Why Is He Wasting His Time on Nano Science?
596294
"Spiral" is the debut novel from Paul McEuen, a scientist, and a professor of physics at Cornell University, in Ithaca, a small city in upstate New York.  The novel is set at Cornell, and in the Ithaca region of the State.  McEuen has been a well-appreciated scientist, too: he has received numerous awards for his research, including the Agilent Technologies Europhysics Prize, a Packard Fellowship, and a Presidential Young Investigator Award.  He has chosen to set his debut in worlds he knows very well; science, Cornell, and the Ithaca area, and believe me, he has created a corker of a thriller.

The Irish-born Liam Connor--an 86-year-old Cornell emeritus professor of biology, a Nobel Prize winner, a veteran of World War II, and a diminutive man who is a giant in the field of nanoscience--inexplicably jumps to his death off Cornell's famous Suspension Bridge, falling  into one of Ithaca's characteristic beautiful gorges. The community, academic and local, is stunned, as they knew no reason why the scientist should wish to kill himself.  His granddaughter, Maggie, and great-grandson, nine-year old Dylan, take the news especially hard, as does his academic confidant, the younger professor Jake Sterling, whom I believe we can consider McEuen's alter ego . Soon, however, micro-robots--tiny silicon and metal machines that Connor helped develop, are found in his stomach.  This leads to the realization that Connor did not commit suicide, but, rather, was tortured and about to be murdered.  Maggie, Jake and Dylan race against a ruthless, sadistic, Chinese, female assassin, who likes to call herself Orchid, to figure out what's happening, and prevent a scary doomsday scenario.  Eventually they realize the hunt is about an ingenious biological "doomsday weapon" with origins all the way back to WWII Japan; it's a secret Connor has kept for 60 years.

To quote the famed Anglo-American film director Alfred Hitchcock, (<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Vertigo-Collector-s-Edition/dp/0783226055/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Vertigo (Collector's Edition)</a>,<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/North-by-Northwest/dp/0790749815/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">North by Northwest</a>), McEuen, first time out of the box, has created a powerful Macguffin (defined by Hitchcock as the thing that the struggle in a thriller is about).  The science cited in the book is all apparently accurate.  Not only that, but it apparently might have been historically accurate: the weapon was supposedly created in Japan's top-secret Unit #371 facility, the covert biological warfare unit of the Imperial Army,  based near Harbin, Manchuria.  This unit was guilty of the most horrendous of war crimes, against prisoners of war, and Chinese civilians: apparently played down by the United States Government after the war, in order to benefit from the tainted, blood stained research.

McEuen has just done a superior job: the science - and we get quite a bit of it-- is true to life and ably explained; the narrative is swift and engrossing; the dialog is fine; the descriptions of Cornell, and Ithaca, flora and fauna are fine - and I'm a Cornell graduate.  I've only a few quibbles.  Most importantly, Asians may wish that the author did not choose to make Orchid, a dragon lady if ever there was one, Chinese: he's sailing a little too close to a negative stereotype in so doing.  And for heaven's sake, what's McEuen doing wasting his time on nanoscience when he can write a thriller like this right out of the box?  And how can I give him an extra star for all the well-done Cornelliana, when I already have to give him five stars?
1902732
This guy is a real phony don't waste your time reading this unless you love to be bamboozled by pseudoscience.
1139570
I lost interest in this repetitive, boring, sci-fi series. The writer seemed to have become lazy and just pulled miracles as needed with his nanobots, frameworks, vac-suits, God-particlewhatEver.
488851
I suppose his past body of work sets expectations too high.  Sadly, this is a true waste of invaluable time.
2184904
Let's me say first that I'm 100% pro-evolution, and that abiogenesis is what attracted me to this book. I was seeking an explanation that is either fundamental by itself and based upon some empirical data, or another based on advances of known origin-of-life theories like the "RNA-world".
Unfortunately, the book delivers neither.
As another reviewer pointed out already, De Duve divulges the reader into the basics of cell biology; a nice introduction of life chemistry, proteins, RNA, DNA, enzymes and such.
De Duve then spends few chapters on paving the way from a pre biotic world to one that is dominated by protocells. He believes that proteins are a by-product of RNA and therefore RNA must have preceded proteins. Judging by the complexity of RNA, he postulates that peptide bonds _somehow_ formed among amino acids with the help of what he calls "multimers" (amino acids among other things), and those short peptides could have played the role of a primitive catalyst.
What De Duve fails to provide through out his book is data + examples. To convince any reader with the possibility of such event, common wisdom dictates a minimum amount of experimental data to support the "building" blocks of his hypothesis.
In 1997, Ghadri group synthesized a peptide ligase. That is, a self-replicating 32 amino-acid long peptide. It is the constant lack of evidence that makes Du Duve arguments weak.
Then he says that ATP and other NTPs _somehow_ arose, and the discussion for their "existence" is beyond the scope of the book. Then our catalyst peptide forms an RNA-like structure from ATP and others. Then he says that many bases were initially bound, not just A, U, G, and C. But once we had a "rare" RNA with A, U, G, C, it is _somehow_ more stable and more reproducible. De Duve does not really discuss why he believes this is the case, other than it must be because this is what we have now.
In one occasion, De Duve says "Admittedly, this is all hypothetical. But the hypothesis rests on undeniable foundations and has the advantage of suggesting experimental approaches". He made it clear on several occasions than many areas of pre biotic chemistry lack experimentation despite their significance in origin-of-life research. After suggesting an experiment, he concludes "This is what I would do if I were 20 years younger".
De Duve then goes on to explain how the RNA led eventually to proteins (RNA attaches itself to some amino acids, and using the RNA itself as a catalyst, we form protein). And that once we had proteins, life needed cells at that stage to compete and protocells were created. The RNA made proteins, and RNA that made better proteins for the cell survived and got duplicated. The cell at this has some rudimentary membrane, and can replicate itself via division.
What he skipped is how such membrane forms, why it forms, and how the division process in this protocell exactly takes place.
I really wished that De Duve paid more attention to such critical details. Different people might read the book for different reasons, I read it for the goal of gaining an understanding on abiogenesis. Being a strong believer in abiogenesis myself, I was quite enthusiastic when I began reading the book. However, skepticism over Duve's take on abiogensis kept growing as I read more chapters.
Unfortunately, I lost faith in his approach to this critical issue.
1328235
Tyler Cowen's essay "The Great Stagnation", was a thoughtful and enjoyable read. However, perhaps for the sake of brevity, he left out major ideas and topics that are important to me.  Actually, I think he left them out on purpose based on his own political inclinations which are pretty easy to spot.

Nowhere in the book does Cowan make a reference to energy.  Is there any sector that is more important to the local, national, or global economy?  He doesn't discuss governmental energy policy, increasing reliance on foreign sources of energy, or the power of large energy corporations.  If "low-hanging fruit" are to be found or created, this hugely important sector will probably be the source.

It doesn't seem to be a problem for Cowen that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing or that an ever increasing percentage of our national wealth is owned by an ever decreasing percentage of Americans.  But he does note that the rich pay a large percentage of the overall tax revenue!  My impression is that Cowan believes it's okay to be poor as long as the fruit hang low. But "a rising tide lifts all boats" philosophy doesn't necessarily create equality of opportunity.  To have that, you have to want it and purposefully pursue it.

Cowen loves markets: market valuation of productivity gains is a major theme early in the book.  However, I'm convinced there are non-market solutions to many of today's economic problems that, while they may not create low-hanging fruit, they will lower the tree a foot or two so some of the higher-hanging fruit can be reached.  Yes, I'm talking about socialized health care, nationalized energy, and banks as publicly-owned utilities.

There are more misses, but I want to mention a big hit.  I completely agree with Cowen's assessment that science and scientists are enormously undervalued in American culture today.  Actually the situation is worse; there is a palpable anti-scientific sentiment that often asserts itself publicly and boldly.

By the way, Cowen actually mentions Ayn Rand in the essay!  No one of intellectual rigor mentions Ayn Rand and expects to be taken seriously! Why did he do that?  Why?
3829902
The book Tim Ferriss wanted to write and couldn't because he doesn't know half as much as Ben knows.  To have all the overwhelming amount of data it has, You read it as if it was a novel. It should be called "become superhuman without BS shortcuts"
3008420
More abstract than his first.  If you are more interested in mechanics and practical applications of physics, you might look elsewhere.  For endless, weird yet incredible possibilities in the realm of multi-dimensional physics, this is for you.
2255789
Alas, this guy has more ideas than literary talent; s mny in fact that the reader starts to feel like he's listening to someone who talks too fast for fesr thst if he doesn't pile it on you might have time to see what confused bore he is.
2716095
Wells reasoning is intellectually equivalent to a rejection of modern physics based on the refutation of explanations to pre-schoolers of how the sun shines or the deficiencies of "True Science" sections in 1950s comicbooks.
Perhaps his next undertaking will be to refute organic chemistry because phlogiston is still mentioned in many high-school texts.
It's a shame that the most gullible and science deficient will be waylaid by this irrelevent, fallacious account.
Wells tells the largest "silent" lie: all of his "icons" are antiquated fringes disseminated by a poor scholastic system and lazy textbook publishers.
3715704
The author is an accomplished young scientist, who I believe was trying a little too hard to write an "accessible" book. The result is a high-level treatment of an admittedly complex topic, but one which doesn't carry the impact that his professional credentials could have delivered.

Much of the content of this book has already been published here and there in Journal articles and other websites -- I didn't read anything very new, in fact. At some point nanotechnology books will progress past the "Imagine if you could write THE WHOLE ENCYCLOPEDIA on the head of a pin!" scenario that Richard Feynman presented so neatly back in the 1950's.

This book takes a "let's re-create Greta Garbo at the molecular level" scenario as a jumping off point, which I found not only inappropriate, but just plain creepy. The author also strains for a feeling of hipness, or perhaps attempts to talk down to sixth-grade readers, and presents tortured metaphors at the close of paragraphs. If a photon needs to be nurtured and protected in captivity, then "Light is a panda."  Yes, the metaphors really ARE that stupid in this book. Sad.

Here's to Ted's next book being better. One gets the feeling he is out for self-promotion as much as scientific progress: witness his web site.  He may also have a Napoleon complex going on: witness the extreme up-angle on his publicity photo (which mirrors the up-angle on his nose). Vertically challenged, are we Ted? It is easy to be a giant if your field is nanotech!
4435368
This book is a self-published ("Znidarsic Science Books" indeed) collection of nonsense that would not be published by any reputable organization. If this loon had the courage of his convictions, then he would submit a paper to the Journal of Applied Physics for peer review, or present his ideas to a university physics department. He won't do either one of those things because they would all laugh at him. If his ideas had any merit whatsoever, then someone smarter than this knucklehead would have figured them out a long time ago. Who are you gonna believe, Einstein, Fermi, Hawking and the other geniuses of 20th and 21st century physics, or this loon?
1727948
Mr. Tyson has a nice speaking voice and manner, but he is certainly no replacement for Carl Sagan.  The topics covered are arranged very poorly, and he jumps from astronomy to physics to biology to anthropology and to history in a most disconcerting way.  Most viewers would, I'm sure, much prefer a more linear approach, as in The History of the World in Two Hours.  Tyson's presentation is at about a 10th grade level, give or take.  He doesn't hide his Leftist political views, making it clear that he believes in anthropogenic global warming, even though the data has been fudged and there has been no warming for 17 years!  His comparison of the Earth's situation with that of Venus amounts to almost scientific malpractice; he is oblivious to the carbon cycle and the negative feedback loop involving CO2:  the more CO2, the more food, the more plants, the more animals, the less CO2.  In addition, he spouts the usual "modern physics" nonsense of the nuclear theory of the atom, the illogic of Quantum Mechanics, and the absurdity of the Big Bang, black holes, and worm holes.  All in all, I cannot recommend this work.  You would be better off reading the Random House Encyclopedia, with all of its illustrations (if not videos), and which is very, very nicely organized, then slogging through this series of videos.
3915946
Don't be fooled! This is junk science. Oops you forgot your reference list. How convenient. A major blunder for any reputable scientist, which the author is not. Check out how many PEER reviewed publications he has in high impact journals in this area of research. The answer would be NONE!
1803431
The first two chapters I found to be interesting, particularly the equation of evolution with technology.  After that intial proposition was flushed out I found the book to be boring. I am not at all against the  progress of technology, but I found his answers against the misuse of the  technology lacking. And while his industry knowledge is varied, and his  attempts into philosphy interesting overall he does not address several key  issues.  I fear his optimistic world-view of the future is rooted in an  illusion of the present world-situation for more than 4 billion people in  countries where the technological power of the latest Pentium XIIII billion  is not the driving force.  If he is right about the inevitablity and  increasingly rapid march of technology (and I think he is) I should hope  that there is an equal increasingly rapid march of humanism.  His typical  answer seems to be that "in the future technology will solve ...  X".  Historically not only has that sort of thinking been determential  to those of the current generation who are simply used to fuel some utopia  of the next,  but it betrays the power of the vision that he holds.  In  short he is on to something, he is smart man who understands technology in  a very organic and useful way, but there is so much more that could have  been addressed.  To that effect considering the space he take to flesh out  his predictions, and then essentially restate them, or plug his own  innovations, it hardly seems a pragmatic matter but one simply based a lack  of will.  Which seems to me the scarest prospect of all.
2751677
As near as I can tell the author deplores encroachment of science and scientists into Religion, Sociology and Romanticism. He claims that scientists are ignorant of religion and hostile to art and philosophy. He thinks that scientific programs are over funded. How does he feel about global warming? Unfortunately he makes his case by bashing the works of others. Not being familiar with the writing of his nemeses Dawkins, Hitchens and Lehrer, I can't judge the efficacy of his case. I get the impression that he fears those writers make the case better than he does.

Diversion of science and religion has been developing since Aristotle, if not before, with popular opinion shifting slowly towards science over the centuries. It's nothing new. Much of the author's controversy is contrived. We can feel beauty in science, art, philosophy or religion. We tend to like what we are good at, and that goes for scientists too. If I prefer to read physics over theology, it doesn't denigrate anyone who prefers the other. My misguided foray into this book was an attempt to see how the other half lives, or thinks.

Much of the discussion seems trivial. White appears to think that the limitations of Newtonian physics helps make his case. If you don't like Stephen Hawkins' or Richard Feynman's approach to Romanticism, try someone else. What's the problem? Surely an unacceptable approach is not a function of science. White doesn't choose to examine Einstein's forays into politics and social science. I sometimes resent the encroachment of pop stars and sports heroes as they use a popular forum to promote a social agenda. I'm not sure if that's analogous to what White has in mind for scientists.

Another contrivance is the author's case against neuroscience and DNA mapping. The practitioners of modern biological science are the first to admit limitations of current knowledge. Strange projections are all in the mind of onlookers like White.

White's purpose in writing is not clear to me. The best parts are allusions to the works of philosophers like Schelling, Derrida, Peckham, Neitzsche and others. He neglects the foremost modern contributor to the philosophy of science, Karl Popper. It seems to me that a popular book that claims erudition would include a chapter or two introducing the reader to the state of the art. Either White considers that beneath him or he is incapable. I suppose a beginner in the ideas of modern philosophy has no business reviewing this book on content, but I give it a low rating as a place to start.
4589719
The story of the elements and the science behind them should make fascinating reading.  Instead we get with this book an author with a liberal-environmentalist agenda intruding into what should be a simple and straightforward scientific explanation.

Did you know that sulfur was an "evil element"?  And that "it has the blood of millions on its hands"?  The author seems to think so--because of its association with gunpowder!

When we get to radium, we don't actually SEE any radium.  Instead we get a shot of an old radium dial watch, and also various other turn-of-the-century vials of radium-type knicknacks from the author's collection. There is nothing about Marie Curie's heroic efforts to isolate a few decigrams of the element from tons of pitchblende, in an old wooden shed behind her house.  We get nothing about how the discovery and research into radium led to modern particle physics.  What we DO get is an impassioned lecture on the "radium girls" who painted watches and developed cancer; and an attendant lesson on the evils of industrialists and how the "radium girls" case pioneered the increased use of lawsuits in the workplace!

Of course by the time the author gets to uranium, he is almost frothing at the mouth over the horrors of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.  Nothing about the laborous and fascinating process of extracting U-235 isotope from the much more abundant U-238--especially with 1940's technology.

Many of the pictures in the book are murky and poorly lit, so you cannot really get an idea of what leutitium or lanthanum looks like.

Very little on the actual physics of the elements, their production, various compounds, details of extraction, etc.

I'm in the process of looking for a better book without the agenda of the author--who denounces modern technology while obviously enjoying its benefits.

I give the book 2 stars, mainly because it gives at least a glimpse of a few of the rare earth elements.