 |
|
Title: When Science Goes Wrong
ISBN: 0452289327
Author:
Simon LeVay
Publicate Date: 2008-03-25
Publish: 2008-03-25
List Price: $15.00
Average Customer Rating: 4.0
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $2.95
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $2.81
Amazon Merchant Price: $10.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: My growing reading list from "The Daily Show"
It seems like the majority of books I am reading these days are authors who are on "The Daily Show". I really enjoyed this book. I usually read fiction but these vignettes are so surreal that it is hard to believe they actually happened.
|
2: Science and Human Failings
This is a fascinating book. The author describes twelve instances, one per chapter, where scientists' work has resulted in some form of disaster. The scientific fields in which such incidents are presented include medical/biological disciplines, earth sciences, nuclear sciences, space science and psychology. In many of these cases the author shows how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. It is clear from this book that the many scientific advances that we hear about regularly are peppered by a few serious fiascoes -often involving human error. The only way that I can envisage improving this book (or a sequel) is to include a few simple sketches or diagrams in the chapters where detailed descriptions of physical items are presented; this would greatly help the reader to better visualize that particular item and thus possibly better understand the nature of the disaster. The writing style is clear, friendly, accessible, authoritative and quite engaging. This book can be enjoyed by anyone, but science buffs as well as those who are particularly interested in the potential shortcomings of the science/human interface may appreciate it the most.
|
3: A good book to read
It's a type of book that keep you saying "That really happen". A good buy.
|
4: Outstanding read
A most enjoyable book. I read other books of this author and have always been
fascinated by his literary style, but in this book the author outdid
himself. Because the stories told in this book lend themselves to mix personal
and scientific aspects, they read like a thriller, but a highly informative
one. The chapters span a wide range of topics relating to science, engineering
and technology, so that there is something for everybody. However, despite the
variety of subjects covered, there is a clear unifying theme: scientists, and
people with highly technical occupations, are as human as everybody else. They
make mistakes, are moved by noble and less noble motives, and have careers to
worry about. In each chapter the author effortlessy switches between the
description of technical issues and the emotions and conflicts of the people
around that issue. It is this mixture that makes the book so enjoyable and
accessible to everyone. Technical details are never presented as dry facts, but
always firmly attached to some key event in the story, and personal details are
always offered to provide a natural context for the more technical aspects. One
aspect of this book which I really appreciated is that it got me interested in
things which, at first look, seemed not terribly exciting, like Mary Tudor's
study of stuttering in orphans, which took place in pre World War 2 Iowa. As the
story in question and the characters became more developed I could see the
orphanage and Mary Tudor in my mind, and started asking myself questions on
ethics and motives which trascended the specific topic. I highly recommend this
book to anyone with an inquisitive mind. The author has an impeccable reputation
for his thourough research, and he clearly conducted an impressive series of
interviews in developing the material for this book. Combined with his mastery
of the English language this led to an excellent product, which makes for a very
satisfying read.
|
5: Disappointing.
This book was a major disappointment. I'd seen an interview with the author on "The Daily Show" and wasn't that impressed, but bought the book anyway because of the promise inherent in its subject matter. Sadly, that promise remains largely unfulfilled in this pedestrian, and often irritating, effort by LeVay. The book is arranged in twelve chapters, each considering a specific instance of what LeVay deems to be 'scientific failure'. These specific aspects of the book bothered me:
1. Several vignettes (e.g. the 1928 St Francis dam break, a 1961 nuclear reactor explosion at the Idaho National Laboratory) clearly deal with *engineering*, rather than scientific, failures. But throughout the book, LeVay makes little distinction among science, engineering, and technology, which makes the title misleading.
2. "I had hoped to find out more about this from Tudor herself but ... she had died a few weeks earlier"
"Dyer ... seems to have disappeared from public view"
"Williams ... didn't respond to my requests for an interview"
The book is studded with this kind of admission. Failure to represent all points of view adequately may be inevitable in an exercise like this, and LeVay does acknowledge this difficulty. Nonetheless, the reader is left with some niggling doubts about his credibility. In a story about an experiment conducted almost 70 years ago, to miss obtaining testimony of the main protagonist by three weeks seems unfortunate, to say the least. And in almost every chapter, it seems, LeVay is forced to admit that testimony of at least one key person was unavailable.
3. One chapter, about the 'failure' of the BBC Met Office to predict a severe storm in 1988 has no discernibly useful comment to make about science, except maybe that computer weather prediction models are often inadequate. But it does give the unsettling impression that LeVay constructed a 'story' where none existed, then collected a bunch of selective quotes to buttress his preformed prejudices. Several times I found myself wondering about LeVay's status as a neutral observer, not the feeling one wants to come away with after reading a book like this. Similarly, the reason for including a vignette about a patient with late-stage Parkinson's disease, who flies to China for fetal-implant surgery forbidden in the U.S., with predictably disastrous consequences, is murky. What point is LeVay trying to make - that submitting to experimental surgery under poor supervision in an inadequately equipped facility is a bad idea? Well, duh! This type of pandering to lurid curiosity seemed better suited to World Weekly News than to a serious book.
4. Maddeningly, in several vignettes, one feels that an opportunity was missed to write a far more interesting story. A story about confusion of units leading to the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter and its aftermath suggests at least two more interesting possibilities: an analysis of the culture at NASA which made such errors possible, even likely, or a discussion of the high prevalence (with often deadly consequences) of serious dosing errors in U.S. hospitals. Similarly, LeVay's account of the death of Jesse Gelsinger in the now-infamous gene therapy trial at U. Penn was an even-handed presentation of the facts of the case, but left me wishing for a more illuminating discussion of its implications. The reader is left with the impression that the case dealt a death blow to the future of gene therapy (which seems unlikely). Several interesting questions raised by the case are left largely unexamined, e.g.:
* how scientific ambition can corrupt the scientific process
* the potentially destructive hegemony of the status quo in the biomedical and scientific establishment
* direct funding of clinical research by pharmaceutical companies and associated issues
* the appropriate balance of risk and caution in the regulation of biomedical research
Pointing out cases where things have gone wrong is necessary and useful. But ultimately, unless it fuels a discussion of how things can be improved in the future, it starts to feel like a slightly smug exercise in playing Gotcha! LeVay's idiosyncratic selection of case studies, his conflation of science, technology, and engineering, as well as a repeated failure to explore the more interesting questions raised by his examples combine to make this book a real disappointment.
|
|
|
|
|
