Sign in with Facebook
Bradley's Reviews > The Gene: An Intimate History
The Gene: An Intimate History
by
by
Thanks goes to Netgalley and a wonderful author for a wonderfully told series of stories within the world of genetics.
I was worried, briefly, by the insistence of bringing Aristotle's take on the genome, or the recapitulation of many of the grandfathers of the science, such as Mendel and Darwin, but the way that these otherwise well-known personages were brought alive to the page was more of a story than a dry recounting. Even so, I wasn't prepared for what was soon to come.
I became engrossed in the history of American Eugenics, and even more so in Germany's frightful improvements, all of which painted the history of the science in quite a dark, and ignorant, light.
Fortunately for all of us, Crick, Watson, and Ferdinand come out swinging and we can see this all as a heroic step forward... even considering the fact that Ferdinand never got to see her work truly recognized.
From here on out, we've got truly wonderful tales of Beck and the birth of recombinant DNA, scientists self-policing, the rise of multinational bio-engineering firms, AIDS, gene therapies, genome mapping, and of course cloning and stem-cell blocking, and each and every one of these stories are bright and very readable.
And what's more, it's always informative and it's always interesting. It even draws us in to the author's own deep and emotional familial history and his own drive to understand.
I'll make no bones about it: I was moved.
I've read more than a handful of books on genetics in the past, and while some were quite good and some were sometimes mesmerizingly boring, I think this one has got to be the most readable, grab you on the human level, and most in depth survey of the entire field that I've ever read.
So many disparate characteristics managed to encode the proteins of the narrative, and no one could be happier than me to see such a healthy and shining phenotypical expression be borne from a popular book. It's classy and smart. Very smart. In fact, it's pretty much a must-have if you're a science-history buff bringing us up to the cutting-edge present and want a few questions for the future. :)
I was worried, briefly, by the insistence of bringing Aristotle's take on the genome, or the recapitulation of many of the grandfathers of the science, such as Mendel and Darwin, but the way that these otherwise well-known personages were brought alive to the page was more of a story than a dry recounting. Even so, I wasn't prepared for what was soon to come.
I became engrossed in the history of American Eugenics, and even more so in Germany's frightful improvements, all of which painted the history of the science in quite a dark, and ignorant, light.
Fortunately for all of us, Crick, Watson, and Ferdinand come out swinging and we can see this all as a heroic step forward... even considering the fact that Ferdinand never got to see her work truly recognized.
From here on out, we've got truly wonderful tales of Beck and the birth of recombinant DNA, scientists self-policing, the rise of multinational bio-engineering firms, AIDS, gene therapies, genome mapping, and of course cloning and stem-cell blocking, and each and every one of these stories are bright and very readable.
And what's more, it's always informative and it's always interesting. It even draws us in to the author's own deep and emotional familial history and his own drive to understand.
I'll make no bones about it: I was moved.
I've read more than a handful of books on genetics in the past, and while some were quite good and some were sometimes mesmerizingly boring, I think this one has got to be the most readable, grab you on the human level, and most in depth survey of the entire field that I've ever read.
So many disparate characteristics managed to encode the proteins of the narrative, and no one could be happier than me to see such a healthy and shining phenotypical expression be borne from a popular book. It's classy and smart. Very smart. In fact, it's pretty much a must-have if you're a science-history buff bringing us up to the cutting-edge present and want a few questions for the future. :)
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Gene.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 28, 2016
– Shelved
March 28, 2016
– Shelved as:
to-read
April 15, 2016
–
Started Reading
April 16, 2016
– Shelved as:
non-fiction
April 16, 2016
– Shelved as:
science
April 16, 2016
–
Finished Reading
December 31, 2016
– Shelved as:
2016-shelf
Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Choko
(new)
-
added it
Apr 16, 2016 11:54PM
Great review!!! You totally sold me on the book!
reply
|
flag
Thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I'm not quite sure I like the science field as it is today compared to how it used to be, simply because it seems we have grown too complacent (it just seems like our quite comfortable lives result in us not feeling the urge to make groundbreaking discoveries the way it happened with penicillin or Darwin's tree of life). However, there are still some great scientists out there, I'm sure. And may, just maybe, discoveries are still possible - either despite the influence of pharmaceutical companies or after we have taken power away from them (yes, I can dream).
I don't think you'll wind up feeling discouraged at all if you read this one. I'm actually optimistic. I like the fact that China is disregarding all the safeties when it comes to the general moratorium and is putting pressure on the west to get off our asses and do some SCIENCE again. (Or we'll be left in the dust.) Cloning and real Chimeras, here we come! :)Btw, it's all apparently a lot easier to accomplish now that ever. We have all the tools. We have the minds. We can Build Him. We can Make Him Better. oh wait, that's the million dollar man... :)
*lol* I loved that show when I was a kid!I hope that competition will force us to get off our asses. Right now I'm really not seeing it and it makes me very sad. We could accomplish so much more if it wasn't for corporations controlling everything (or if they finally discovered that investments in that sector would be good for their profits as well).
...
Reminds me of Titanborn. *lol*
The idiocy inherent in corporation-controlled genes will disappear when competition that doesn't give a shit about the patent office starts outstripping the "establishment".It's a whole nation of pirates! What do they care? Of course, we DO need to worry about gene-line contagions, but with the greater knowledge comes better means to deal with it. I'm actually rather excited by what we're already able to do. Not just the new discovery of malaria being a great cancer manager, but the fact that we can rewrite our own code through custom viruses. It's not just a generational thing. :) I'd love to see gene therapy come back. One death in 1999 and the whole thing is shut down despite all the good it can still accomplish. Grrr. We need a fire lit up under our asses. :)
Brad wrote: "The idiocy inherent in corporation-controlled genes will disappear when competition that doesn't give a shit about the patent office starts outstripping the "establishment". "IF that ever happens. I guess hope, as ever, dies last.
Brad wrote: "I'd love to see gene therapy come back. One death in 1999 and the whole thing is shut down despite all the good it can still accomplish. Grrr. We need a fire lit up under our asses. :)"
Yup. I heard someone actually making a case with this happening, gun control and the internet. The theory was that in some sectors, people are trying to shut everything down after one mistake (like in 1999 with gene therapy); in other cases they want to ban everything (guns); and in others (like being able to get the recipe for a Molotov cocktail off the internet which a kid in Germany did so he could go berserk in a school since he had no access to guns) we're not really doing anything. The lecture was on the subject of perception (influenced by media in part), and education becoming less and less because we're too lazy since we can always google everything (the point was also that the internet is great but the bad side effect is that people don't value that kind of access to information as they should). The second point was that we need to come to terms with the fact that there is no 100% safety and that banishing everything won't help (much like the prohibition).
...
I'm rambling again. Sorry!
So much information and yet ignorance is still so rampant? No one is as blind as those who will not see? Never underestimate the power of human stupidity? Blame Obama?:) ramble on
I'm of the opinion that Knowledge Must Propagate. People can still use chairs to bash in the heads of loved ones. It doesn't matter if the plans for printing out a gun is out there. People are still people. We can only solve the problems by addressing root causes, and we can't do that without KNOWLEDGE. :)
*lol* "Blame Obama"?But that reminds me of a hilariously stupid thing he once said. Apparently his wife said that if they lived in Iowa she would want a gun too. How stupid is that?! Maybe it was meant in a funny way but think about the gun control issue in the US - Why should someone in Iowa have a reason to want a gun but someone in, say, New York City not?! Also, as far as I know, the Obamas are strictly pro gun control but then they go on record and say something like that?!
I'm not against Obama as a President per se, he had a few good ideas, was held back by too much compromise and the Senat, but this is just stupid and not helping the issue.
For me, as a German, watching the US regrding this topic is kind of difficult. On one hand, their gun laws are the stark opposite of ours - on the other hand, I would want less strict gun laws here.
I'm 100% you about education and knowledge (that goes for guns, sex ed, all kinds of science, history, politics, everything)!
Well what she said is perfectly understandable in the context of US politics, unfortunately. Iowa is something of a lynchpin, predicting practically everything that eventually happens in the elections, so they're courted to death. "No one in Iowa could Possibly Be Wrong, syndrome." So if she wants to pander, I understand it. I don't condone it, but I understand it. Plus, so much of rural america likes to define themselves by the guns they own, so it's actually perfectly normal and culturally acceptable, like smoking used to be, and for the same status symbolism. If you live in Iowa, regardless of politics, all the locals will probably look at you strange and shun you if you don't have a gun. So again, it's understandable, and I don't think I'd ever ever ever ever like to live there. :)What's Germany's laws on printing a gun with a 3d printer? lol
Though you and I rarely read Tempe same books, I always find your reviews fascinating. This is definitely a must-read for me. Thanks for the review!
Hah! *rarely read the same books.* Mental note: must proofread before posting, especially when using my phone!
Brad wrote: "What's Germany's laws on printing a gun with a 3d printer? lol"Simple. Not allowed. The law doesn't say anything about 3D printed material (yet) but we have a nationwide ban on ANY gun.
What? Your phone doesn't read your mind and intentions? I love Apple's telepathic interface. :)...And it's entirely my pleasure! :
So the big question is, Trish, is Germany steeped in an SK-like oppression filled with fear, anger, and an unexploded gasoline atmosphere? If yes, then be thankful for the ban. If no, then Don't Be Jealous. :)
The thing is, I'm against bans of any sort. Is the atmosphere getting worse? Yes, I believe so. By the minute in fact. But I know too many cases in which people were severely hurt or even killed because help was not there soon enough. The risk of gun deaths can be controlled through education. I believe that. I'm not saying the US is doing it right. I think a balance should be found. We're always told what we do and do not "need" and I hate it.
Well guns aren't the disease, but desiring them is absolutely a symptom. Like the fact that everyone feels like they absolutely need it to feel safe. *sigh* my mother is nearly 75 and a few years ago decided she needed to learn to shoot and own a few guns, which she now keeps in her house. How is this a good thing?
How is it a risk if she learns to handle them?! Take Switzerland for example: the have less strict laws than Germany but stricter laws that the US - young and old have guns and they are not murdering each other in the streets. Same goes for many other countries. I think the phobia is just as much a danger/symptom as those people who want guns because "it's cool".Of course idiots like the guy in Chicago who left his loaded pistol on the living room table where his toddler picked it up and hot his 5-year-old brother with should be beaten to a pulp. But they are not all THAT common. And as Germany is proof: even with a total ban people can get some form of weapon to kill others with.
I'm am pro gun education - everyone allowed to own a gun should be required to pass a test and repeat that test (maybe once a year). But I don't see the harm in the gun itself.
But in fact, Switzerland has a huge safety net and actually cares for its people. No matter how they complain about inequalities or prejudice, it's like quebec complaining about its conservative party, I just want to yell at them... "You know NOTHING, Son!"America hasn't even imploded yet, and yet I was watching people stockpile munitions, joining private armies, turning every home into heavily armed fortresses and everyone distrusting everyone. It's why I'm so glad I left. It was toxic as hell. I actually understand why people like Trump.
They want to tear their world down.
Do I sound hysterical? lol I just nod and accept the news every time I hear that another "random" shooting against co-workers and strangers has happened. This is me being completely unsurprised.
But we were talking about gun laws only. That has nothing to do with the safety net. Of course the US has a horrible social system (which is funny, considering their argument against a better system is that it would cost too much although they have the biggest and richest economy). The thing is, not long ago we had a post office worker who got into work carrying a katana sword and killing his colleagues. Turns out they were bullying him. Are we banning swords now too?
What about drunken drivers? Or just reckless drivers who are sober? You see where I'm going with this?
Yes, the US might be too krass an example but the opposite isn't better. Extremes never are. You cannot ban everything. You shouldn't.
No, I suppose not. Freedom of ideas and Freedom to build yourself a category four contagion in your basement IS really the same thing. :)(Don't argue that I'm making an absurd argument! lol)
Seriously though, everything boils down to people. If people are allowed to live rationally, they behave rationally. Banning anything generally makes people irrational and you know how kids get when you Forbid them a thing. :)
Exactly.So don't forbid it, educate people of all ages and hope for the best. There will always be someone doing something stupid or something just going wrong (like the gene therapy) but should we therefore give up the whole bloody concept? I think not.
And hey, bunkers will come in handy during the zombie apocalypse. Just you wait. ;)
My daughter is an ICU nurse and reads all of these narrative - type science books that I can buy her- however I knew the author sounded familiar. I bought her The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, I'll have to see if she likes his style...
I'm probably going to have to pick up that title, too. He IS an good writer. :)
