The book begins: "To the rocket scientist, you are the problem. You are the most irritating piece of machinery he or she will ever have to deal with. The book begins: "To the rocket scientist, you are the problem. You are the most irritating piece of machinery he or she will ever have to deal with. You and your fluctuating metabolism, your puny memory, your frame that comes in a million different configurations. You are unpredictable. You're inconstant. You take weeks to fix."
The remainder of the book is just as good. It deals with the human aspects of spaceflight -- most of them a function of being in a confined space, zero gravity, and outside of you the void. The chapters focus on different issues. One is on going to the bathroom in space, which turns out to be remarkably complicated -- gravity is both how your body knows you need to urinate and also how excrement makes it's way out. Another is one eating in space -- and the problems of crumbs floating around in zero gravity, getting in people's eyes, noses, and fouling up equipment. Other chapters are isolation chambers on earth where people train for space, the Japanese method of psychologically screening potential astronauts (they examine their origami), the careers of famous chimp astronauts, the role of cadavers in crash tests, and training for ultra-high altitude escapes.
The limitation of the book is sometimes it is overly "reported," with extended descriptions of how the author visited such and such facility, who she met, what she found, etc. The author at times seems too taken by her own humor and riffs. Some of the tangents are interesting but there are too many of them for my taste. But these are minor flaws compared to a fascinating book that will forever change the way you see space travel....more
As the first geology book I've read, I found it quite interesting -- even if I wasn't convinced that even with the qualification this sentence could pAs the first geology book I've read, I found it quite interesting -- even if I wasn't convinced that even with the qualification this sentence could possibly be true: "perhaps the discipline best prepared to lead science into the holistic world of the twenty-first century."
Part of what makes the book so interesting is that it takes you down the cul-de-sacs recounting the promising leads and techniques that did not pan out. The best chapter for this was ...more
This book addresses the question of why the neanderthals died out while homo sapiens survived. It rejects the genetic superiority of the later and is This book addresses the question of why the neanderthals died out while homo sapiens survived. It rejects the genetic superiority of the later and is scathing on the thesis that homo sapiens played a causal role in the extinction of the neanderthals. Instead, Finlayson argues that the main culprit was the cooling climate. Moreover, he argues that this development disproportionately affected the somewhat more successful neanderthals because they were more used to one way of life, rather than the more marginal and thus more innovative homo sapiens. The analogy he offers is a study in Gibraltar that found that rich families suffered less from diseases from poor water. But when there was a drought and everyone had to drink dirty water the poor survived (because they were resistant) while the rich suffered comparatively more.
It is a somewhat interesting thesis, although marred by the suspicion that one politically motivated narrative (conquest by the superior homo sapiens) is just being replaced with another (climate change combined with a form of moral relativism). The evidence for the later seems thin, especially given the many large climatic changes that took place over the approximately 500,000 years since homo sapiens and neanderthals split off from each other.
As for the writing, two complaints: (1) the author is prone to grandiose statements about how this book differs from the previous literature (e.g., he finds the rejection of the "Out of Africa" hypothesis particularly important, even though he just replaces it with the observation that the eurasian zone was geographically and climatically contiguous with Africa). (2) the first third/half of the book is an uninspired retelling of evolution through about 50,000 years ago.
All of this aside, Finlayson hits his stride in the second half of the book when he focuses on the period from 50,000 years ago (when neanderthals were in Europe but homo sapiens were not) to 10,000 years ago (the end of the last ice age and the invention of agriculture). This is presented with a reasonable amount of detail and grounding in the original scholarly material, to which Finlayson is a contributor....more
This book is about what has been learned from genealogical studies of Jews using genetic data. The author appears to be one of the main researchers inThis book is about what has been learned from genealogical studies of Jews using genetic data. The author appears to be one of the main researchers in the field and it is published by Yale University Press -- although it is geared towards layman.
The most astounding findings are the ones that have already gotten the most attention -- the fact the "Kohen's" or Jewish priests are disproportionately descended from one man about 3,000 years ago and that the African Lemda really are related to Jews. But they get more attention in this book along with more detail of how exactly the research was performed -- some of which led me to think that a lot of this research is still in a relatively primitive stage with more room for judgment than I would have expected.
The book also covers some other topics, including the link between genetic diseases like Tay Sachs and intelligence, bringing considerable skepticism to evolutionary explanations of Jewish intelligence by Cochran and his co-authors.
Ultimately, however, much of what one would want to know is simply not accessible to the genetic analysis we can do today -- and may not every be accessible. So while I look forward to the sequel with new discoveries and insights ten or twenty years from now, genes will still leave a maddening number of mysteries....more
I picked this book up at the gift shop when exiting the American Museum of Natural History's Extreme Mammals exhibit. It is a history of science monogI picked this book up at the gift shop when exiting the American Museum of Natural History's Extreme Mammals exhibit. It is a history of science monograph of the discovery and increased understanding of the platypus, published by a University Press and without any of the flash and pretense you might find in some books of this type (e.g., something with a title like "The Platypus: The Discovery of the Animal that Changed the Western World and the Face of Science Forever.")
The story itself is more than good enough not to need any of the flash. In brief, Westerners discovered the platypus in 1798. It wasn't until nearly a century later that they fully understood and confirmed that it's young hatched from eggs. The length of time was not for lack of interest. Platypuses were a major source of fascination and effort both for the more theoretically inclined naturalists in London and Paris and their more practical counterparts in Australia. Instead, the length of time it took to make this discovery was largely about preconceived notions about taxonomy and pre-Darwinian ideas about species, especially dominated by ideas from Richard Owens (who famously referred to Darwin as the "Devil's Chaplin.") The theory of evolution helped unlock the frozen perception, allowing people to stop looking for pregnant platypuses and to take Aboroginal "legends" more seriously. Also slowing the process was how elusive and finicky the creature itself is.
While telling this story, the book elucidates several aspects in the history of science, the relationship between London science and outer areas like Australia, and ultimately the riddle of the platypus was solved by amateurs giving way to professional scientists.
It took another century to discover that the platypus has literally evolved a sixth sense -- being able to detect electrical impulses, using them to hunt in dark water. A useful reminder that it is not a more "primitive" animal but has evolved just as long as humans have....more
The best, most up-to-date volume I've read on what recent genetic analysis tells us about human origins, pre-history, language, evolution over the lasThe best, most up-to-date volume I've read on what recent genetic analysis tells us about human origins, pre-history, language, evolution over the last 10,000 years, and several other important questions. It begins with the story of how the origins of human clothing were dated -- by figuring out when hair lice and body lice diverged from each other. An excellent synthesis and well written....more
It wasn't until I was thirty-eight years old that I learned there was no such thing as fish. Specifically, the most recent common ancestor of sharks, It wasn't until I was thirty-eight years old that I learned there was no such thing as fish. Specifically, the most recent common ancestor of sharks, lambreys and salmon is also an ancestor of snakes, bats, and pigeons. And in some cases what we call "fish" are actually more closely related to mammals (via our ancestor that made its way out of the water) than they are to salmon.
So when I saw a book that began with a chapter on the death of fish I was intrigued. This book is a history of taxonomy, from Carl Linnaeus to the raging cladists. But more interestingly, it is about the evolutionary biology of our taxonomical abilities. Specifically, being able to tell edible from non-edible, threatening from non, etc., confers an evolutionary advantage -- and thus our ability to classify nature is something that we share with many animals and has evolved.
The thesis of the book is that the history of taxonomy is the struggle between abstract science and our instincts. And that the death of fish is the ultimate blow to our instincts. Personally, I think this is what makes science exciting, substituting rigor for instinct. And parallels (in a much simpler fashion) the way the general relativity and quantum mechanics force us to think in ways that are deeply contradictory to the macroscopic world we live in.
Yoon, however, seems to think that going against our instincts is the problem with taxonomy. And more strangely, that our mistreatment of the environment is somehow related to taxonomy becoming increasingly divorced from our instincts -- whether or not the vast majority of the population even know that was happening.
This isn't the main reason I only gave the book 3-1/2 stars. Largely that is because it was overly repetitive and superficial. All that said, the overall thesis and the first chapter were intriguing enough that I don't regret reading it....more
Not the book for me and I'm not exactly sure who it is for. I was hoping for a book about astrobiology. I got that. But also got short introduction toNot the book for me and I'm not exactly sure who it is for. I was hoping for a book about astrobiology. I got that. But also got short introduction to just about everything in science, whether or not it was relevant to the topic, from dark matter to evolution to geology to the multiverse. As a result I didn't learn much.
That said, the book is comprehensive and the chapters on the solar system and the search for extra solar planets are reasonably interesting....more
Overwritten, did not feel reliable, too much was repeating the standard story, develops fully the notion that genetic evolution is ongoing and has plaOverwritten, did not feel reliable, too much was repeating the standard story, develops fully the notion that genetic evolution is ongoing and has played a role not just in the origins of humans but in their prehistory and even history....more
Not the most original book, but then again you might have guessed that from a book that repeats the title of a classic 60 year old book and has chapteNot the most original book, but then again you might have guessed that from a book that repeats the title of a classic 60 year old book and has chapters that repeat the titles of some classic papers (e.g., The Spandrels of Saint Marco).
But it is a thoughtful, excellent, enjoyable, if occasionally journalist, overview of the title question. And most important it is completely up-to-date, having been published this year (2008) and including substantial reflections motivated by recent progress in synthetic biology.
At 173 pages it is worth reading it yourself. And if you don...more
I had been meaning to read this for a long time. The book is not nearly as exciting as it must have been in the 1940s, many of the ideas are reasonablI had been meaning to read this for a long time. The book is not nearly as exciting as it must have been in the 1940s, many of the ideas are reasonably familiar. And some of the interest one gets is watching Schrodinger grope around the concept of Gene's and digital, discrete information without the benefit of knowing about DNA and how it functions. But other than mistaking the source of gene's for a protein, he did not miss much and another 60 years of molecular biology would have added relatively little to his analysis.
All that said, the careful, methodical reasoning from first principles about how biology should ultimately be explicable from first principles was still very exciting. That and learning that some restaurants in the 30s and 40s actually printed calories on the menu. Which Schrodinger objects to, pointing out that our existence is premised not on the consumption of calories but the absorption of negative entropy....more
The table of contents was not promising. The book promises the ten "most" beautiful experiments but doesn't have Rutherford discovering the nucleus? BThe table of contents was not promising. The book promises the ten "most" beautiful experiments but doesn't have Rutherford discovering the nucleus? But it does have Galvani chopping up frogs to find out if they transmit electricity.
But as I read, I came to appreciate Johnson's idiosyncratic selections. Rather than reading the Nth treatment of classic experiments, he presents some very interesting and well-told vignettes. Especially of Galvani and the frogs. And Pavlov, who turns out to have loved his dogs.
Still, some of the vignettes, like Harvey Lavosier, were less engaging. And at some point, and this is a comment about the entire science history genre, you just do not want to spend the amount of effort the books requires to try to understand theories of two fluids pumped by the heart, phlogiston, and caloric just to learn how they were discovered to be wrong.
A final thought: someone should write a book on ten experiments that failed -- and discovered something much more important as a result. Michelson and Morley would be in it, not sure the other nine, which is why someone should write it....more
An outstanding book, highly recommended. I loved his Parasite Rex years ago and this is much better than that book -- or at least than my memory of thAn outstanding book, highly recommended. I loved his Parasite Rex years ago and this is much better than that book -- or at least than my memory of that book. It is an intensive look at E. coli, everything from the details of how we have learned about it, how it functions, how it has evolved, what we understand about it genetics, the role it plays in normal human functioning and human disease, how it is being used to produce new proteins and provide the basis for synthetic life.
All along the way you get to feel like you know E. coli (albeit with a bit too much anthropomorphizing at times) and are getting an illuminating window into a number of subjects, some familiar and some unfamiliar. Much more successful than many "how the tricycle changed the world" types of books....more
It would be quite pleasant to spend an evening in the company of Segre. Although I enjoyed Faust in Copenhagen more, this conveyed much of the same paIt would be quite pleasant to spend an evening in the company of Segre. Although I enjoyed Faust in Copenhagen more, this conveyed much of the same passion and interest. Exploring the role of temperature in everything from biology to oosmology was an interesting concept. It makes me want to read a book on archaea....more
The title and cover warrant five stars. But the rest of the book was more like three and a half stars. I particularly enjoyed the descriptions of the The title and cover warrant five stars. But the rest of the book was more like three and a half stars. I particularly enjoyed the descriptions of the scientific process and how paleontologists go about finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. I also liked the way the author brought together paleontology, genetics, and embryology into a coherent story. Some of the particular topics, like that anatomy of hands and teeth were fascinating.
But going through each aspect of our anatomy, bit by bit, with relatively little analytic content (or at least not much that was new to me) could drag at times. And there wasn't nearly as much to take away from the book as there was from, for example, Sean Carroll's Making of the Fittest....more
Loading...
