were dinosaurs dumb, a panda's thumb, or why are there as many men as women born, to magneticly seeking food... Gould explores the realm of biological theory and does an excellent in expanding the readers mind .

If found this book to be a wonderful look into how biology, theory and history all interplay with discovery. Gould acts as a tour guide to thought and observation as he writes. This is an excellent book written in a more relaxted style, but his rapier skill is apparent and you cannot help but read on and enjoy his elegantly explored essays.

These essays have a broad range, but are integrated and organized into eight sections of thought-provoking prose. Enjoy Gould's arguments as he takes you on a ride. A ride that compels us to seek the answers within ourselves. ... Read more

Book Description

The use of economic modeling techniques in industrial ecology research provides distinct advantages over the customary approach, which focuses on the physical description of material flows. The thirteen chapters of Economics of Industrial Ecology integrate the natural science and technological dimensions of industrial ecology with a rigorous economic approach and by doing so contribute to the advancement of this emerging field. Using a variety of modeling techniques (including econometric, partial and general equilibrium, and input-output models) and applying them to a wide range of materials, economic sectors, and countries, these studies analyze the driving forces behind material flows and structural changes in order to offer guidance for economically and socially feasible policy solutions.

After a survey of concepts and relevant research that provides a useful background for the chapters that follow, the book presents historical analyses of structural change from statistical and decomposition approaches; a range of models that predict structural change on the national and regional scale under different policy scenarios; two models that can be used to analyze waste management and recycling operations; and, adopting the perspective of local scale, an analysis of the dynamics of eco-industrial parks in Denmark and the Netherlands. The book concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of an economic approach to industrial ecology. ... Read more

Book Description

Since its inception in 1915, the Best American series has become the premier annual showcase for the country's finest short fiction and nonfiction. For each volume, a series editor reads pieces from hundred of periodicals, then selects between fifty and a hundred outstanding works. That selection is pared down to the twenty or so very best pieces by a guest editor who is widely recognized as a leading writer in his or her field. This unique system has helped make the Best American series the most respected -- and most popular -- of its kind.
The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2003, edited by Richard Dawkins, is another "eloquent, accessible, and even illuminating" collection (Publishers Weekly). Here are the best and brightest writers on science and nature, writing on such wide-ranging subjects as astronomy's new stars, archaeology, the Bible, "terminal" ice, and memory faults.

Natalie Angier
Timothy Ferris
Ian Frazier
Elizabeth F. Loftus
Steven Pinker
Oliver Sacks
Steven Weinberg
Edward O. Wilson ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Mixed bag ¿ exactly as it should be
The best thing about a collection of essays like this is that you get to read articles by writers you've never heard of, on topics you never realized could be at least interesting and sometimes even compelling. The writing ranges from dry and technical to almost purely emotional. I can't think of a single dud, which is little surprise, given the editor.

So, read it for elucidation or inspiration. You will come away with a few previously-unfamiliar names firmly lodged in your head for future reference, like Ian Frazier. The end of his (quite literally sensual) ode to icebergs is so beautiful it almost hurts. Here it is in full:

"A lot of what is exciting about being alive can't be felt, because it's beyond the power of the senses. Just being on the planet, we are moving around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour; it would be great if somehow we could climb up to an impossible vantage point and actually feel that speed.

"All this data we've got piling up is interesting, but short on thrills. Time, which we have only so much of, runs out on us, and as we get older we learn that anything and everything will go by. And since it all go by anyway, why doesn't it all go right now, in a flash, and get it over with? For mysterious reasons, it doesn't, and the pace at which it proceeds instead reveals itself in icebergs.

"In the passing of the seconds, in the one-thing-after-another, I take comfort in icebergs. They are time solidified and time erased again. They pass by and vanish, quickly or slowly, regular inhabitants of a world we just happened to end up on. The glow that comes from them is the glow of more truth than we can stand."

Hoping for the Best
Early in the forward, renown autthor/scientist Richard Dawkins writes " In a single glimpse of Andromeda, then, your eyes capture light that encompasses a span of 150,000 years, which is roughly equal to the length of time that humans have walked the earth. What holy book, what myth, can match the grandeur of that reality? In the face of such sublimity, why would any of us want to cling ot the old tales...the ones with the answers but not many questions?

That phrase captures what is best and least about this book. The grandeur of science opening up an infinite series of new questions on the one hand, and on the other, being challenged by the mundane world of people who would prefer to read "self-help" and "new age" books, a phenomena that scientists cannot fathom.

In the best sense, there are articles about science and scientists that stretch you mind by light years. "Ice Memory", tells of studies of cores of Greenland ice showing that earth has undergone dramatic changes in temperature in decades which dwarf the current exterpolations of global warming.

But the least of the book are the essays on science fighting entrenched interests or wayward passions. Some writers seem to miss the point or are fighting straw dogs. The problems of "recovered memories" in not really abused childern and lack of historical basis for the Bible are not so new to me. As Dawkins is an important writer on evolution, he probably has to deal with the conflicts between the science and peoples attitudes and beliefs more often than I do.

But I enjoyed almost every essay, learning that a sperm whale's head acts as a punching bag, and that new telescopes have returned the amatuer to an important role in astronomy. I even enjoyed some of the science vs politics stuff such as Gary Taubes exploration of the idea that poorly researched nutritional guidance from the government may have even triggered the fat epidemic.

There is food for thought in this smorgasbord, even if it is not a feast. As another reviewer said, the level of the science is at the more popular end of science reading -- but it is there. A good book to nibble at on many short commutes.

solid collection
There's little I can add to the reviews that the other reviewers haven't already said, and said well. I'll just chime in with my opinion: it's a solid collection of essays and I'd recommend it.

Not as good as 2002, but still very good
This is a great series. This year the selection seemed to have more of an anti-religious and political tone, but most of the selections are still well-written, educational and thoughtful.

Light from Andromeda?
Opening an essay collection is rather like breaking the Christmas pinata - there's bound to be something to please everyone. If you hope to discover whether "royal" blood trickles in your veins, skip right to Steve Olson's account of tracing his ancestors and the surprises he reveals about all of us. For a more practical, if more disturbing, application of gene research, sit in the Sequenom waiting room with David Duncan while he ponders the results of a DNA test. He's not hoping for claimant-to-the-throne status. He wants to know whether some quirk in his genetic makeup might indicate heart problems. If you wish to enjoy the life extended age might grant you, you may wish to peruse one of several articles on the environment and the changes it's undergoing. Residents of coastal cities or islands may consider moving to higher ground after Ian Frazier's revelations about retreating glaciers and their watery residue.

"Science and Nature Writing" allows many subject options. Dawkins has chosen well and in a timely fashion for this anthology. It would be redundant to assess the writing styles - all of these pieces are compelling, informative and presented in a highly readable style. The subjects may have a scientific or technical foundation, but the information offered isn't buried in arcane terminology. For some of the articles, the style is designed to catch your attention over the destination of your tax dollars. Is the response to the 11 September World Trade Centre attacks rational? Is money being diverted to programs that might find better use and offer better security elsewhere? Clark Chapman and Alan Harris address the first part of the question, while Steven Weinberg in one article and Charles Mann in another look at the second part.

With twenty-nine essays to consider, it quickly becomes clear what treasures of information this book contains. Since it isn't indexed [which would likely double the size of both book and cost] browsing its pages is almost mandatory. Alternatively, of course, you may simply start with Natalie Angier's paean to grandmothers and read until Edward O. Wilson's examination of the "economic development for people" versus "protect the environment first" debate. No-one is better able to summarise the points and offer pointers to satisfy both. Between those two fine writers, you will meet astronomers, cosmologists, biblical analysis and enjoy the interesting experience of seeing Oliver Sacks from within and without. Outside those limits is a reminder that light from the Andromeda Galaxy we see tonight started its journey when hominid species were first walking upright. Is there a connection?

No matter what your interests, politics, level of science education, or even eating habits, there will be rewards for you within these pages. This series has been beneficial and informative to anyone wishing to learn something new about the world around them. Wade in from the shallow end or plunge into the deeper challenges here. You will gain rewards. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada] ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (6)

A good read
A set of twenty non-fiction essays/stories/investigations about various topics.

eg:

"I Just Had to Laugh"
What causes laughter? What tests have been done to isolate the laughter-center of the brain?

"Seeing Things"
We all know that light travels in a straight line, right? Wrong! Read about real mirages; how the cityscape of one city is projected to the clouds and seen miles away in another town.

"Sane in an Insane World"
1970's experiment where a dozen sane people go to psychiatrists and simply say "I heard a voice in my head". Learn what then happens to these people as they're immediately medicated and institutionalized. Don't try this one at home! ... at least not unless you have a friend who'll come bail you out of the asylum.

"The Barmaid's Brain"
Ever been to a busy restaurant and wondered how the waitress remembers your orders w/o writing it down? How about cocktail waitresses who, on New Year's Eve, are able to remember the orders of 150 patrons and do refills/etc w/o asking them to repeat the order?

"The Invention of Thievery"
All the sudden, in Engand in the 1920's, chickadees began opening and drinking from bottles of milk left on customers' doorsteps. Why? More interestingly, how did the chickadees propagate the "knowledge" across the country when a typical chickadee never travels more than 15 miles from it's birthplace in its entire life?

Barmaids, a Saint, and the Antlion King
"The Barmaid's Brain" was both entertaining and mildly disappointing. The cover blurb has it that this book is in the tradition of Stephen Jay Gould and Oliver Sacks, which I took to mean a collection of thematically connected essays on science. Gould concentrates on learned, very readable essays on evolution; Sacks specializes in tales of neurological dysfunction, e.g. the famous "Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat."

However, Ingram doesn't attempt to thread his miscellany of essays with an overarching theme, as do Gould and Sacks. He is more in the tradition of magpie science---he writes about whatever catches his eye.

Here are a couple of his essays that caught my eye:

"Consumed by Learning"---I was saddened to learn that the "The Worm Runner's Digest" (a feature of my college years) is no more. Nowadays hardly anyone believes that he can learn to play the piano by taking a pill, and Planaria are no longer forced to dine on their learned brethren. Even more disturbing, James McConnell, the iconoclastic 'Worm Runner General' himself was targeted late in his life by the Unabomber and suffered a permanent hearing impairment from the bomb blast---the unanticipated price of his brief moment of scientific fame.

"The Monks Who Saw the Moon Split Open"--- The mysterious birth of the Lunar Crater Giordano Bruno. As reported by Ingram via the twelfth century "Chronicles of Gervase," a group of five Englishmen saw "fire, hot coals, and sparks" bursting forth from the Moon on the evening of June 18, 1178. Did they witness the cataclysmic birth of Crater Giordano Bruno via asteroid impact? Ingram argues that the location and age of the 22-kilometer (14-mile) lunar crater Giordano Bruno indicates that this was indeed the case.

However, a new study suggests the event was a meteoritic trick of the eye.

Paul Withers of the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory argues that an impact large enough to create Giordano Bruno "would have triggered a blizzard-like, week-long meteor storm on Earth -- yet there are no accounts of such a storm in any known historical record." Withers reports his analysis and other tests of the 'crater' hypothesis in the journal of the Meteoritical Society "Meteoritics and Planetary Science."

Read both Ingram's essay and Paul Withers's account (there is a summary at the Science@NASA home page) and decide for yourself whether five medieval Englishmen indeed witnessed the birth of a crater on our Moon.

"The Barmaid's Brain" is a lively collection of essays, well worth savoring one at time. Ingram entertains as he educates.

Fun science
Accessible, lively and wide-ranging, Jay Ingram's twenty-one tales from the edges of science delves succinctly into an array of scientific oddities and mysteries from the source of Joan of Arc's voices and the Salem Witch phenomenon to the ingenious construction of the antlion's ambush pit and why sickle cell anemia confers evolutionary advantage.

A science writer ("The Science of Everyday Life," "The Burning House") and Discovery Channel host, Ingram has collected his personal favorites and organized them into five sections: Human Behavior, Curiosities of Life, Science and History, Natural Battles, How Things Work.

Why is that the barmaid routinely performs prodigious feats of memory yet misperceives the level of liquid in a tilted glass far more often than the average Joe (literally - the average Jane's perception is better than the barmaid's but not as good as Joe's)? Why does the moth fly to light? Something to do with navigating by moon, probably but then why is light lure stronger than sex? When is a cowbird egg in a cacique nest a good thing? Answer: when there are no bees and wasps nests around.

Then there's "Consumed by Learning" in which trained flatworms, chopped and fed to untrained flatworms, were able to pass on their knowledge. These results were greeted with such hoots of derision that the research was abandoned - leaving the question.

How about the sedentary British bird that learned to open milk containers and somehow spread this knowledge gradually northwards? In a Canadian experiment twenty-five percent of chickadees figured it out on their own and were able to tutor the less able. Strangely though, when tutor birds were placed in a cage with no milk container, the bird in the next cage figured out how to open its container. Telepathy? (This is not the conclusion the scientists arrived at.)

Ingram revisits the 1960s theory, popularized by Elaine Morgan, that human hairlessness, bipedalism, nose shape, tears, etc., indicate that "Homo Aquaticus" became a creature of the ocean shallows for a few million years. Pooh-poohed but not disproved.

He looks into Archimedes' war machines, the doomed quest for perpetual motion, the anatomy of laughter, a scary viral predator whose aggressive perfection is, thankfully, confined to bacteria. Presenting various theories with their pros and cons, he outlines a range of experiments and counter experiments and doesn't hesitate to digress when it's called for. He touches on the personalities and politics of science and keeps his quirky sense of humor at the fore.

Knowledge of science is not necessary but neither does it get in the way of enjoyment. Ingram's topics have been the subjects of whole books and for those whose curiosity is aroused, he provides a bibliography (no index).

Appealing survey of new theories, facts and discoveries.
Over twenty stories from science and nature examine quirks of natural history and will appeal to any who read Stephen Jay Gould and other science writers. The general reader will find quite appealing this survey of new theories, facts, discoveries and anecdotes.

Funny, informative and interesting
My day job is news editor for Science Daily, Discovery Channel's science news show. One of the our hosts is noted science writer and broadcaster Jay Ingram, who has a new book, The Barmaid's Brain. As someone who works with Jay every day, I'm sure my reaction to reading the book will be similar to that of anyone who watches the show regularly ... "Jay has a sense of humour????"

Who knew?

Truth be told, this is a delightful book. It's clear, and written in a very accessible style. More importantly, it presents a fascinating range of subjects ... everything from perpetual motion machines to Joan of Arc. It's a good synthesis of contemporary thought on a wide variety of topics. And perhaps most refreshingly, Ingram doesn't hesitate to shrug when he doesn't know the answer. Sometimes, as with his explanation of the aquatic ape hypothesis, he presents the information and says there just isn't enough information to make a reasonable judgement. Other times he'll say which answer seems more likely, but never tries to present it as the only possible answer.

In an age of quick fixes and "instant experts", it's comforting to be reminded that we sometimes don't know. We might think we know. We might be pretty sure we know. But ultimately, even an expert's judgement is often just a best guess. And that's something we could all stand to be reminded of. www.exn.ca/printedmatter ... Read more