What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #399
Genes: A Very Short Introduction
In this exploration of the concept of the gene, Jonathan Slack looks at the discovery, nature, and role of genes in both evolution and development. Explaining the nature of genetic variation in the human population, how hereditary factors were identified as molecules of DNA, and how certain specific mutations can lead to disease, Slack highlights how DNA variants are used to trace human ancestry and migration, and can also used by forensic scientists to identify
individuals in crime. He also explores issues such as the role of genetic heritability and IQ as well as the changes that occur in the genes of populations during evolution.
An ideal guide for anyone curious about what genes are and how genetics can be put to use, this Very Short Introduction demonstrates the ways in which the gene concept has been understood and used by molecular biologists, population biologists, and social scientists around the world.
ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
individuals in crime. He also explores issues such as the role of genetic heritability and IQ as well as the changes that occur in the genes of populations during evolution.
An ideal guide for anyone curious about what genes are and how genetics can be put to use, this Very Short Introduction demonstrates the ways in which the gene concept has been understood and used by molecular biologists, population biologists, and social scientists around the world.
ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
137 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 18, 2014
48 people are currently reading
646 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 4, 2020
'Genes' and 'genetics', 'in our genes' and 'not in our genes', all are notions which are now peppering our conversations on human nature and condition. We came a very long way indeed since genes were first acknowledged back in the early 20th century, and the structure of DNA discovered in the early 1950s! But what are we really talking about? The biological concept itself might be extremely simple, yet its implications can be very complicated… Where to bloody start?!
Well, thumps up to the author for his approach in here, for making such an intricate and wide-ranging topic very accessible. The biologist and Professor Jonathan Slack takes us in fact through an amazing journey, where he breaks down the concept of 'gene' following different definitions, and, depending on the definitions (none of them wrong, all of them valid; further demonstrating the not-so-simple importance of genetics) expand on their relevance.
The 'gene' of a molecular biologist, the pure unit of information coding (or not!) for proteins or RNA, is not the 'gene' of a forensic scientist or a paleoanthropologist, let alone of a sociobiologist! From treating very specific diseases to understanding evolution better, from retracing human migrations over time to convicting criminals in court, or, even, our attempts to 'classifying' people (this introduction doesn't shy away from tackling tough issues like racism and IQ testing...) here's an intense romp through it all!
Now, as with every such introduction, and especially on such a topic, I found it unequal. For instance, I struggled with the first part (too dense for me on chemistry, a subject I'm not interested in and which is not my forte). I was also disappointed the author didn't address the concept of 'selfish gene' further than he did (despite it being both a potentially revolutionary yet controversial view of evolution). Nevertheless, those are very subjective criticisms; and I learnt a hell of a lot! Genetics is too far-ranging a subject to let it be bogged down into reductionism, so walking away from this book with the various 'concepts' of the genes as explored in here was truly helpful indeed! It doesn't matter if you know nothing about genetics and want to get a start, or, already have a lot of background knowledge (I have been reading on the topic for years) and want to consolidate your grip on it all (depending on your interest), this short little book is a must-have.
'Genes are, after all, the absolute center of biology.'
Well, thumps up to the author for his approach in here, for making such an intricate and wide-ranging topic very accessible. The biologist and Professor Jonathan Slack takes us in fact through an amazing journey, where he breaks down the concept of 'gene' following different definitions, and, depending on the definitions (none of them wrong, all of them valid; further demonstrating the not-so-simple importance of genetics) expand on their relevance.
The 'gene' of a molecular biologist, the pure unit of information coding (or not!) for proteins or RNA, is not the 'gene' of a forensic scientist or a paleoanthropologist, let alone of a sociobiologist! From treating very specific diseases to understanding evolution better, from retracing human migrations over time to convicting criminals in court, or, even, our attempts to 'classifying' people (this introduction doesn't shy away from tackling tough issues like racism and IQ testing...) here's an intense romp through it all!
Now, as with every such introduction, and especially on such a topic, I found it unequal. For instance, I struggled with the first part (too dense for me on chemistry, a subject I'm not interested in and which is not my forte). I was also disappointed the author didn't address the concept of 'selfish gene' further than he did (despite it being both a potentially revolutionary yet controversial view of evolution). Nevertheless, those are very subjective criticisms; and I learnt a hell of a lot! Genetics is too far-ranging a subject to let it be bogged down into reductionism, so walking away from this book with the various 'concepts' of the genes as explored in here was truly helpful indeed! It doesn't matter if you know nothing about genetics and want to get a start, or, already have a lot of background knowledge (I have been reading on the topic for years) and want to consolidate your grip on it all (depending on your interest), this short little book is a must-have.
'Genes are, after all, the absolute center of biology.'
October 3, 2020
Very concise, the author tried touching as many studies needed to present the necessary picture of the field. Can be complemented with some youtube animation of fundamental processes for protein synthesis and other molecular-level processes.
Recommended read
Recommended read
December 27, 2020
The book is a very short introduction to genes indeed, relative to the vast scale of the subject. Seemingly every page - even the individual sentence - mentions a topic for which entire books exist. (A point the book makes occasionally in the text, and again in the references.) Perhaps a better title might be Genes: The Tip of the Iceberg. Since I've read some of those books, I found a fair amount of the book's material familiar and easy to read. Thus I'm not qualified to judge how well this book works for its intended audience, presumably "unspoiled" readers with less background reading on genetics.
The book begins with an overview of the history of genetics - the scientific discovery of genes and how they work. (For more details and a continuously updating timeline, see the history of genetics on Wikipedia.) The takeaway is that understanding in the field has changed drastically over time. A single human lifetime is enough for the field to transform itself. Slack could have made the point better that we are still very much in this process, indeed the pace of discovery keeps accelerating, with the result that if someone hasn't looked at the field in ten years or more, much of what they think they know about it may be getting rusty. For example, Slack cites Richard Lewontin's dismissal of the field of behavioral genetics - dating from the 1980s - as if still relevant. (Slack also neglects to mention that Lewontin's dismissal was motivated and informed by his Marxism, but that's another issue.) When reading anything about genetics or relating peripherally to it (which would include almost everything involving a human or any other life form), pay careful attention to the publication dates. You may be examining a conceptual fossil. And check back in ten years to see how well it's holding up.
Other topics in the book might be hard to understand from the cusory descriptions. If the bit about GWAS went over your head, I highly recommand Robert Plomin's Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are. And there are dozens of other VSIs overlapping this book or expanding on some of its topics - genomics, heredity, eugenics, microbiology, viruses, bacteria, schizophrenia, dementia, evolution, public health, infectious disease, astrobiology, ideology, racism, intelligence, and so on. But as always, bear in mind those publication dates - for example, anything published in the early 2000s or earlier will be written in ignorance of GWAS technology which only got going by the mid-2000s and has been expanding ever since. And if a particular VSI has multiple editions, try to get the latest one, or better yet compare all the editions to get a feel for how the conceptual ground is shifting under our feet. In the meantime, try to avoid forming firm opinions about anything related to genes. I found Slack's habit of declaring that this or that aspect of genetics must forever defy our understanding to be rather daring, to say the least. Obviously some things seem impossible to work out just now, but with respect to genetics we're similar to astronomers in the early 1800s. If humans manage to avoid blasting or cooking civilization out of existence, who knows what tools humans of the future may have.
The book begins with an overview of the history of genetics - the scientific discovery of genes and how they work. (For more details and a continuously updating timeline, see the history of genetics on Wikipedia.) The takeaway is that understanding in the field has changed drastically over time. A single human lifetime is enough for the field to transform itself. Slack could have made the point better that we are still very much in this process, indeed the pace of discovery keeps accelerating, with the result that if someone hasn't looked at the field in ten years or more, much of what they think they know about it may be getting rusty. For example, Slack cites Richard Lewontin's dismissal of the field of behavioral genetics - dating from the 1980s - as if still relevant. (Slack also neglects to mention that Lewontin's dismissal was motivated and informed by his Marxism, but that's another issue.) When reading anything about genetics or relating peripherally to it (which would include almost everything involving a human or any other life form), pay careful attention to the publication dates. You may be examining a conceptual fossil. And check back in ten years to see how well it's holding up.
Other topics in the book might be hard to understand from the cusory descriptions. If the bit about GWAS went over your head, I highly recommand Robert Plomin's Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are. And there are dozens of other VSIs overlapping this book or expanding on some of its topics - genomics, heredity, eugenics, microbiology, viruses, bacteria, schizophrenia, dementia, evolution, public health, infectious disease, astrobiology, ideology, racism, intelligence, and so on. But as always, bear in mind those publication dates - for example, anything published in the early 2000s or earlier will be written in ignorance of GWAS technology which only got going by the mid-2000s and has been expanding ever since. And if a particular VSI has multiple editions, try to get the latest one, or better yet compare all the editions to get a feel for how the conceptual ground is shifting under our feet. In the meantime, try to avoid forming firm opinions about anything related to genes. I found Slack's habit of declaring that this or that aspect of genetics must forever defy our understanding to be rather daring, to say the least. Obviously some things seem impossible to work out just now, but with respect to genetics we're similar to astronomers in the early 1800s. If humans manage to avoid blasting or cooking civilization out of existence, who knows what tools humans of the future may have.
February 12, 2026
I read this mainly to understand genetic heritability and environmental factor effects on individual differences better.
Basically what I didn't understand before and what most people don't understand about this topic is the following:
Let's suppose that we want to discover the genetic heritability versus environmental effects on the size of cows on different farms. We may discover that the genetic heritability is 50% and environmental effects (how they are fed) accounts for 50% of the variability on their size. Now let's say that we buy out all the farms and establish a new norm that all the cows are fed exactly the same. This might increase the size of all the cows as they are fed better all across this population but that would actually reduce environmental effect on the variability of their size and increase the genetic effect even though the genes stayed the same. Why is that? Because the variability of the environmental factor (differences in how they are fed) has decreased and will therefore account for less of the variability of their size overall. Thus the effect of the genetic variability will account for more of the variability in their size, maybe 70%, for example, and the environmental effect would be 30%. This actually happened in the U.S. when the feeding of the cows was widely standardized. This is not intuitive at all so it is that much more important to understand.
Furthermore, twin studies nowadays are done on families where the twins are raised in the same family, i.e. same or very similar environment, comparing outcomes for dizygotic (DZ) and monozygotic (MZ) twins. The problem with using twins raised in very similar environments is that it will inflate the genetic component in heritability so twin studies likely overestimate it for the whole population. Furthermore, it is assumed in these studies that the effect of environment is the same for MZ and DZ twins which might not be the case in reality. A better way to conduct twin studies would be to use MZ twins separated at birth, which has been done in the past, for example with IQ studies but nowadays these kinds of twins are very hard to find and even if they are separated, they are likely still raised in very similar environments, i.e. with relatives. In addition, the status of MZ or DZ might be uncertain when the individuals are not available for examination.
Also, for the possible gene-environment interactions to take place and for them to be observable, the environments must be different enough. For a random example, let's say there's a gene variant that makes it easier to thrive in very cold climate but since the twins are both raised in a warm climate, their performance would be identical regardless of the gene variant. Thus, only if the different gene variants and the different environments are present, will the differences in performance appear.
There's also some desperate attempts at coping about topics regarding race and IQ but luckily I didn't read this book for that. For example he claims that genetic differences between races (or geographic populations.... you can call them whatever you like, really) don't really exist since the differences are just really small, like 0.1% of the genes. Actually that doesn't really mean anything, “small” is just some subjective judgment, one might also say that the 1.2% of genetic differences between chimps and humans is really small so it doesn't really exist. The fact is, if you analyze the genomes of individuals from all over the world, they form clusters of similarity based on geographic populations and these clusters also fall in line with our understanding of “races”.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles... - figure 3 in this study illustrates the stark differences between the clusters of Africans and Europeans, for example.
Regarding IQ, he somehow squirms himself into claiming that IQ is actually environmental even though he admits immediately before it, that yes, IQ is largely genetic. While I agree that environmental factors play a large role, they do only in terms of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution after the races developed in different environments. If we're talking about just hundreds or even a couple thousand years, the effects on IQ are still mostly genetic so supplanting lower IQ populations into the environments of higher IQ populations will not raise their IQ. Even this supposed renowned expert cannot bring himself to accept this basic reality and brainwashes his audience that genetics somehow don't play a significant role with IQ. Just sad and pathetic.
Basically what I didn't understand before and what most people don't understand about this topic is the following:
Let's suppose that we want to discover the genetic heritability versus environmental effects on the size of cows on different farms. We may discover that the genetic heritability is 50% and environmental effects (how they are fed) accounts for 50% of the variability on their size. Now let's say that we buy out all the farms and establish a new norm that all the cows are fed exactly the same. This might increase the size of all the cows as they are fed better all across this population but that would actually reduce environmental effect on the variability of their size and increase the genetic effect even though the genes stayed the same. Why is that? Because the variability of the environmental factor (differences in how they are fed) has decreased and will therefore account for less of the variability of their size overall. Thus the effect of the genetic variability will account for more of the variability in their size, maybe 70%, for example, and the environmental effect would be 30%. This actually happened in the U.S. when the feeding of the cows was widely standardized. This is not intuitive at all so it is that much more important to understand.
Furthermore, twin studies nowadays are done on families where the twins are raised in the same family, i.e. same or very similar environment, comparing outcomes for dizygotic (DZ) and monozygotic (MZ) twins. The problem with using twins raised in very similar environments is that it will inflate the genetic component in heritability so twin studies likely overestimate it for the whole population. Furthermore, it is assumed in these studies that the effect of environment is the same for MZ and DZ twins which might not be the case in reality. A better way to conduct twin studies would be to use MZ twins separated at birth, which has been done in the past, for example with IQ studies but nowadays these kinds of twins are very hard to find and even if they are separated, they are likely still raised in very similar environments, i.e. with relatives. In addition, the status of MZ or DZ might be uncertain when the individuals are not available for examination.
Also, for the possible gene-environment interactions to take place and for them to be observable, the environments must be different enough. For a random example, let's say there's a gene variant that makes it easier to thrive in very cold climate but since the twins are both raised in a warm climate, their performance would be identical regardless of the gene variant. Thus, only if the different gene variants and the different environments are present, will the differences in performance appear.
There's also some desperate attempts at coping about topics regarding race and IQ but luckily I didn't read this book for that. For example he claims that genetic differences between races (or geographic populations.... you can call them whatever you like, really) don't really exist since the differences are just really small, like 0.1% of the genes. Actually that doesn't really mean anything, “small” is just some subjective judgment, one might also say that the 1.2% of genetic differences between chimps and humans is really small so it doesn't really exist. The fact is, if you analyze the genomes of individuals from all over the world, they form clusters of similarity based on geographic populations and these clusters also fall in line with our understanding of “races”.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles... - figure 3 in this study illustrates the stark differences between the clusters of Africans and Europeans, for example.
Regarding IQ, he somehow squirms himself into claiming that IQ is actually environmental even though he admits immediately before it, that yes, IQ is largely genetic. While I agree that environmental factors play a large role, they do only in terms of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution after the races developed in different environments. If we're talking about just hundreds or even a couple thousand years, the effects on IQ are still mostly genetic so supplanting lower IQ populations into the environments of higher IQ populations will not raise their IQ. Even this supposed renowned expert cannot bring himself to accept this basic reality and brainwashes his audience that genetics somehow don't play a significant role with IQ. Just sad and pathetic.
October 11, 2023
The earlier chapters detailing the history heredity and genetics from Darwins discussion on evolution through Mendels work on heredity in sweet peas to the more molecular studies on chromosomes, nucleic acids which led to Crick, Franklin, Watson and Wilkins elucidation of DNA stucture, are well written and informative.
Later chapters covering topics including the nature of heredibilty, the use of GWAS genetic basis of IQ etc are much weaker. A throw away line toward the end of the book to the effect that the author doesn't nessecarily agree with all the uses to which the idea of the gene is applied needs to be made much clearer and he needs to point out the counter arguments to the genetic determinism of the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists. His discussion on measuring heredity lacks clarity to such a degree that it actually feels like a way of leaving the door open at all occasions for genetic determinism. In a similar vein he really doesn't cover epigentics in any real depth (the focus here is on an overly simplistic idea of the role of methylation of cytosine).
From the odd comment about social science resistance to genetics I get the feeling that Slack has developed a bunker mentality (he works in Stem cell reasearch so one imagines constantly having to bat off ignorant or hateful comments from various opposition groups) which lends a dismissive air to when he addresses some of the concerns he perceives as coming form outside the field (the truth is many inside the field share those concerns and, honestly the go too sterotype of religious opposition is just that - a gross sterotype which should be dropped (just as the meglomaniac Frankenstein figure is an unrealistic sterotype of the scientist).
In summary this is a book of two halves with the first half an enjoyable and well written precis of a journey so far while the second half is poorly written romp into the marshy ground of where we are now - a trip full of speculation and weak justifications.
Later chapters covering topics including the nature of heredibilty, the use of GWAS genetic basis of IQ etc are much weaker. A throw away line toward the end of the book to the effect that the author doesn't nessecarily agree with all the uses to which the idea of the gene is applied needs to be made much clearer and he needs to point out the counter arguments to the genetic determinism of the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists. His discussion on measuring heredity lacks clarity to such a degree that it actually feels like a way of leaving the door open at all occasions for genetic determinism. In a similar vein he really doesn't cover epigentics in any real depth (the focus here is on an overly simplistic idea of the role of methylation of cytosine).
From the odd comment about social science resistance to genetics I get the feeling that Slack has developed a bunker mentality (he works in Stem cell reasearch so one imagines constantly having to bat off ignorant or hateful comments from various opposition groups) which lends a dismissive air to when he addresses some of the concerns he perceives as coming form outside the field (the truth is many inside the field share those concerns and, honestly the go too sterotype of religious opposition is just that - a gross sterotype which should be dropped (just as the meglomaniac Frankenstein figure is an unrealistic sterotype of the scientist).
In summary this is a book of two halves with the first half an enjoyable and well written precis of a journey so far while the second half is poorly written romp into the marshy ground of where we are now - a trip full of speculation and weak justifications.
July 29, 2025
ONE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ‘BAD WRITING’
Learn how to put commas, retard. Hardly ever does he manage to use the non-restrictive relative clause correctly. The most extraordinary thing about this idiot is that his grammatical understanding has so many things in the OPPOSITE way; where he needs to put a comma, he never does, while he bothers to put a comma, giving a meaning he does not intend to give, where he does not need to.
This cunt is so remarkably terrible at writing that he also keeps failing to agree between the subject and the verb in the third person inflection. In his understanding of English grammar, which is the worst I have ever seen, when a singular subject is followed by a plural noun (e.g., the formation of genes), it means that the subject, despite being a singular noun, is followed by the plural form of a verb. You will not find such an idiot even at the nursery level.
Page 85
DO YOU MEAN THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS GET THIS DISEASE ‘EARLY IN LIFE’. IF YOU PUT ‘EARLIER LIFE’, YOU WILL SOUND AS IF YOU BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION, VERMIN.
If you want to learn a bit about genes, turn to someone else, to someone who is able to write in English at the very least. This cunt is a genetic failure.
Learn how to put commas, retard. Hardly ever does he manage to use the non-restrictive relative clause correctly. The most extraordinary thing about this idiot is that his grammatical understanding has so many things in the OPPOSITE way; where he needs to put a comma, he never does, while he bothers to put a comma, giving a meaning he does not intend to give, where he does not need to.
This cunt is so remarkably terrible at writing that he also keeps failing to agree between the subject and the verb in the third person inflection. In his understanding of English grammar, which is the worst I have ever seen, when a singular subject is followed by a plural noun (e.g., the formation of genes), it means that the subject, despite being a singular noun, is followed by the plural form of a verb. You will not find such an idiot even at the nursery level.
Page 85
DO YOU MEAN THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS GET THIS DISEASE ‘EARLY IN LIFE’. IF YOU PUT ‘EARLIER LIFE’, YOU WILL SOUND AS IF YOU BELIEVE IN REINCARNATION, VERMIN.
If you want to learn a bit about genes, turn to someone else, to someone who is able to write in English at the very least. This cunt is a genetic failure.
January 22, 2023
Very good first introduction
Like the title says, this book is a very short introduction to genes. I think it would be helpful to have taken biology and chemistry classes in high school before reading this book, but if you didn’t take such courses then you can probably still get a lot out of the book by looking things up on Wikipedia. Reading this book obviously won’t make you an expert, but you will know enough to be able to read the other books recommended at the end in order to learn more.
Like the title says, this book is a very short introduction to genes. I think it would be helpful to have taken biology and chemistry classes in high school before reading this book, but if you didn’t take such courses then you can probably still get a lot out of the book by looking things up on Wikipedia. Reading this book obviously won’t make you an expert, but you will know enough to be able to read the other books recommended at the end in order to learn more.
November 7, 2019
Being not from biology background, this book did justice with people like me by making them understand the concept and current trends of Gene studies, of course in short.
I love this book and it makes it clear that there is no simple one is to one mapping for most of the human traits allegedly linked with genetics
Surprisingly this book didn't say anything much about Gene editing techniques like Crispr etc
I love this book and it makes it clear that there is no simple one is to one mapping for most of the human traits allegedly linked with genetics
Surprisingly this book didn't say anything much about Gene editing techniques like Crispr etc
September 18, 2019
A good introduction to a very broad and well researched area fundamental to science. The author starts off quite broad with some very useful examples, especially if you are a young researcher, important to know these details. The core ideas surrounding the gene where it is involved in single-gene defects causing diseases is one of the many highlights of this book. Recommended.
March 1, 2024
Genetics was one of the most interesting classes I had in undergraduate school. I enjoyed going over most of the things we talked about concerning the basic physical unit of heredity, known as the gene. For a short introduction, this one is filled to the last page with info. This is a good place to start on learning the structure of genetics and why it is such a huge field today to study.
August 26, 2020
A much needed refresher for some of the concepts I had learnt last year and forgotten since then. While it does not go into too much details, it does an adequate job of explaining the basics of most things genes.
May 22, 2024
تعد الجينات وعلم الوراثة من أهم الموضوعات العلمية في عصرنا الحالي. يقدم كتاب "الجينات" شرحًا سهل الفهم لمفهوم الجينات وعلم الوراثة، مما يجعله موردًا قيمًا لأي شخص مهتم بفهم كيفية تأثير الجينات على حياتنا.
عيوب الكتاب:
ينقص الكتاب بعض التفاصيل في بعض المواضيع.
عيوب الكتاب:
ينقص الكتاب بعض التفاصيل في بعض المواضيع.
May 18, 2020
Provides plenty of examples of DNA effects through explaining several diseases.
September 11, 2021
Excellent refresher
June 28, 2023
Great introduction of the topic!
June 2, 2024
Good, and probably better than good to someone with no background whatsoever, but still brief on detail.
February 19, 2021
ليس كتابًا تدريسيًا في علم الجينات🧬، بل هو مقدمة مختصرة عن التصورات المتنوعة للجين التي تُستخدم حاليًا في علوم الحياة، والهدف منه تمكين القّراء من إدراك الأفكار الرئيسية عن الجينات، وتقويم القضايا الخِلافية، والانتقال من ثَمَّ إلى الكُتب المتعمقة في الموضوع إن رغبوا في ذلك.
February 23, 2015
For as long as humans have been occupied with agriculture and raising of cattle, concern with selecting the best crops and the best farm animals has been an important intellectual topic. However, only with the work of Gregor Mendel in the late nineteenth century have we started to get a better quantitative picture of how heritability really works. Remarkably enough, most of the deep insights that Mendel came up with have survived subsequent major revolutions in our understanding of molecular nature of inheritance.
This little book aims to cover all of the major topics in the study of genes and genetics. It has a short historical preamble which is followed by the attempt to give the best definition of what genes are. The book deals in some detail with the biochemistry of cells and cellular development. It also goes into some detail to cover the human genetics, and human pathologies that have genetic component in particular. It contains a lot of interesting information in its very short format.
To its credit the book does not shy away from some more controversial topics in human heritability and genetics, such as the existence and nature of races and group differences. The book tries to present all sides of such debates fairly and equitably. (A bit too equitably for my taste.) It leaves it up to the reader to form his own conclusions, or to seek out additional resources and information on these matters.
One of the biggest insights that I’ve gained from reading this short book is that the very notion of a “gene” is not as well defined on the most fundamental level as I had previously thought. The notion of a “gene” is best defined and most useful for single well defined characteristic of an organism that is due to a very precise single region of the DNA sequence. (Even there there are many important caveats.) For heritable characteristics that are far less well defined in terms of their determination by the DNA code the very notion of a gene becomes much more dubious. Nonetheless, our main macro insights about genes and genetics are still largely valid, but we need to keep our expectations from the molecular genetics somewhat in check.
The book is very well written, and it is organized thoughtfully and comprehensively. It still uses quite a bit of scientific jargon and more advanced concepts that many general readers may be unfamiliar with. Nonetheless, all of that should make for a more educational and informative book. I really enjoyed reading it and would strongly recommend it to anyone who has any interest in genetics, biology, or science in general.
This little book aims to cover all of the major topics in the study of genes and genetics. It has a short historical preamble which is followed by the attempt to give the best definition of what genes are. The book deals in some detail with the biochemistry of cells and cellular development. It also goes into some detail to cover the human genetics, and human pathologies that have genetic component in particular. It contains a lot of interesting information in its very short format.
To its credit the book does not shy away from some more controversial topics in human heritability and genetics, such as the existence and nature of races and group differences. The book tries to present all sides of such debates fairly and equitably. (A bit too equitably for my taste.) It leaves it up to the reader to form his own conclusions, or to seek out additional resources and information on these matters.
One of the biggest insights that I’ve gained from reading this short book is that the very notion of a “gene” is not as well defined on the most fundamental level as I had previously thought. The notion of a “gene” is best defined and most useful for single well defined characteristic of an organism that is due to a very precise single region of the DNA sequence. (Even there there are many important caveats.) For heritable characteristics that are far less well defined in terms of their determination by the DNA code the very notion of a gene becomes much more dubious. Nonetheless, our main macro insights about genes and genetics are still largely valid, but we need to keep our expectations from the molecular genetics somewhat in check.
The book is very well written, and it is organized thoughtfully and comprehensively. It still uses quite a bit of scientific jargon and more advanced concepts that many general readers may be unfamiliar with. Nonetheless, all of that should make for a more educational and informative book. I really enjoyed reading it and would strongly recommend it to anyone who has any interest in genetics, biology, or science in general.
June 28, 2016
This dense but comparatively accessible book on genes resolves my question on what genes really are as many books often discuss bases, DNA and chromosomes with genes interspersed, so that it is unclear where genes should belong to.
Slack reserves the answer in the conclusion. Gene is a varied concept and different disciplines have different ideas. One might assume that something as fundamental as genes should be universally understood but that is not the case. A molecular biologist might see genes as a stretch of DNA while an evolutionary biologist might have hypothetical genes in mind (i.e. genes that might not exist!). A quantitative geneticist might define "gene" as unknown variants at multiple loci of the DNA.
Slack reserves the answer in the conclusion. Gene is a varied concept and different disciplines have different ideas. One might assume that something as fundamental as genes should be universally understood but that is not the case. A molecular biologist might see genes as a stretch of DNA while an evolutionary biologist might have hypothetical genes in mind (i.e. genes that might not exist!). A quantitative geneticist might define "gene" as unknown variants at multiple loci of the DNA.
October 19, 2020
Ga neksbuk, ga berasa ngulang pelajaran. Lebih kaya berita/jurnalisme(?), ngasih pandangan yang komprehensif tentang peran-peran relevan genetika dalam kehidupan. Cukup byk dpt info baru yg ga ada di kelas.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews