Used price: $1.25
Collectible price: $15.00
List price: $39.95 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $27.57
Collectible price: $26.47
Buy one from zShops for: $25.00
Indeed, one might criticize this book for having an identity crisis as to whether it is about science or ethics. However, I have come to realize that in genetics, perhaps more than in any other discipline, science and social issues are inexorably linked. Even so, while I found the book fascinating from cover to cover (almost), I would have to say that it tends to be disjointed in places, leaping from subject to subject a little haphazardly. It is almost as if the writer was ticking off items on his "things to write about" list. As such, the book loses its cohesion from time to time. For example, a chapter on the early Soviet Union's biology program is wedged in between accounts of recent searches for pernicious genes and studies of twins.
But this is a minor point. Mr. Watson is not only a top notch scientist, he is an excellent writer. Although the chapter on Soviet biology left me scratching my head, it was amusing, interesting and well-written, as was the rest of the book. And for that, I can forgive a great deal. The proof is in the pudding. Over the last few days, I have engaged a number of colleagues, as well as my wife, in discussions on genetics issues and have found that this book has greatly enriched my understanding of the field and reinforced my interest in the subject. It's also worth pointing out that if you are in the process of building a family, this book is full of the kind of scientific background that will hold you in good stead as you examine options like genetic testing, in-vitro fertilization and the implications of family histories of disease.
I will levy only one direct criticism about this book. It tends to wander aimlessly toward the end. It is almost as if Mr. Watson couldn't decide how to end it, so he chose to do so multiple times. The result is a rather off-putting set of diatribes espousing the author's agnostic and highly utilitarian approach to the subject. (Incidentally, those of you on or near the religious right will find plenty of fodder here.) Not that I minded hearing the author's views, it's just that "I got it already."
However, this is a minor taint to an otherwise excellent book about the science and ethics of genetics. For you armchair scientists out there, I would put this one toward the top of the "to read" stack.
didn't seem an entirely promising read. It looked like it might be
just another uninspired "rehash" survey of the subject of genetics
(and genomics and so on), an impression reinforced by Watson's
comments in the foreword that it was partly derived from a TV series
commemorating the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double
helix by Watson and his colleague, Francis Crick, which won the two
the Nobel Prize.
On reading into "DNA", I quickly realized that this was no mere
rehash, but a very cleanly written and highly readable survey of
genetics. Watson, who has the advantage of a central viewpoint
in the field, neatly weaves together a history of the field, a
technical explanation of it, an exploration of its business and
politics, and something like a professional autobiography.
The writing is outstandingly clear and even witty -- Watson comments
in an understated but clearly pleased fashion how another genetics
researcher named his Siamese cats "Watson" and "Crick". An educated
layperson, clearly the target audience for this book, could hardly
hope for a better introduction to the field, and a nonprofessional
would hardly need to know much more than it provides.
However, this is not saying this is an effortless read. Although by
no means resembling a textbook, "DNA" covers an enormous amount of
ground and range of concepts, and anybody who would claim that he
could pick it up in one reading from end to end is either a real
genius or, more likely, a fraud. My initial reading went cover to
cover and amounted to no more than a survey, to be followed up later
by an extensive session in note-taking.
* Having said all these things, there is a subtler aspect to this
book. In the initial chapters of "DNA", Watson mixed his history of
the early days of modern genetics with a discussion of the "eugenics"
movement, an effort to improve the human race by breeding up
desireables and (more to the point) breeding out undesireables.
Eugenics was weak science and strong racism.
That story was interesting, but I wondered if Watson had a
politically-correct agenda. Further reading showed this not to be the
case -- Watson sees the left-outfield politically correct crowd and
the right-outfield fundamentalist crowd as both obnoxious influences
in his field, and in fact he hardly sees them as being much different.
What emerges is that Watson has an "advocacy agenda". This is not to
say this is the sole focus of this work, it's just that genetics has
certain social and ethical implications that are so unavoidable that
they end up having to be discussed as part of a real survey of the
topic. Fetal genetic screening, for example, has immediate
implications relative to abortion rights, and of course human genetic
engineering is controversial on the face of it.
Watson has his views on such matters, laying out skeins of a general
argument about the social and ethical aspects of his work and then
tying them up in the relatively short final chapter. Of course, there
are weaknesses in his arguments -- for example, he blasts the
authorities for making decisions on a political and not a scientific
basis, which seems a bit silly. (A government organization makes
decisions on a political basis?! REALLY?! Gosh! Who knew?!). His
final argument also was the sort of thing that I wouldn't touch
myself, since long experience with Internet forums told me I would get
nothing out of it but a loud, mad, pointless barking contest.
I do not mock him, however. This is not really my battle but it is
clearly his, and if he seems to struggle with it, well, that's because
it's troublesome stuff. And I on the same wavelength with him in one
respect. He does not see the issues in terms of liberal and
conservative. He sees a clash of two beliefs.
The first belief is that anything that poses any potential public
hazard should be forbidden. The alternative is that people should be
free to do anything that does *not* pose a demonstrable public hazard.
The first belief is that of the control freaks of both left and right.
Watson believes the second and I am in the same camp.
He also does his advocacy the right way, stating his views carefully
and embedding them inside a powerful narrative of facts and details,
which lends them far more credibility than hollow assertions of
opinion. In fact, although Watson's views might infuriate extremists,
the book remains outstandingly informative even if his views are
disregarded. The willingness of the author to confront controversy
does not affect the fact that "DNA" is an excellent piece of science
writing.
* I did catch the author in an exceedly minor error that I point out
not to nitpick but because it's an amusing detail. In his list of
inherited dog traits, he refers to greyhounds as "twitchy".
I used to believe this myself, but there's an "adopt a race dog"
program in my locality, quite a few people around here have
greyhounds as pets -- and all report that the dogs are absolute
couch potatoes who take life easy when not actually chasing
something. On consideration, this is the ideal behavior pattern
for an animal that spends much of its life in a kennel, and an
impressive example of the power of controlled breeding. I think
they just *look* high-strung.
And I suppose while I'm at it, I might add another interesting
inherited dog behavior pattern that wasn't mentioned in "DNA" -- how a
Rottweiler will come up alongside you and give you a small but
powerful sideways NUDGE that will literally throw you for a loop if
you're not expecting it. I was surprised by this when I first ran
into it, but it turns out to be an instinctive herding behavior.
Used price: $0.99
Collectible price: $2.50
Buy one from zShops for: $3.00
Used price: $1.25
Collectible price: $5.29
Buy one from zShops for: $5.99
Used price: $12.99
Buy one from zShops for: $24.95
Clearly, if backed up with a texbook of biochemistry or physiology covering metabolism on a higher level, Molecular Biology of the Cell is an excellent choice, even for medical students.
Used price: $14.76
Buy one from zShops for: $9.95
However, with all respect, I must point out that Dr. Watson departs from his scientific principals when he promotes his positions in the "...ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of the new resulting genetic knowledge." [Genes and Politics, p.202]. Especially when he concludes "Thus I do not see genetic diseases in any way as an expression of the complex will of any supernatural authority, but rather as random tragedies that we should do everything in our power to prevent. There is, of course nothing pleasant about terminating the existence of a genetically disabled fetus. But doing so is incomparably more compassionate than allowing an infant to come into the world tragically impaired." [Good Gene, Bad Gene, p. 225]. Jim Watson then takes the position that since "terminating the existence of a genetically disabled fetus" is a "good," only "...the potential mother should have this authority.," never the government, ibid. p. 225.
I see no evidence that Dr. Watson has ever studied "ethics" and/or other philosophical positions that utilize principals and methodologies that "scientifically" examine questions concerning the possibility of the existence of "human souls," the possibility of their immortality, and the nature of their origin, i.e., the possibility of their Divine creation. By restricting himself exclusively to the possibility that all there is to human life is "physical" reality studied in his career as "biological reality," it is inevitable that Dr. Watson's ethical positions concerning the "good" for individuals, families and society be measured and evaluated exclusively in terms of the consequences of physical "evils" and other "random tragedies" generated by the "horrors of genetic disease." Ibid. pp. 224-225.
With no demonstrated knowledge of the existence, or proof of the lack of existence, of human souls, their origin and destinies, Dr. Watson is on very shaky ground "scientifically" to be suggesting this type of solution, i.e., termination of the existence of genetically disabled fetuses, for "victims of unlucky throws of the genetic dice." Ibid. p. 224-225.
For those of us who have established "scientifically" and thus have validly established that the human soul is immaterial and what is more, is immortal, and whose existence as an immortal soul is due to the efficient causality of an uncaused cause, i.e., God, our ethical principals support the "compassionate" caring for the genetically deformed by not only the individuals who they are born to but, also as an obligation of society since this care most often exceeds the resources of any one or two individuals. This position can only be understood by those who either have the knowledge of these truths arrived at by the use of reason and logic (philosophy) or by the tenets of a revealed "faith" (scripture and theology). Yes, Dr. Watson, you believe that the "evolutionary process operating under the Darwinian principles of natural selection" is the only explanation for the existence of "human as well as all other forms of life" Ethical Implications, p. 175, precisely because your scientific method is restricted strictly to the material, physical and hence measurable aspects of existence. But have you examined the arguments (including the starting points and methods) of those of us who do see "evidence for the sanctity (holiness) of life."? You certainly don't present and evidence in your essays of this book that you have, you only present a biased assertion.
I agree with Dr. Watson's principal on page 225, Good Gene, Bad Gene, "Working intelligently and wisely to see that good genes - not bad ones - dominate as many lives as possible is the truly moral way for us to proceed." But this principal does not support "terminating the existence of a genetically disabled fetus" but rather more humanly and Divinely supports the hard work of intelligent research and development of technologies that reduces the possibilities of future "unlucky throws of the genetic dice" happening or occurring before conception or that supports life supportive therapies during fetal growth and after birth resulting in the elimination of or the reduction of genetic disease. As Dr. Watson has said in another place, "Good luck with hard work." I second that!
Used price: $1.29
Buy one from zShops for: $8.88
Used price: $12.10
Buy one from zShops for: $19.99
Rushing off to the village, Holmes and Watson discover that Addleton had been excavating a barrow near the village. In addition to the prehistoric contents of the barrow, the Professor was also on a quest to discover treasure stolen four centuries before from a local monastery. In addition there are two equally ancient royal charters. These charters were needed to resolve a long standing argument over land holdings between two prominent local families - The Grey's and the Forrester's. Something the Professor knew triggered his murder, but what is a mystery.
Watson investigates the village, talking to the people and accumulating lore about local legends and myths. Children's rhymes and old men's tales. Little Stoke was the site of a colorful 16th century history, from smugglers to knights, as well as a rich prehistory full of barrows and cairns. Holmes, on the other hand, focuses on the chief players. Rowland Forrester, and William and Mary Grey are the opponents in the argument over land rights. Professor Frey and Portland Donner, were Addleton's partners at the dig. There are many others whose roles are less clear, but whose part in the mystery is undoubted. Holmes and Watson uncover layer after layer of mystery and deception as they seek the murderer, the missing treasure and documents.
The tale itself is mystifying and entertaining. I found myself immersed in each of the several stories that unravel under Holmes' piecing eye. There is something here for everyone, from horseracing to archeology, and the pictures of rural England make it a 19th century travelogue as well. Only a few qualms have kept me from giving the novel a 5 star rating.
The first is the writing style. Since none of Doyle's stories really classify as full blown novels, writers who venture into this territory must create a believable Watsonian style for themselves. In James Stefanie's case he had adopted some of the approaches that Doyle uses elsewhere, and backfilled with his own invention. Unfortunately, while the writing is good, it does not always ring true to Watson, showing much more attention to local color and far more philosophical brooding than Doyle's Watson ever demonstrated.
For a first-time reader of the Holmes genre, like myself, the Charters Affair included just the right amount of background and reminiscence to answer some of my questions concerning the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. It also allowed me to see the two men as separate and distinct personalities. Holmes with his systematic, unidirectional, unbending, and often Machiavellian drive contrasted starkly with Watson's thoughtful, sometimes muddling, optimistic and occasionally flustered, all too human view of life. Seeing Holmes through Watson's eyes, with a doctor's concern for the physical wellbeing of a friend, was illuminating, and added depth to the narrator.
And as the story is a reminiscence, the author's use of somewhat antiquated language worked well. My studies in England acquainted me with the style and verbiage employed by Mr. Stefanie in telling this story, and for me enhanced the experience markedly.
Without giving away the plot, the tale is a complex interwoven fabric of many eras, including a tribal burial in pre-Druid times, the monastic middle ages, the granting and misplacing of land charters, the pirate trade, and a Holmesian-era expedition to excavate the tor that brings Holmes and Watson to the area to solve a murder mystery. All in all, great intellectual fun with twists and turns, a complex plot, and very interesting characters.
I had the good fortune to tip a pint or two with James Stefanie shortly after his novel was published, and after our conversation wondered not whether Sherlock Holmes had actually lived, but whether Dr. Watson had ever actually died.
Used price: $1.27
Collectible price: $4.66
I have read over a dozen books on Special Forces (all nonfiction) and James Watson's two books: Walking Point and Point Man were by far the worst. Forcing myself to finish this diatribe was far more painful than any training Watson endured to become a SEAL back in the days when you smoked between sneaking out of exercises. Basically it's a self-serving story profiling how chronic alcoholism increases delusions of grandeur and the self-glorification of an undisciplined wannabe tough guy. Not only was James Watson an unprofessional soldier but he tends to brag about it. A real man doesn't sucker punch a fellow soldier in a bar then give himself a pat on the back.
...
Collectible price: $4.24
The introduction of other key figures who played prominent and influential roles in the discovery of the DNA structure is at the very least, enlightening. The network of knowledge necessary to ensure there are no foibles in a key discovery is something that the general public may have never taken into account. Also, it evinces the professional barriers that exist between the genders. The back story of Rosalind "Rosie" Franklin is fascinating as it examines the "glass ceiling" and what type of personality a woman needs to adopt in order to survive in a male dominated field. The end of the end of the book-where Watson realizes her seemingly callous attitude emanates from her essential need to incorporate survival methods is refreshing. The science terms are difficult to follow if one does not have previous scientific background, but there is enough universality imbedded into the story to keep a reader's attention.
Another aspect that proves to be surprising is the fact that scientists are not without their weak fields-just because they excel in chemistry does not mean they are equally capable in biology. Reading of how Watson and Crick were unsuccessful on several occasions somehow made them human-like they were mortals rather than some higher power intellectuals. Somehow, there seems to be an idea or stigma attached to scientists that suggest they are always brilliant and do not make mistakes. This book sheds that concept.
Watson and Crick needed to do research, work hard, and learn from their mistakes in order to accomplish their objective. They even needed help from their friends. They beat out a great scientist in Linus and won the "DNA Race." Their discovery has changed the world, and this book depicts them in a humble role-two guys doing their job.
When "The Double Helix" came out in 1968, as a geneticist I naturally read it. And it has stuck far more firmly for me than any of the many other books I've read over the years about genetics.
Why do I remember this book so well? I've wondered. The answer is right in the first sentence of "The Double Helix" that reads: "I have never seen Francis Crick in a modest mood."
In his account of how the structure of DNA was discovered, Jim Watson doesn't try to tell the story from a disinterested point of view. This is my version, he says, and I'm not going to touch it up to cover the warts and other blemishes. Yes, for instance, Watson and Crick were patently and terribly unfair and unjust toward Rosalind Franklin but Jim doesn't deny it. He makes it plenty clear.
Most writing in and about science is well varnished. But varnish gives a gloss and it's not easy to hold onto. Jim Watson forgot the varnish, on purpose. Watson's brashness (and Crick's conceit) season this narrative in a memorable way, a way I can't easily forget, even if I wanted to.
This is first-rate personal science writing. Five stars, for sure, or more. It's about one of the most important discoveries in the history of science. I hope you'll enjoy (and remember) "The Double Helix" too.