What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Radicals: The Secret Anarchy of Science
"In Free Radicals, bestselling author Michael Brooks reveals the extreme lengths some of our most celebrated scientists are willing to go to, from fraud and suppressing evidence to reckless, unethical experiments, in order to make new discoveries and bring them to the world's attention."--P. [4] of cover.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
57 people are currently reading
1249 people want to read
About the author
Michael Brooks
43 books115 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Michael Edward Brooks is an English science writer, noted for explaining complex scientific research and findings to the general population. Brooks holds a PhD in Quantum Physics from the University of Sussex. He was previously an editor for New Scientist magazine, and currently works as a consultant for that magazine. His writing has appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, The Times Higher Education Supplement. His first novel, Entanglement, was published in 2007. His first non-fiction book, an exploration of scientific anomalies entitled 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, was published in 2009. Brooks' next book, The Big Questions: Physics, was released in February 2010. It contains twenty 3,000-word essays addressing the most fundamental and frequently asked questions about science.
Michael Edward Brooks is an English science writer, noted for explaining complex scientific research and findings to the general population. Brooks holds a PhD in Quantum Physics from the University of Sussex. He was previously an editor for New Scientist magazine, and currently works as a consultant for that magazine. His writing has appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, The Times Higher Education Supplement. His first novel, Entanglement, was published in 2007. His first non-fiction book, an exploration of scientific anomalies entitled 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, was published in 2009. Brooks' next book, The Big Questions: Physics, was released in February 2010. It contains twenty 3,000-word essays addressing the most fundamental and frequently asked questions about science.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
Read
July 15, 2015" I do not think that word means what you think it means".
While the premise is interesting - scientists are human too, but science has missold itself as somehow a more perfect way - few if any of the example scientists Brooks cites as 'anarchists' were anything of the sort.
He uses the term 'anarchist' to loosely collect together young people in the 70s who dabbled in LSD, scheming Renaissance italians, doctors who experimented on themselves, people who had flashes of inspiration, feuding scientists who did their best to damage each other's reputations and so on - all described as anarchists. Well, gosh, students in the 70s doing drugs? Shurely not. And people scheming and being political in Renaissance italy - anyone for the Borgias?
Similarly, claiming Einstein was an anarchist because he had a flash of inspiration, well that just annoyed me. The guy had been thinking about relativity for months if not years, so having a dream or a sudden inexplicable idea - hardly a surprise. Thats how minds work.
Finally - sorry but the chapter suggesting peer review was bad was just muddle headed. For sure its not perfect and some people use their influence inappropriately. But thats the fault of journal editors for not properly weighting opinions (for example downweighting a rival who is known to favour an alternate theory or is working on thte same topic), not the process.
If he'd said nonconformist or political I'd have been happier, but I guess 'the secret nonconformity and politics of science; isn't so snapppy.
While the premise is interesting - scientists are human too, but science has missold itself as somehow a more perfect way - few if any of the example scientists Brooks cites as 'anarchists' were anything of the sort.
He uses the term 'anarchist' to loosely collect together young people in the 70s who dabbled in LSD, scheming Renaissance italians, doctors who experimented on themselves, people who had flashes of inspiration, feuding scientists who did their best to damage each other's reputations and so on - all described as anarchists. Well, gosh, students in the 70s doing drugs? Shurely not. And people scheming and being political in Renaissance italy - anyone for the Borgias?
Similarly, claiming Einstein was an anarchist because he had a flash of inspiration, well that just annoyed me. The guy had been thinking about relativity for months if not years, so having a dream or a sudden inexplicable idea - hardly a surprise. Thats how minds work.
Finally - sorry but the chapter suggesting peer review was bad was just muddle headed. For sure its not perfect and some people use their influence inappropriately. But thats the fault of journal editors for not properly weighting opinions (for example downweighting a rival who is known to favour an alternate theory or is working on thte same topic), not the process.
If he'd said nonconformist or political I'd have been happier, but I guess 'the secret nonconformity and politics of science; isn't so snapppy.
July 19, 2012
I enjoyed this book. The author discusses the way that science is ACTUALLY conducted. Gone are the white coats and the methodical approach replete with orderly trial and error. Instead we have stories of top academics ingesting psychoactive drugs, fist fighting in hospital hallways, and experimenting on themselves when they cannot get permission to test their theories on others. The author shares these stories in the hopes that the public will see that true innovation comes at the price of messiness.
Although I enjoyed this book I gave it three stars. I felt like the author had a clear bias while writing it and that it read more like a persuasive paper than an unbiased anything. I also felt that sometimes the sensationalism used in the story didn't always match up with the argument the author was making. Lastly, although I enjoyed many of the stories and I found the book incredibly thought provoking I felt that my somewhat limited scientific background made it difficult to truly absorb some of what the author was saying. My limited background is not the author's fault, but I thought it might be useful for other readers to think about before starting the book.
Although I enjoyed this book I gave it three stars. I felt like the author had a clear bias while writing it and that it read more like a persuasive paper than an unbiased anything. I also felt that sometimes the sensationalism used in the story didn't always match up with the argument the author was making. Lastly, although I enjoyed many of the stories and I found the book incredibly thought provoking I felt that my somewhat limited scientific background made it difficult to truly absorb some of what the author was saying. My limited background is not the author's fault, but I thought it might be useful for other readers to think about before starting the book.
October 16, 2013
Although this book had a fair number of interesting tidbits of information, the way it was written annoyed me. First of all, to quote my husband, the author "uses the term anarchy the way the Smurfs use the word smurf" so that it kind of lost meaning. He used anarchy to mean not following protocol, just plain being mean, and so on.
One of my major complaints about this book is how the author stressed how a lot of ideas "just came to" the scientists as a result of dreams, drug use or almost magic. I'm sure that many scientists work on things for years, seemingly without results, and then have an "Ah-ha" moment as described by the author. However, that "ah-ha" is due to years of study, work, and pure talent. It's not like I, with very little background, would all of a sudden have an idea on, let's say, a medical cure come to me out of nowhere. I think the author deemphasizes the sheer drudgery that is needed before a discovery or invention comes about.
I am already all too aware of the competition and pettiness that comes with academia. These are usually even more intense in the hard sciences than in social science and humanities. If people aren't aware of the intellectual thievery, deceit and so forth that occurs in high level science, they might find this part of the book interesting. I just found it depressing.
One of my major complaints about this book is how the author stressed how a lot of ideas "just came to" the scientists as a result of dreams, drug use or almost magic. I'm sure that many scientists work on things for years, seemingly without results, and then have an "Ah-ha" moment as described by the author. However, that "ah-ha" is due to years of study, work, and pure talent. It's not like I, with very little background, would all of a sudden have an idea on, let's say, a medical cure come to me out of nowhere. I think the author deemphasizes the sheer drudgery that is needed before a discovery or invention comes about.
I am already all too aware of the competition and pettiness that comes with academia. These are usually even more intense in the hard sciences than in social science and humanities. If people aren't aware of the intellectual thievery, deceit and so forth that occurs in high level science, they might find this part of the book interesting. I just found it depressing.
November 22, 2014
The original title of this book was ‘Free Radicals’ so the ‘Anarchy’ shouldn’t be taken seriously. Doubtless via hasty editing, some supposedly ‘anarchic’ behaviours, such as belonging to a North American labour union, clearly are not.
Still, the book has a point. Some scientists insist we follow, or should follow, ‘the’ scientific method even though they can’t say what it is. Experiments, for example, are not vital to all sciences, such as astronomy. The book gives deserved mileage to Feyerabend’s ‘anything goes’ assessment. Although Feynman is quoted a few times, his description of science as ‘organised scepticism’ isn’t mentioned, perhaps for fear of making the book seem verbose and superfluous.
At school I was taught the ‘tongue map’ of flavour zones. In fact, if memory serves, I got different substances dropped onto my tongue and was asked to affirm the theory: doubtless I obliged. The trouble is that there’s no evidence for this theory. At least, that’s what Wikipedia says. No, I haven’t checked the primary sources: no-one can do that for everything they rely on, so there are always likely to be some false ‘facts’ circulating. One of the book’s examples is Watson and Crick being misled by incorrect textbooks, with Crick concluding that he shouldn’t ‘place too much reliance on any single piece of experimental evidence’. We’d like to think that scepticism will self-correct such errors, although this may be far from reliable (see eg last year’s ‘Trouble at the Lab’ article in The Economist).
The book’s serious and valid points are cheapened by its bluster, for example introducing a chapter on scientific rivalries by way of a bridge-blowing scene from For Whom the Bell Tolls.
Still, the book has a point. Some scientists insist we follow, or should follow, ‘the’ scientific method even though they can’t say what it is. Experiments, for example, are not vital to all sciences, such as astronomy. The book gives deserved mileage to Feyerabend’s ‘anything goes’ assessment. Although Feynman is quoted a few times, his description of science as ‘organised scepticism’ isn’t mentioned, perhaps for fear of making the book seem verbose and superfluous.
At school I was taught the ‘tongue map’ of flavour zones. In fact, if memory serves, I got different substances dropped onto my tongue and was asked to affirm the theory: doubtless I obliged. The trouble is that there’s no evidence for this theory. At least, that’s what Wikipedia says. No, I haven’t checked the primary sources: no-one can do that for everything they rely on, so there are always likely to be some false ‘facts’ circulating. One of the book’s examples is Watson and Crick being misled by incorrect textbooks, with Crick concluding that he shouldn’t ‘place too much reliance on any single piece of experimental evidence’. We’d like to think that scepticism will self-correct such errors, although this may be far from reliable (see eg last year’s ‘Trouble at the Lab’ article in The Economist).
The book’s serious and valid points are cheapened by its bluster, for example introducing a chapter on scientific rivalries by way of a bridge-blowing scene from For Whom the Bell Tolls.
March 7, 2013
Some good stories, but it got repetitive at times.
November 5, 2015
Eigentlich dreieinhalb Punkte, hier fehlen sie mir ausnahmsweise mal. Nach oben gerundet, weil ich doch viele Stellen zur Weiterverwendung markiert habe.
January 11, 2019
Easy pop-science read with some interesting titbits. I read it only because it was on the shelf and I wanted a pop-science book and this satisfied that in the moment. As another review said the book "uses the term anarchy the way the Smurfs use the word smurf", which was a pretty transparent and often shoehorned attempt to unify the books anecdotes around a theme. It would have read better as just a "interesting science anecdotes" book with a concluding essay that concealed the books message.
Not to say the overall message, that science isn't an organized, uniformly progressing, perfectly implemented Method, isn't interesting or a message that should be made easily understood in the form of a pop science book. Only to say that the moments I actually enjoyed from this book were the bits that made me go "oo thats a fun anecdote" and the rest wasn't enough of an Argument for me to accept it's thesis.
Not to say the overall message, that science isn't an organized, uniformly progressing, perfectly implemented Method, isn't interesting or a message that should be made easily understood in the form of a pop science book. Only to say that the moments I actually enjoyed from this book were the bits that made me go "oo thats a fun anecdote" and the rest wasn't enough of an Argument for me to accept it's thesis.
Want to read
July 23, 2011Ignore my rating - I rated the wrong book!!
April 5, 2020
A lot of interesting cases are presented in the book. There is no deep analysis however, and the author jumps from one case to another and that confused me a bit. Also I cannot agree with his conclusions that contemporary science is all dull and boring, and most of all that fraud and bullying are praiseworthy comportments and should be a part of science. Science changes, i.a. with technology (such as big data and its obtaining and processing methods), and this should be taken into account when giving norms of how to do science.
June 23, 2017
One of the best quotes:
"If we want more scientific progress, we need to release more rebels, more outlaws, more anarchists. The time has come to celebrate the anarchy, not conceal it."
--from epilogue, pg. 260
"If we want more scientific progress, we need to release more rebels, more outlaws, more anarchists. The time has come to celebrate the anarchy, not conceal it."
--from epilogue, pg. 260
November 22, 2022
Can't say I did not like the book, but whatever the message was suppose to be, I found it to be too enigmatic. Is it that the science, behind the doors, works differently than what most people think? Well, what is not? Politics, art, etc, I am sure, are on the inside different from what we may naively believe. Is that the scientists are only humans with all their human imperfections? Not much of a surprise neither.
Michael Brooks is great science journalist and his science stories are fun to read, but he was not able to find the right connective tissue to stitch this book together. So the only reason to read it, after all, are those amazing stories.
One a side note, I din't quite like the contradiction between Brooks criticizing scientists for not being publicly outspoken (often out of fear of being wrong), while chapter before criticizing scientists who were outspoken for being "merchants of doubt" if their scientific opinions were contrary to prevalent beliefs (even if eventually turned out to be wrong).
Michael Brooks is great science journalist and his science stories are fun to read, but he was not able to find the right connective tissue to stitch this book together. So the only reason to read it, after all, are those amazing stories.
One a side note, I din't quite like the contradiction between Brooks criticizing scientists for not being publicly outspoken (often out of fear of being wrong), while chapter before criticizing scientists who were outspoken for being "merchants of doubt" if their scientific opinions were contrary to prevalent beliefs (even if eventually turned out to be wrong).
January 5, 2016
One of the best books I have read in a while. There is no need to have a firm understanding of science to enjoy this book. Sometimes sensational but always entertaining, Brooks take on the scientific community is thoughtful and necessary. I highly recommend this book to anyone even remotely interested in the history of science, how ego affects science, how drugs helped some scientists make discoveries, or why we we make our kids hate science and promote sports culture (this last point is in epilogue and is fantastic.) This books provides an easy, fast paced, light (yet comprehensive) read. Bravo Michael Brooks. Well done!
August 19, 2011
An enjoyable peak into the politics of science they don't tell you about at school or at university. Apparently the world of scientists is not a noble as they would have us believe. This book is an interesting read full of great statistics, stories and anecdotes that you wouldn't have thought scientists would be capable of. It also confirms what i have begun to suspect recently, that scientists don't really play by the rules they're supposed to at all which is kind of funny given that they invented them.
Want to read
April 28, 2012I have not read this book yet. Brainpickings reviewed it though. Sounds interesting: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.ph...
February 11, 2015
Ugh. Bad arguments. But excellent trove of anecdotes for use in essays.
August 5, 2019
"Science is a quest to convince yourself and others of something you only guess to be true. That's a hard task, and requires tenacity and ingenuity - and, occasionally, questionable tactics."
Science is by nature free spirited. Greatest discoveries, breakthroughs and achievements of the past were the result of one single thing: human curiosity. To satisfy scientific curiosity, rules hardly work.
What we know as Science today is the post-war rebranded version of science in which it is presented as a straightforward, systematic journey. Brand Science presents scientists to be rational, robotic and disciplined investigators who proceed methodically from emergence of ideas to carefully testing them with microscopic precision and then coming up with a working theory. This is hardly so.
This publicized version of Brand Science conveniently overlooks pumped up egos, fudged data (or at least cherry-picked data), discredited juniors, side-lined outsiders, furious infighting among peers, scientists risking their own lives, drug use, deception, superstitions and whatnot. Brooks argues that some of the greatest scientific discoveries had a more sinister side to them, covered up or overlooked. Book is filled with such examples ranging from all major branches of science and involving Nobel laureates and people as prominent as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.
However, despite these shenanigans, Brooks argues that this is real science as done by human beings, and this is good science: torments, dreams, visions, restlessness, lying, cheating, despair, brawling, bullying, desperation and - in the end when everything works out - the euphoria that makes it all worthwhile. Brooks does not offer any moral defense of scientists' behavior (there can hardly be any, unless you are a die hard Utilitarian), but argues that this is the way progress has happened. Too many regulations and ethics boards have slowed down the progress of science.
Brooks argues that post-war rebranding of Science has turned scientists into docile workers on a production line, rather than what they know themselves to be: curious and creative. Ethics boards, strict (and too many) regulations and peer reviews have turned wolves into domesticated dogs. As a consequence, they only advise, not influence.
Finally, Brooks opine that our children are being taught the letter, but not spirit, of science. Class room practical emphasize on getting the right results, instead of teachers using this experience to explain the challenges and rewards involved in making breakthroughs. Brooks says that we need to change this; "if we want more scientific progress, we need to release more rebels, more outlaws and more anarchists. The time has come to celebrate the anarchy, not conceal it."
Science is by nature free spirited. Greatest discoveries, breakthroughs and achievements of the past were the result of one single thing: human curiosity. To satisfy scientific curiosity, rules hardly work.
What we know as Science today is the post-war rebranded version of science in which it is presented as a straightforward, systematic journey. Brand Science presents scientists to be rational, robotic and disciplined investigators who proceed methodically from emergence of ideas to carefully testing them with microscopic precision and then coming up with a working theory. This is hardly so.
This publicized version of Brand Science conveniently overlooks pumped up egos, fudged data (or at least cherry-picked data), discredited juniors, side-lined outsiders, furious infighting among peers, scientists risking their own lives, drug use, deception, superstitions and whatnot. Brooks argues that some of the greatest scientific discoveries had a more sinister side to them, covered up or overlooked. Book is filled with such examples ranging from all major branches of science and involving Nobel laureates and people as prominent as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.
However, despite these shenanigans, Brooks argues that this is real science as done by human beings, and this is good science: torments, dreams, visions, restlessness, lying, cheating, despair, brawling, bullying, desperation and - in the end when everything works out - the euphoria that makes it all worthwhile. Brooks does not offer any moral defense of scientists' behavior (there can hardly be any, unless you are a die hard Utilitarian), but argues that this is the way progress has happened. Too many regulations and ethics boards have slowed down the progress of science.
Brooks argues that post-war rebranding of Science has turned scientists into docile workers on a production line, rather than what they know themselves to be: curious and creative. Ethics boards, strict (and too many) regulations and peer reviews have turned wolves into domesticated dogs. As a consequence, they only advise, not influence.
Finally, Brooks opine that our children are being taught the letter, but not spirit, of science. Class room practical emphasize on getting the right results, instead of teachers using this experience to explain the challenges and rewards involved in making breakthroughs. Brooks says that we need to change this; "if we want more scientific progress, we need to release more rebels, more outlaws and more anarchists. The time has come to celebrate the anarchy, not conceal it."
June 5, 2025
I started out trying to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn. Apparently a classic. The academic tone was not what I was looking for. Also published in 1960. A lot has happened since then. Free Radicals, was much easier and recently published.
What do Steve Jobs and Francis Crick Have in common?
...
...
They both admitted that they would not have been near as productive without the use of LSD. Not exactly what I was thinking either.
What do Einstein and Gregor Mendel have in common?
..
..
They both were a bit cavalier about their data that supported their theories. Flirting with fraud, and certainly cherry picking data.
It seems as though the public view of how scientists they get their job done is not exactly what happens. Fraud, self administration of experiments drugs, back stabbing, and more are all covered. Yes scientists are human too. Most interesting to me is those that believe in their theory independent of what the data shows. Some are correct, some are wrong. Sometimes charisma wins out over convincing data.
The modern phrase "fake it to you make it" has a rich history.
What do Steve Jobs and Francis Crick Have in common?
...
...
They both admitted that they would not have been near as productive without the use of LSD. Not exactly what I was thinking either.
What do Einstein and Gregor Mendel have in common?
..
..
They both were a bit cavalier about their data that supported their theories. Flirting with fraud, and certainly cherry picking data.
It seems as though the public view of how scientists they get their job done is not exactly what happens. Fraud, self administration of experiments drugs, back stabbing, and more are all covered. Yes scientists are human too. Most interesting to me is those that believe in their theory independent of what the data shows. Some are correct, some are wrong. Sometimes charisma wins out over convincing data.
The modern phrase "fake it to you make it" has a rich history.
March 28, 2024
DNF, I got about halfway through and couldn't convince myself to follow through. The concept was there, but the writing is so flagrantly biased and borderline haphazardly thrown together that I struggled to take any of their points seriously. For example, I'm glad that they did talk about HeLa for half a page, but there was such a focus on medical ethics for a full chapter and that is one of the most infamous cases of dubious ethics at play so why didn't they talk about it more? The perspective is just so off. And the author has some fixation on LSD and buzzword anarchy (not really anarchy, but possibly revolutionary), which gives off the vibe of this being written by a high school boy in chemistry class. Not a great case of scicomm I'm afraid, but definitely something to find for cheap at the used book store
October 23, 2025
Some very different perspectives in this book that i really appreciate such as the fear and misunderstanding behind scientists, their competitive nature and relationships between historical figures. I understood the drugs implication on creativity and inspiration but wasn't fond of that chapter compared to the rest. From the very first page about Stephen hawking being spoon fed, i loved the raw human aspect of scientists in this book. Refreshing to read
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 25, 2018
Zanimljivi prikazi života znanstvenika koji nisu prezali pred korištenjem raznih smicalica i varki da dođu do otkrića (u Nobelove). Ipak, autor olako koristi termin anarhija, ne ulazeći u njen politički kontekst: tek ovlaš spominje anarhiste iz Španjolskog građanskog rata, a Kropotkina i Reclusa kao slučajeve pravih znanstvenika-anarhista ni ne spominje.
July 28, 2017
Interesting history behind some discoveries but he seems to be saying and in fact advocating that all scientific progress is based on flawed data filtered to prove someone's theory. Climate change deniers would have a field day with this book.
October 9, 2017
Unfortunately, scientists and researchers are people who have egos and a tendency to stick with the status quo. This book explores how science can be held back for by the very people whose job it is to lead us into the future. Very insightful.
February 25, 2018
Through our education we build picture on how things happen. After reading this book, Free Radicals, one may change the picture, things or solutions are coming in one, slightly, different way. Michael Brooks has stile that makes reading exciting.
February 11, 2022
“This is science: torment, dreams, visions, restlessness, lying, cheating, despair, brawling, bullying, desperation and–in the end, when everything works out–a moment of euphoria that makes it all worthwhile.”
July 20, 2022
Funny and detailed account of some of the misadventures in the area of science.
February 24, 2024
Free radicals definitely gets you intrigued about science. The stories behind some of the most storied men and women of all time are undoubtedly fascinating to read.
January 2, 2025
Dropped 🫣
March 8, 2018
Michael Brooks did a good job on gathering anecdotes that really expose the human side of scientists and try to deconstruct the very wrong image most lay people have about science and its methods. Logical reasoning and explicit step-by-step proofs are not always the most valuable skills a researcher has to thrive in competitive environment. The book is divided in 8 chapters that not necessarily build one on top of the another but that are presented in a nice sequence, you can connect the dots and previous information as you read.
It starts on how scientists get their inspirations, through drugs, dreams, visions and religion. This is not to be oversimplified: they don't just get high on some LSD and all of a sudden make a breakthrough, it's not what the author says ow wants to mean, one must be really naive to think like this.
The book then follows on how scientists cheat on their own theories to make them acceptable, through fudge factor, cherry picking and confirmation bias and a chapter on ideas that got accepted after much marketing, even though the theories were not really confirmed.
The fourth chapter is dedicated on how researchers will not always play by the rules and even ignore ethics to test their ideas. This includes putting other people lives at risk, but most of the times they are not that reckless and will just test on their own. The next chapter explores some ideas that defied the common sense and the "religious authorities," mainly on human conception, and discusses a bit of how Brave New World shaped the way we view reproduction technologies.
The last three chapters talk about how scientists fight to each other to be the first to make a discovery or to delay others to do it before, how they will do their best to protect the hierarchical position towards the top and how sometimes they will need to fight to prove their theories to the whole world, even when facts are so compelling and are right. Some researchers got their ideas rejected for a long time just because they defied the predominant school of thought or because they were considered outsiders in a field, not having "formal education."
The author really makes a point on the way science is really done: it is not ideal but major breakthroughs are being done this like this for at least 500 years or so. So, from the author's point of view, I think Michael Brooks did a great job. However, he fails on using the word anarchy to describe scientists' behavior when they not follow the rules or disregard ethics, it sounds like a vulgar and immature way to talk about something full of historical and political sense. This is the only reason not give it five stars. Nevertheless, an enjoyable and eye-opening reading.
It starts on how scientists get their inspirations, through drugs, dreams, visions and religion. This is not to be oversimplified: they don't just get high on some LSD and all of a sudden make a breakthrough, it's not what the author says ow wants to mean, one must be really naive to think like this.
The book then follows on how scientists cheat on their own theories to make them acceptable, through fudge factor, cherry picking and confirmation bias and a chapter on ideas that got accepted after much marketing, even though the theories were not really confirmed.
The fourth chapter is dedicated on how researchers will not always play by the rules and even ignore ethics to test their ideas. This includes putting other people lives at risk, but most of the times they are not that reckless and will just test on their own. The next chapter explores some ideas that defied the common sense and the "religious authorities," mainly on human conception, and discusses a bit of how Brave New World shaped the way we view reproduction technologies.
The last three chapters talk about how scientists fight to each other to be the first to make a discovery or to delay others to do it before, how they will do their best to protect the hierarchical position towards the top and how sometimes they will need to fight to prove their theories to the whole world, even when facts are so compelling and are right. Some researchers got their ideas rejected for a long time just because they defied the predominant school of thought or because they were considered outsiders in a field, not having "formal education."
The author really makes a point on the way science is really done: it is not ideal but major breakthroughs are being done this like this for at least 500 years or so. So, from the author's point of view, I think Michael Brooks did a great job. However, he fails on using the word anarchy to describe scientists' behavior when they not follow the rules or disregard ethics, it sounds like a vulgar and immature way to talk about something full of historical and political sense. This is the only reason not give it five stars. Nevertheless, an enjoyable and eye-opening reading.
October 4, 2017
Rather good, to be honest, not flawless. Some really frustrating inconsistencies diminish the case the author builds, nevertheless he delivers. Very enjoyable anecdotes and the specific skeletons, once closeted, have room enough to dance along these pages. Be warned that science is a nebulous concept in these pages, it does not always mean the method (predictability, records etc.) nor individuals.
An example of failure is using the frequency of publication as a standard to defend Mr. Sagan, whilst later attacking that very standard as stifling progress. Also, a few pages prior mentioning his wide margin of error in a study, which is less predictive and so less valuable when measured with the scientific method. Also on that, in the last chapter, mentioning a study of Mr. Sagan's of which he himself is dubious. All this undermines a certain expectation of consistency, that a critic will have a superior alternative in mind (constructive criticism) as well as hurting trust that Mr. Sagan is more scientist than demagogue (I use the word aware of the negative connotations).
What I want to change though is simple. Put a bloody asterisk when there are notes in the rear pages. Those notes are extra chips in bag, so to speak, and had cooled, gone gross, when I turned the final page and found them there.
An example of failure is using the frequency of publication as a standard to defend Mr. Sagan, whilst later attacking that very standard as stifling progress. Also, a few pages prior mentioning his wide margin of error in a study, which is less predictive and so less valuable when measured with the scientific method. Also on that, in the last chapter, mentioning a study of Mr. Sagan's of which he himself is dubious. All this undermines a certain expectation of consistency, that a critic will have a superior alternative in mind (constructive criticism) as well as hurting trust that Mr. Sagan is more scientist than demagogue (I use the word aware of the negative connotations).
What I want to change though is simple. Put a bloody asterisk when there are notes in the rear pages. Those notes are extra chips in bag, so to speak, and had cooled, gone gross, when I turned the final page and found them there.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews