The Best American Science Writing 2002

by Matt Ridley (Editor), Jesse Cohen (Series Editor), Alan Lightman

If, as Matt Ridley suggests, science is simply the search for new forms of ignorance, then perhaps it follows that with science's advances come new questions. Will human genetic engineering become commonplace? Will human cloning ever be safe? Are there many universes? How much will the climate change during the coming century?

The Best American Science Writing 2002 gathers top writers and scientists covering the latest developments in the fastest-changing, farthest-reaching scientific fields, such as medicine, genetics, computer technology, evolutionary psychology, cutting-edge physics, and the environment. Among this year's selections: In "The Made-to-Order Savior," Lisa Belkin spotlights two desperate families seeking an unprecedented cure by a medically and ethically unprecedented means -- creating a genetically matched child. Margaret Talbot's "A Desire to Duplicate" reveals that the first human clone may very likely come from an entirely unexpected source, and sooner than we think. Michael Specter reports on the shock waves rippling through the field of neuroscience following the revolutionary discovery that adult brain cells might in fact regenerate ("Rethinking the Brain"). Christopher Dickey's "I Love My Glow Bunny" recounts with sly humor a peculiar episode in which genetic engineering and artistic culture collide. Natalie Angier draws an insightful contrast between suicide terrorists and rescue workers who risk their lives, and finds that sympathy and altruism have a definite place in the evolution of human nature, David Berlinski's "What Brings a World into Being?" ponders the idea of biology and physics as essentially digital technologies, exploring the mysteries encoded in the universe's smallest units, be they cells or quanta. Nicholas Wade shows how one of the most controversial books of the year, The Skeptical Environmentalist, by former Greenpeace member and self-described leftist Bjorn Lomborg, debunks some of the most cherished tenets of the environmental movement, suggesting that things are perhaps not as bad as we've been led to believe. And as a counterpoint, Darcy Frey's profile of George Divoky reveals a dedicated researcher whose love of birds and mystery leads to some sobering discoveries about global warming and forcefully reminds us of the unsung heroes of science: those who put in long hours, fill in small details, and take great trouble.

In the end, the unanswered questions are what sustain scientific inquiry, open new frontiers of knowledge, and lead to new technologies and medical treatments. The Best American Science Writing 2002 is a series of exciting reports from science's front lines, where what we don't know is every bit as important as what we know.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Popular Science

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, is a British science writer, journalist and businessman. He is known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics, and has been a regular contributor to The Times newspaper. Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period it experienced the first run on a British bank in 130 years. He resigned, and the bank was bailed out by the UK government; this led to its nationalisation.
Ridley is a libertarian, and a staunch supporter of Brexit. He inherited the viscountcy in February 2012 and was a Conservative hereditary peer from February 2013, with an elected seat in the House of Lords, until his retirement in December 2021.

Reviews

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are 21 essays here that span nearly the entire range of scientific inquiry. Some are more interesting to me than others, but they are all well chosen and well written. My particular list of 3 favorites might not be the same as yours, but I enjoyed Julian Dibbell's "Pirate Utopia" about steganography (hidden writing), David Berlinski's "What brings a world into being?", and Steven Weinberg's "Can science explain everything? Anything?".
One of the most interesting experiences I had reading this book was the intellectual delight in Mr. Berlinski's essay. After reading it, I wanted to find out more about the author. He is "... an American author and academic who opposes the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." I'm a strong committed believer in Darwinism, and I think the Discovery Institute is an academic disgrace, so this news was quite startling.
If you enjoy first class literature from world class scientists, this book is for you.

[Vasha7 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have now read all but three of the selections. I do think it is rather slim pickings for the "best" of the year. Nonetheless, some of them stood out. A repeated theme is examination of how scientists operate in practice, which can be informative: the battle for NASA funding in "Shadow Science"; in "George Divoky's Planet" (a good one), an uncommonly dedicated fieldworker and how his goals changed over time; conflict between scientists in "Rethinking the Brain"; the collision of public perception with scientific work, indeed ever-present struggles for control of the work. Even if "Brothers with Heart" makes the process of coming up with inspirations seem sunny, even there the protagonists are not free to do what they want. Over and over, you could come away from these articles with the perception that ideas are the smallest (though vital!) part of the work. I found "The Soft Science of Dietary Fat" particularly illuminating. It is not so much about science as it is about government policy which is supposed to be based on science -- but is it? the investigation of that question can be alarming.

A couple of the most interesting pieces concerned advances in medical technology and what people want to get out of them. The cultural insights in Margaret Talbot's "A Desire to Duplicate" are sharp -- a most revealing analysis of reactions to the prospect of human cloning, by people who want to clone. "Dr. Daedalus" by Lauren Slater is a distinctly disturbing article; much to chew on there. The other medical pieces, while not bad, are the sort of thing that is not too unusual. I did like the way that the observations about how the act of blushing seems to be impossible to separate from the experience of embarrassment ("Crimson Tide") ties in with Antonio Damasio's contentions about body and cognition. And Jerome Groopman's "The Thirty Years' War" is a good clear laying out of the situation behind the constant media hype of each new proposed "cure" for cancer.

Steven Weinberg does his usual nice clear job of explaining what he means when he says that physics "explains" something. Finally, I definitely appreciated Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's "Mothers and Others". I always enjoy reading about primatology and human evolution. Hrdy has ideas for the social implications of her research, and lays her arguments out well. However definitive such insights may or may not be, they are wonderful contributions to the discussion.

[Baal Of · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book delivered fairly on well on it's title, giving me a nice selection of good science essays around a healthy variety of topics. "Crimson Tide" by Atul Gawande was a fascinating look into something I had never heard of, i.e. an uncontrollable blush response, in this case centered around the story of a woman who wanted to be a newscaster, but was hampered by this unusual physical ailment. "Medicine's Race Problem" by Sally Satel deftly handled the nuance around considerations of race and ethnicity in medicine, where it can matter significantly. "The Thirty Years War" by Jerome Groopman outlines problems with directed research and how it actually hinders progress when done in favor over basic, undirected research. Unfortunately, this is a very difficult message to get across to the general public, particular with respect to high-profile disease like cancer and some auto-immune diseases. Steven Weinberg's piece on the difference between explanation and description, and how the later term is used to deride science was particularly insightful.
There were plenty of other outstanding articles, so I won't go over all of them. The one really bad piece was "Penninger" by Mary Rogan, the started off with the annoying sentence "The greatest scientist of our time worries about you every day." and only gets worse from there. I hate this kind of overblown exaggeration in the context of writing about science. It doesn't serve the communication well, and presents an unrealistic picture, besides the fact of being wrong on multiple levels. The very idea of stating that there is a single greatest scientist of our time is absurd (in what field, by what measure?) and the last part of the sentence is patently false. However one awful essay out of 21 is not a bad ratio.
This book was well worth my time, even over a decade after its publication.

[Bruce Sanders · Rating 3 out of 5]

This year's edition was not as interesting to me as the 2003 edition. Sarah Hrdy's essay arguing that like many animals humans practice cooperative breeding, that is, raising children is most successful when it is a community (or at least extended family) effort was probably my favorite work in the book. Five years later the "Eco-optimist" essay on Bjorn Lomborg, the environmentalist skeptic, is truly anachronistic. Statements like "the price of oil adjusted for inflation is half the price in the 1980's" just seem laughable with oil over 140 dollars a barrel. I also liked Atul Gawande's essay about a newscaster that undertook an operation to prevent her from being able to blush given that I live in Indiana and have seen this newscaster on television. Finally, I would recommend "George Divoky's Planet," an essay about a 27 year long study of black guillemots, an Arctic bird. By virtue of its length the data set from the study has proven very useful in documenting the affects of global warming in the Arctic. It provides a great riposte to the essay on Lomborg. None of the essays are bad (afterall, this is a best of book), but all in all it apparently wasn't a great year for science writing.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best thing about “best” anthologies is that you usually get nothing but great writing. This anthology is no exception. Of note in this collection is Sarah Blaffer Hrdy’s piece on new research about cooperative mothering. Julian Dibbell’s essay, “Pirate Utopia,” looked at interesting ways to hide information on the Internet and managed to talk about Hakim Bey’s ideas. Also worth mentioning are essays on the failed war on cancer, a profile on a plastic surgeon, and a look at a guy who has spent the last 25 summers on a frozen island off Alaska, just to study a small group of birds.

[Boobarella · Rating 2 out of 5]

Definitely interesting to read.. but I had quite a few discrepancies with a lot of the conclusions in this book.

[Marshaferz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read the whole series - this one has some truly amazing essays in it.