Maintained by Seed's editors, web editors, and the other people who make Seed tick, Page 3.14 points you in the direction of some of ScienceBlogs' finest offerings, plus the tastiest tidbits of science news and opinion from around the web.
I'm between books right now. As an inveterate reader, this makes me feel antsy and unmoored. I want to get my hands on something good--and specifically, I'm thinking of going on a science-book spree.
The science-books-for-laypeople genre is one that I haven't explored as much as I would like. (Bloggers--any recommendations? Can we put together an ultimate science book list, a science-reader's garden of prose?)
Partly, this interest is sparked by recent days spent in the Seed offices. And partly it's sparked by one recent discovery of mine, a book that dazzled me with a vision of what science writing can be in the hands of an author who also has a gift for prose. The book was A Country Year, by Sue Hubbell, and I'd like to nominate it as the first entry on our science-writing honor roll.
I stumbled across Hubbell's book the last time I visited my parents in the Blue Ridge mountains of Virginia. Book-less and jonesing for a fix, I retreated to their shelf of field guides, carpentry manuals and gardening books, and pulled down the likeliest-looking thing. The hazy watercolor landscape on the cover didn't exactly fill me with positive expectations. But pickings were slim, so I plopped down in front of the stove and started to read.
A Country Year came out in 1983. Hubbell gives the back-story to her unusual life in the book's first pages. She married young and worked at the Brown University library. When her academic husband tired of university life, the two of them chased the dream of '60s and '70s back-to-the-landers, and bought a small farm in the Ozarks of Missouri, a place Hubbell describes as being "so beautiful that it nearly brought tears to my eyes the first time I saw it." They renovated a cabin on their land and started a small business keeping bees and selling honey. The marriage ended soon after, and Hubbell decided to keep the farm and the apiary, alone. At the time of writing, she was fifty years old, making her living by driving her bees' honey to New York City in a truck and selling it to specialty stores like Macy's and Zabar's. On the side she did nature writing for a little rag called The New Yorker.
A Country Year collects some of her essays on life in the Ozarks. In them, the deadly-smart Hubbell blends glimpses into her strenuous life with observations of the natural world around her. She does it seamlessly, in spare, precise sentences and crisp details. Her essays are short, and they give the illusion of being haphazard--starting out on one subject and ending on quite another. They're not.
I like Hubbell, I think, because she shows how scientific knowledge can enrich one's everyday life. In one essay she describes how she turned to botany after her husband left the farm. "I botanized obsessively during that difficult time," she says, traversing her land and teaching herself the Latin names of the plants that grow there. Learning the taxonomic names of plants allowed a more intimate connection to place. "One spring afternoon," she writes, during her botanizing phase, "I was walking back down my lane after getting the mail... The sun was slanting through new leaves, and the air was fragrant with wild cherry (Prunus serotina: Prunus--plum, serotina--late blooming) blosssoms, which my bees were working eagerly." For Hubbell, knowing more about science means knowing more about the world at hand. Knowing more about the world means living a richer life. Science is a way of seeing, and seen through the lens of science, the world means more, is more amazing.
In Hubbell's writing, scientific understanding begets awe, instead of undermining it. Take for example one of my favorite essays, in which Hubbell writes about her early morning ritual of drinking coffee under the oak trees behind her cabin. In the gray dawn, mosquitoes and moths swarm around her. The insects attract bats, which rely on them as food. Hubbell thinks about the relationship between herself, the mosquitoes, and the bats, and then she thinks of a further rumple in bat-moth relations. Some night-flying moths, she relates, have evolved the ability to hear the noises that bats use while hunting, and to make noises back that instruct the bats not to eat them. The moths rely for survival on their sense of hearing. But there is a species of mite that lives in moths' ears, causing deafness. And moth ear mites, naturally, depend for their survival on the survival of moths. So the mites have evolved a way, not fully understood, by which the first mite to land on a moth leaves a signal that alerts subsequent mites to settle only in one ear of any given moth. The mites have a place to live, while the moths retain hearing in one ear. "So there we are out under the oak trees in the dim light," writes Hubbell, "--the mites, the moths, the bats, the mosquitoes, and me. We are a text of suitability for one another, and that text is as good as any I know by which to drink my coffee and watch the dawn."
A Country Year made me want to know my daily world the way that Hubbell knows hers.
What work of science writing got you going?
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Let's just get the obvious out of the way: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
First of all, Carson was a breathtaking writer. One of the few science writers who can truly claim the mantle of literature. Excerpts from The Sea Around Us or The Edge of the Sea regularly appear in collegiate readers based solely on the beauty of her prose.
While Silent Spring has no shortage of statistics or polysyllabic organic molecule nomenclature, nonetheless much of the prose is sublime and vigorous. The fifty-year-old research in Silent Spring is often dated, but I still go back to Carson when I need a reminder of how beautiful science writing can be.
Second, Silent Spring has raw political and historical power. This is a book that changed the world. Gould's The Panda's Thumb inspires the anti-science crowd to spew unmitigated baloney while smiling their little condescending smiles, but Silent Spring reduces them to sputtering, inchoate rage. And how cool is that?
(BTW: The Wikipedia article is not that bad
Posted by: HP![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 01:05 PM
John McPhee. Basin and Range.
"If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."
Posted by: NJ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 01:41 PM
There are so many great ones but I recommend Endless Forms Most Beautiful (on Evo-Devo) by Sean B. Carroll. Well written and evo-devo is sucha wonderful way to better understand evolution. And of course everyone should read The Origin of Species by Darwin.
Posted by: CanuckRob![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 02:24 PM
OK this is cliche, but Judson's Eigth Day of Creation is a must read for anyone who is in the life sciences. The first part is on DNA (inheritance), the second is on a chapter on RNA (the genetic code) and the third is on proteins (x-ray crystalography).
Posted by: apalazzo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 03:37 PM
1. David Quammen, The Song of the Dodo
2. Quammen's other stuff
3. McPhee, all of it
4. Carl Zimmer, anything.
Posted by: CCP![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 03:53 PM
Who are "laypeople"? I don't have a grasp at who the target audience of readers of science books are. My favorite science books from way back are:
From the 60's and 70's:
(Several books) Isaac Asimov's science essay compilations
Isaac Asimov's Guide to Science
These are outdated somewhat but great writing that informed and made me interested when I was young. The particular essay from the early 60's where Asimov discusses how he would react to someone giving him iron oxide, titanium (I think) oxide and Thallium oxide is the best description of the extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence point.
Current best broad based Science book (last 5 years):
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson
This I have given to several people from elemtary school teachers to Physicians and they all liked it. This is the new version of Asimov's Guide to Science.
A good book that gives a great overview of a specific science:
Earth by Richard Fortey
This book can get overwhelming with all the jargon, not that the author dumps it on you, but the subject is so vast you can't avoid it, and the book is well written. It really opened my eyes to Geology and the ongoing simmering and up and downs of the planet. Taking a geologic time perspective stretches your mind.
Life Evolving by Christian de Duve
is an interesting book that gives some perspective to biogenesis. It argues a case more than giving conclusions, but still is very good.
There are no current physics books that strike me, I think Robert Laughlin should take his book of essays and expand it becuse that is where the action seems to be currently. I think we need to wait til the CERN high energy collider turns on to maybe shake up High Energy Physics which seems like has lost its way in "beautiful" math that can't calculate anything. That is kind of an off effect of Supercollider cancellation way back in the 90's - we see High Energy Physics is really driven by experiment.
Posted by: Markk![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 04:09 PM
We had a thread about this on Cosmic Variance some time back:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/08/24/greatest-popular-science-book/
No conclusions, but many good suggestions.
Posted by: Sean Carroll![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 04:28 PM
Oops, I meant to delete that aborted half-sentence at the end. The Wikipedia article was not that good, either, on a second reading.
Posted by: HP![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 04:57 PM
These are going to date me but I believe they shouldn't be missed on such a list:
Rats, Lice & History, by Hans Zinsser
Flatland, a romance of many dimensions
Advance of the Fungi, by E. C. Large
and more recently:
The ancestor's tale : a pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution, by Richard Dawkins.
Posted by: Ruth Lewis![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 05:44 PM
Everyone Poops
by Taro Gomi
Posted by: Matt Hutson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 07:37 PM
For laymen? All-around, Science Matters is a book I give anyone with any inclination towards science but without the training to do.
The Ancestor's Tale is good, but lack the 'magic' (for me) of The Blind Watchmaker. I really liked A Crack at the Edge of the World and Lonely Planets, but your mileage with those books may vary.
The Earth: An Intimate Portrait has its moments (I *loved* the chapter on Plate Tectonics), but it can get kind of.. dull, as well.
Posted by: Babbler![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 07:40 PM
Stephan Gould's "Wonderful Life".
Posted by: sailcat46![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 4, 2006 09:09 PM
I'll second Blind Watchmaker, Silent Spring and Red Queen as they got me so interested in biology, ecology and evolution that I'm going back to Uni to study Environmental Science and completely change career.
Would also add Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe and James Gleick's Chaos. Both really recharged my thirst for knowledge and discovery while making my head hurt in the most pleasant of ways :-)
Posted by: Lazarou![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 5, 2006 09:57 AM
The Aventis Prize Archives http://www.aventisprizes.com looks like a nice source of good popular science writing. "Aventis Prizes for Science Books are an annual book prize, which celebrate the very best in popular science writing for adults and children." Nominees and winners 2002-2005 are available. Nominees for 2006 are posted also.
Posted by: Ruth Lewis![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 5, 2006 10:13 AM
I have to agree with Eigth Day of Creation - a total history of Molecular Biology, and James Gleick's Chaos.
As for the Dawkins Books, I think that the Selfish Gene was much better than the Blind Watchmaker. While reading TSG, I kept on saying "wow, I wish I came up with that".
Posted by: Acme Scientist![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 5, 2006 12:31 PM
De Rerum Natura (aka - On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius.
Posted by: Lee Billings![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 5, 2006 03:02 PM
Great books on this list.
In terms of literary merit applied to scientific observation, I would strongly recommend Annie Dillard, especially _Pilgram at Tinker Creek_ (a classic) and _For the Time Being_ (beautiful).
Also, a bit older but prescient and powerful is _The Immense Journey_ by Loren Eisely.
The above books are as good as anything I've read during my undergraduate degree in literature and my doctorate in biochemistry.
Posted by: madsci![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 6, 2006 01:25 PM
Great Books:
Steven Johnson's "Mind Wide Open"
Nancy Andreasen's "Brave New Brain"
V.S. Ramachandran's "Phantom's in the Brain"
Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate"
Or if you feel like reading a neuroscience/psychology blog geared at lay people, you might check mine:
Neurontic: Psychology for the Modern Mind
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/annotate
Posted by: Orli![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 6, 2006 06:00 PM
The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris and John Gribbin's Almost Everyone's Guide to Science are good intro books
Posted by: paultullis![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 7, 2006 10:18 AM
Daniel Dennett, [i]Consciousness Explained[/i] - even though the title rather overstates the case. [i]Consciousness Explainable[/i] might be more accurate. He argues that a materialistic explanation of consciousness is possible and provides a number of initial steps in that direction.
Charles Seife, [i]Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe[/i] really does a good job of making modern cosmology and particle physics, and how the two inform each other, accessible.
Posted by: Qoheleth![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 7, 2006 12:05 PM
The Five Ages of the Universe by Adams and Laughlin is a lot of fun. Extrapolation of what the Universe will look like billions of billions of time its current age, based on our best current understanding of Physics. Only a little bit dated (because it was written when we didn't know about the present acceleration of the Universe's expansion).
Posted by: Rob Knop![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 7, 2006 12:28 PM
Doh! HTML tags, not BBCode.
Posted by: Qoheleth![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 7, 2006 01:54 PM
John Horgan's "Rational Mysticism" is a masterul treatment of altered states of consciousness and their manifold implications that walks the razor's edge between distanced objectivity and informed experience.
In his interviews with neuroscientists and new-age gurus, he asks deliciously incisive, challenging questions, and the autobiographical musings he includes are revealingly candid and sharply relevant, like when he describes tripping his balls off on ayahuasca in the desert.
It's a good read.
Posted by: Lee Billings![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 7, 2006 03:21 PM
Old books, but still good - I won't call them the best ever, but they're still worth reading.
George Gamow - One,Two, Three,...Infinity, Birth and Death of the Sun, Biography of the Earth.
Paul de Kruif - Microbe Hunters
Vicent Dethier - To know a fly
Hoftstader's Godel, Escher, Bach
There were some more on the tip of my tongue, but all this typekey registration blah,blah drove them out of my mind.
Posted by: Arun Gupta![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 8, 2006 11:37 AM
A batch of oldies that are still goodies.
I'll second Ruth's nomination of Hans Zinsser's Rats, Lice and History, probably the most influential book in getting me involved in microbiology/medical science. It's primarily a "biography" of typhus, with many amusing and interesting diversions along the way.
I'll also second Arun's naming of de Kruif's Microbe Hunters, and then add in a couple more oldies:
Berton Roueche's Eleven Blue Men and his other highly literate forays into explaining all aspects of epidemiology to the layman.
Jurgen Thorwald's Century of the Surgeon, which covers much in 19th century medicine besides just surgery.
Posted by: chezjake![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 9, 2006 12:03 PM
The Compleat Strategyst: Being a Primer on the Theory of Games of Strategy, by J. D. Williams.
Game theory for everyone; understanding requires no more than simple arithmetic.
Posted by: marxmarv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 12, 2006 02:17 PM