What do you think?
Rate this book
As Gods: A Moral History of the Genetic Age
The thrilling and terrifying history of genetic engineering In 2018, scientists manipulated the DNA of human babies for the first time. As biologist and historian Matthew Cobb shows in As Gods , this achievement was one many scientists have feared from the start of the genetic age. Four times in the last fifty years, geneticists, frightened by their own technology, have called a temporary halt to their experiments. They ought to be Now we have powers that can target the extinction of pests, change our own genes, or create dangerous new versions of diseases in an attempt to prevent future pandemics. Both awe-inspiring and chilling, As Gods traces the history of genetic engineering, showing that this revolutionary technology is far too important to be left to the scientists. They have the power to change life itself, but should we trust them to keep their ingenuity from producing a hellish reality?
464 pages, Hardcover
Published November 15, 2022
67 people are currently reading
1241 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Cobb
29 books110 followersMatthew Cobb (born 4 February 1957) is a British zoologist and professor of zoology at the University of Manchester. He is known for his popular science books The Egg & Sperm Race: The Seventeenth-Century Scientists Who Unravelled the Secrets of Sex, Life and Growth; Life's Greatest Secret: The Race to Crack the Genetic Code; and The Idea of the Brain: A History. Cobb has appeared on BBC Radio 4's The Infinite Monkey Cage, The Life Scientific, and The Curious Cases of Rutherford & Fry, as well as on BBC Radio 3 and the BBC World Service.
Cobb has written and provided expert comments for publications including New Scientist and The Guardian, translated five books from French into English, and written two books on the history of France during World War II.
Cobb has written and provided expert comments for publications including New Scientist and The Guardian, translated five books from French into English, and written two books on the history of France during World War II.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
September 16, 2022
This big book is a deep dive into the history of a relatively new aspect of science - genetic modification - from the first crude steps to the sophistication of CRISPR-based gene editing.
Matthew Cobb takes us through the basics of what is involved in genetic modification technically, from attempts dating back to the late 60s using a phage (a virus that attacks bacteria) to extract a gene from a bacterium up to the apparent precision of modern gene editing. But the importance of this book is not in giving us an increased understanding of plasmids or homologous recombination (don't biologists love vast numbers of technical terms?), but rather in getting a clear picture of how the science of genetic modification has developed and the disputes that have taken place over the ethics of undertaking these experiments.
One thing that surprised me, as someone with no familiarity with this aspect of science, was how much of the ethical concerns came from the scientists themselves. Possibly because scientific debate tends not to be undertaken through the media, I was more familiar with protestors destroying GM crops, or politicians debating the rights and wrongs, but Cobb opens up the efforts by some within the field to have controls or even moratoria, while others wanted to forge ahead, arguing that science should not be held back.
It's all interesting, but everything moves up a notch when we get on the gene editing capabilities of CRISPR, and particularly the potential and risk of using it to do germline editing on human embryos that would lead to an inheritable genetic change. Cobb describes well the shock when this was undertaken for real by a Chinese scientist, making clear that what was done to these (now) children was nowhere near as precise and targeted as the hype around CRISPR suggests and produced 'mosaics' where not all cells had the same versions of their genes. In referring to another CRISPR experiment, Cobb bluntly puts it 'CRISPR is described as "editing", but this looked like someone had been using a word processor while wearing boxing gloves.' He also highlights how much the vagueness of the scientific establishment in what was and wasn't considered acceptable was part of the problem.
All the way through, Cobb is even handed in that he emphasises both the potential benefits and risks of different genetic modifications. (This was one of the damning aspects of the CRISPR experiment producing children - there were plenty of risks but no benefits.) Often, given the huge amount of hype around these technologies, it seems that things are significantly more complicated than the sales pitch suggests - and it's arguable whether the benefits are worth what has been done. There is no doubt that much genetic work has had benefits in understanding genetics, but even widely recognised positive outcomes, such genetically modified golden rice, are shown to be mixed bags. One little aside - I don't know if Cobb has had a bad experience with the journal Nature at some point, but he mentions them a lot, and it's rarely in a positive light.
It's interesting that a number of the puffs in the blurb make a point of emphasising the depth of the research. This is obviously true - while never getting too heavily into the science to make it unapproachable, Cobb gives us lots of detail on exactly who did what when. This is great to an extent - but for me, it was too much. My first instinct was to say that the book is too long - but on checking, there are only 368 (admittedly large) pages of main text. It's more that there is so much detail that it feels long. It's always difficult to know what to cut, especially when you've invested as much time and effort as Cobb clearly has in this book, but the manuscript would have benefited from some pruning to make it perfect.
That doesn't stop this being a truly valuable book, though. Most of us get very big picture ideas of what's going on with gene editing and other genetic modifications from the media. Now we've got the real story.
Matthew Cobb takes us through the basics of what is involved in genetic modification technically, from attempts dating back to the late 60s using a phage (a virus that attacks bacteria) to extract a gene from a bacterium up to the apparent precision of modern gene editing. But the importance of this book is not in giving us an increased understanding of plasmids or homologous recombination (don't biologists love vast numbers of technical terms?), but rather in getting a clear picture of how the science of genetic modification has developed and the disputes that have taken place over the ethics of undertaking these experiments.
One thing that surprised me, as someone with no familiarity with this aspect of science, was how much of the ethical concerns came from the scientists themselves. Possibly because scientific debate tends not to be undertaken through the media, I was more familiar with protestors destroying GM crops, or politicians debating the rights and wrongs, but Cobb opens up the efforts by some within the field to have controls or even moratoria, while others wanted to forge ahead, arguing that science should not be held back.
It's all interesting, but everything moves up a notch when we get on the gene editing capabilities of CRISPR, and particularly the potential and risk of using it to do germline editing on human embryos that would lead to an inheritable genetic change. Cobb describes well the shock when this was undertaken for real by a Chinese scientist, making clear that what was done to these (now) children was nowhere near as precise and targeted as the hype around CRISPR suggests and produced 'mosaics' where not all cells had the same versions of their genes. In referring to another CRISPR experiment, Cobb bluntly puts it 'CRISPR is described as "editing", but this looked like someone had been using a word processor while wearing boxing gloves.' He also highlights how much the vagueness of the scientific establishment in what was and wasn't considered acceptable was part of the problem.
All the way through, Cobb is even handed in that he emphasises both the potential benefits and risks of different genetic modifications. (This was one of the damning aspects of the CRISPR experiment producing children - there were plenty of risks but no benefits.) Often, given the huge amount of hype around these technologies, it seems that things are significantly more complicated than the sales pitch suggests - and it's arguable whether the benefits are worth what has been done. There is no doubt that much genetic work has had benefits in understanding genetics, but even widely recognised positive outcomes, such genetically modified golden rice, are shown to be mixed bags. One little aside - I don't know if Cobb has had a bad experience with the journal Nature at some point, but he mentions them a lot, and it's rarely in a positive light.
It's interesting that a number of the puffs in the blurb make a point of emphasising the depth of the research. This is obviously true - while never getting too heavily into the science to make it unapproachable, Cobb gives us lots of detail on exactly who did what when. This is great to an extent - but for me, it was too much. My first instinct was to say that the book is too long - but on checking, there are only 368 (admittedly large) pages of main text. It's more that there is so much detail that it feels long. It's always difficult to know what to cut, especially when you've invested as much time and effort as Cobb clearly has in this book, but the manuscript would have benefited from some pruning to make it perfect.
That doesn't stop this being a truly valuable book, though. Most of us get very big picture ideas of what's going on with gene editing and other genetic modifications from the media. Now we've got the real story.
June 7, 2022
This book highlights the critical role that conversations around ethics need to play in the field of science, but especially Genetics. Matthew Cobb takes the reader on a historical journey about self-regulation in the field of Genetics in several different avenues: medicine, GMOs, bioweapons and gene drives. Cobb highlights the importance of the public being informed in research efforts and how salient it is to think about the implications of genetic research being equitable.
I have been studying Genetics for almost nine years (four year undergrad degree in Genetics, and five years in a Genetics and Molecular Biology Ph.D. program) and I learned more in this book about the history of self-regulation in Genetics than I did in any of my classes. Cobb articulated many of my thoughts about ethics in genetics – if we can do something should we? It was refreshing that Cobb is drawing attention to the ‘what-ifs’ of genetic research and putting forth the suggestion that other routes are often simpler than genetic editing.
I would consider this book a must-read for any geneticist. Understanding the historical, social, and cultural narratives underlying past Genetic research, especially surrounding more controversial topics like gene editing, can strongly inform future research and help scientists ask better questions before embarking on potentially unethical research.
I received this book in exchange for an honest review from NetGalley and Basic Books.
I have been studying Genetics for almost nine years (four year undergrad degree in Genetics, and five years in a Genetics and Molecular Biology Ph.D. program) and I learned more in this book about the history of self-regulation in Genetics than I did in any of my classes. Cobb articulated many of my thoughts about ethics in genetics – if we can do something should we? It was refreshing that Cobb is drawing attention to the ‘what-ifs’ of genetic research and putting forth the suggestion that other routes are often simpler than genetic editing.
I would consider this book a must-read for any geneticist. Understanding the historical, social, and cultural narratives underlying past Genetic research, especially surrounding more controversial topics like gene editing, can strongly inform future research and help scientists ask better questions before embarking on potentially unethical research.
I received this book in exchange for an honest review from NetGalley and Basic Books.
January 3, 2023
ظل البشر يغيرون الجينوم منذ آلاف السنين. منذ أيامنا الأولى في إفريقيا ، منذ مئات الآلاف من السنين ، قمنا عن غير قصد بتغيير جينات الحيوانات والنباتات التي نأكلها ، حيث عملنا كقوة للانتقاء الطبيعي تمامًا مثل الحيوانات المفترسة الأخرى. كانت بعض الحيوانات والنباتات قادرة على التكيف مع اهتماماتنا ؛ لم يستطع الآخرون ذلك وانقرضوا ، ولا سيما الحيوانات الضخمة - الماموث ، ووحيد القرن الصوفي ، والكسلان العملاق ، وما إلى ذلك. بعد ذلك ، مع التطور البطيء للزراعة منذ حوالي 10000 عام ، بدأنا في تدجين الحيوانات والنباتات بشكل منهجي ، وتعمُّد تربية تلك الأنواع التي تناسب احتياجاتنا.
يمكن أن تكون النتائج مثيرة. يُظهر التحليل الجينومي أن جميع الخيول الحديثة تنحدر من مجموعة صغيرة من الحيوانات التي تم تدجينها في سهول أوراسيا الغربية منذ حوالي 4000 عام. يمكننا أن نرى هذه العملية في جينوم الحصان - تم اختيار أسلافه للخصائص السلوكية والفسيولوجية التي سمحت للحيوانات بالسير لمسافات طويلة وجعلتها أكثر هدوءًا ، ولكن كانت وراء هذه العملية تغييرات وراثية جزيئية غير مرئية يمكننا فهمها الآن. بل من الممكن أنه على مدى مئات الآلاف من السنين ، قمنا بتدجين أنفسنا ، والاختيار - بشكل حدسي - ضد السلوك العدواني لصالح جميع أنواع الخصائص التعاونية. مع تطور الزراعة ، بدأنا أيضًا في استخدام أبسط أشكال التكنولوجيا الحيوية ، وتسخير نشاط الميكروبات عن غير قصد لصنع الخبز والجبن والبيرة والنبيذ ، واختيار الأنواع التي تناسب غرضنا عن غير قصد.
.
Matthew Cobb
As Gods
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
يمكن أن تكون النتائج مثيرة. يُظهر التحليل الجينومي أن جميع الخيول الحديثة تنحدر من مجموعة صغيرة من الحيوانات التي تم تدجينها في سهول أوراسيا الغربية منذ حوالي 4000 عام. يمكننا أن نرى هذه العملية في جينوم الحصان - تم اختيار أسلافه للخصائص السلوكية والفسيولوجية التي سمحت للحيوانات بالسير لمسافات طويلة وجعلتها أكثر هدوءًا ، ولكن كانت وراء هذه العملية تغييرات وراثية جزيئية غير مرئية يمكننا فهمها الآن. بل من الممكن أنه على مدى مئات الآلاف من السنين ، قمنا بتدجين أنفسنا ، والاختيار - بشكل حدسي - ضد السلوك العدواني لصالح جميع أنواع الخصائص التعاونية. مع تطور الزراعة ، بدأنا أيضًا في استخدام أبسط أشكال التكنولوجيا الحيوية ، وتسخير نشاط الميكروبات عن غير قصد لصنع الخبز والجبن والبيرة والنبيذ ، واختيار الأنواع التي تناسب غرضنا عن غير قصد.
.
Matthew Cobb
As Gods
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
July 14, 2024
3.5 stars rounded down. Matthew Cobb is a professor of zoology at the University of Manchester. In As Gods, he traces the history of genetic engineering (with a focus on mostly non-medical/clinical applications). The research behind this book is thorough, but the writing and presentation (464 page book/14 hour audiobook) could have been edited down some more. I've read many similar books on this topic (see further reading list below), so I think most of the problem was just my own oversaturation in this topic.
Further reading:
Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity by Jamie Metzl
The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race by Walter Isaacson
Genentech: The Beginnings of Biotech by Sally Smith Hughes
Seed Money: Monsanto's Past and Our Food Future by Bartow Elmore
My statistics:
Book 148 for 2024
Book 1751 cumulatively
Further reading:
Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity by Jamie Metzl
The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race by Walter Isaacson
Genentech: The Beginnings of Biotech by Sally Smith Hughes
Seed Money: Monsanto's Past and Our Food Future by Bartow Elmore
My statistics:
Book 148 for 2024
Book 1751 cumulatively
November 13, 2022
The title of the book is very evocative: the moment we humans learnt to mess with the genetic code, we somehow put ourselves on the same level as God. Now, religious implications aside, human beings have actually been messing with the genetic code of their fellow travellers, be they plants or animals, for as long as they have been such. We have done it through selective agriculture and breeding, which have led to the appearance of new varieties and the extinction of others, for example, and we have also done it on ourselves through certain marriage policies. The difference is that we can now intervene directly on the code instead of forcing it to do what we want indirectly. So, is what humans are doing right or wrong? What are the limits? Is this a matter for scientists alone or should the decision to proceed in a certain way be taken by the entire human assembly? Well, in principle I would say that it is right to make certain decisions as participatory as possible, then I remember that many very participatory decisions have led to epic disasters, and this is something that is not mentioned at all in the book. I refer, for example, to the referendum in Italy that led to the total abandonment of nuclear policy, despite the fact that the arguments of the campaign against had no real scientific value and were based only on irrational fears. Wanting therefore to express the real underlying flaw of the book, it is its saying that it is necessary to address the people in order to gain consensus but actually only speak to those who are able to understand the arguments. The iconic 'strawberry 81' of twitter, for example, would not be able to understand a single word of this text, and would never be able to make a truly informed decision (I use this term paradoxically, borrowing it from the language of these people), yet nowhere does it say that first of all, before you can have a true participatory decision, you need to bring the various 'strawberries 81' of the world to a level of education that allows them to understand the topic they are deciding on and to argue yes or no.
September 28, 2023
I got bogged down in the science trying to understand how the gene manipulation worked before realizing my focus should be on the moral issues of gene manipulation. Cobb told us in the introduction not to focus on the science but I went there anyway. Once there, I could see two sides of this coin. Cobb does a good job posing questions and challenging us to consider the moral issues.
Cobb covers the gamut from tweaking plants to improve production and disease resistance to selecting traits in babies via gene manipulation. He also provides a historical perspective including conferences where scientists and researchers debated limiting the scope of research. Cobb is clear he feels an international organization akin to ICAO (for civil aviation) would be most beneficial – nation states have too much variability in laws and moral position.
I’m glad I read this book though it was neither easy nor fun. I could see this being require reading for an ethics class with numerous discussion possibilities. Above average, 3.5 Goodread stars, but one that requires a fair amount of thought and reflection to get the most from it.
Cobb covers the gamut from tweaking plants to improve production and disease resistance to selecting traits in babies via gene manipulation. He also provides a historical perspective including conferences where scientists and researchers debated limiting the scope of research. Cobb is clear he feels an international organization akin to ICAO (for civil aviation) would be most beneficial – nation states have too much variability in laws and moral position.
I’m glad I read this book though it was neither easy nor fun. I could see this being require reading for an ethics class with numerous discussion possibilities. Above average, 3.5 Goodread stars, but one that requires a fair amount of thought and reflection to get the most from it.
January 21, 2023
This book is a treasure. Matthew Cobb has delivered a readable, accurate, nuanced and enjoyable history of the dynamic field of molecular genetics. As a testament to his craft, it seems like the story wrote itself, with wave after wave of similar hopes, fears, ideals, ego and greediness pop up after each breakthrough. And these are breakthroughs - Mr. Cobb does a great service by explaining how and why the major findings shocked and excited experts in the field and changed genetics forever. This book is timely - for example, the treatment on CRISPR is a great introduction to the technique, reporting on how an obscure finding was developed into a powerful tool by creative and brilliant researchers.
January 6, 2023
I assume this is the US edition of The Genetic Age; Our Perilous Quest to Edit Life. Profile Books London, ISBN 978 1 78816 700 0
If so, it should be compulsory reading for all health and/or science policy makers, and all scientists whether or not they work in genetics or other molecular biology fields. It is a well written, sometimes wry account of the development of genetic manipulation techniques over the last 40 years. The writing describes repeated contrasts between the potential to eliminate or reduce disease, restore ecosystems, and hubris, unnecessary or potentially dangerous experimentation, and inequality. Cobb remarks that it is essential to understand the background to these developments and that local communities should be involved in the decision making before the deployment of genetic techniques. For example should we deploy gene drive technology to eliminate Malaria, the worlds most deadly disease, or develop technology to exterminate introduced pests in New Zealand. Where does it stop, who should take the decisions, what are the real risks.
If so, it should be compulsory reading for all health and/or science policy makers, and all scientists whether or not they work in genetics or other molecular biology fields. It is a well written, sometimes wry account of the development of genetic manipulation techniques over the last 40 years. The writing describes repeated contrasts between the potential to eliminate or reduce disease, restore ecosystems, and hubris, unnecessary or potentially dangerous experimentation, and inequality. Cobb remarks that it is essential to understand the background to these developments and that local communities should be involved in the decision making before the deployment of genetic techniques. For example should we deploy gene drive technology to eliminate Malaria, the worlds most deadly disease, or develop technology to exterminate introduced pests in New Zealand. Where does it stop, who should take the decisions, what are the real risks.
November 26, 2022
WOW! I'm a warrior and a worrier, too. Professor Cobb presents a well-researched and documented book. After I read the review of "As Gods" in the WSJ I used my last few bucks to get a copy from B&N, using a gift card that I got for doing a survey ($20 off). The final price was $18.11, which is a really good deal for an up to the minute text like this book. To qualify my impression of "As Gods" in the review, I probably have about 460+ books that I have lying around this cramped and oppressive one-bedroom apartment, but I read "As Gods" immediately, before all the others. It didn't get tossed onto a pile like all the other new books I get, even the ones on politics and defense and warfighting and all of that etc. etc.
And what do you know: that is why "As Gods" is so successful: it jumps to the head of the line because it's about really important stuff. It, by its very "nature", is important. We have to get a handle on all this stuff as a collective humanity. What really bugs me is that all of this could have been solved back in 1989 when the Wall came down, but there was a fly in the ointment, and we got Putin and Xie Jingping.
The Soviet "bioweapons" program openness went dark right around the time Putin's dictatorship began, and dollars to donuts the criminal enterprise that is the Russian Federation government, from top to very bottom, is doing bioweapons research.
It was a little surprising to read Professor Cobb's thoughts about how atomic fears have faded considering the news about "This is not a bluff" from the main thug himself about using nukes in Ukraine? Professor Cobb did not mention Ukraine at all. But the professor is right: there are a lot of better ways of solving the world's problems not through genetic engineering, but by fixing sewage and better irrigation of crops, things like that. I kept thinking of Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" which I have not read because years ago when I ordered it from Amazon, they sent me the wrong book, really applies here, too.
Part of this all scares me because I ask myself if I would just release my gene drive mosquitos just like that "He" Chinese guy went ahead and brought those three female embryos that he edited to term, to the subsequent horror of the world. But probably not: I'd rather just have a burger.
To make a long story short: I read this book in three days over the Thanksgiving 2022 holiday weekend. What is the bottom line? We've got to come up with something to regulate this stuff on an international level, and we have to give the organization TEETH. I'm surprised that the Professor did not mention Daniel Suarez's "Change Agent," which came out before the pandemic, which, while having a lot of science and technology based futuristic stuff in it, was basically about a fellow who was like a cop and who was going around policing rogue genetic age criminals doing genetic age crimes.
The character was based in Singapore. Maybe I could be like that guy. One can dream.
And what do you know: that is why "As Gods" is so successful: it jumps to the head of the line because it's about really important stuff. It, by its very "nature", is important. We have to get a handle on all this stuff as a collective humanity. What really bugs me is that all of this could have been solved back in 1989 when the Wall came down, but there was a fly in the ointment, and we got Putin and Xie Jingping.
The Soviet "bioweapons" program openness went dark right around the time Putin's dictatorship began, and dollars to donuts the criminal enterprise that is the Russian Federation government, from top to very bottom, is doing bioweapons research.
It was a little surprising to read Professor Cobb's thoughts about how atomic fears have faded considering the news about "This is not a bluff" from the main thug himself about using nukes in Ukraine? Professor Cobb did not mention Ukraine at all. But the professor is right: there are a lot of better ways of solving the world's problems not through genetic engineering, but by fixing sewage and better irrigation of crops, things like that. I kept thinking of Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" which I have not read because years ago when I ordered it from Amazon, they sent me the wrong book, really applies here, too.
Part of this all scares me because I ask myself if I would just release my gene drive mosquitos just like that "He" Chinese guy went ahead and brought those three female embryos that he edited to term, to the subsequent horror of the world. But probably not: I'd rather just have a burger.
To make a long story short: I read this book in three days over the Thanksgiving 2022 holiday weekend. What is the bottom line? We've got to come up with something to regulate this stuff on an international level, and we have to give the organization TEETH. I'm surprised that the Professor did not mention Daniel Suarez's "Change Agent," which came out before the pandemic, which, while having a lot of science and technology based futuristic stuff in it, was basically about a fellow who was like a cop and who was going around policing rogue genetic age criminals doing genetic age crimes.
The character was based in Singapore. Maybe I could be like that guy. One can dream.
April 2, 2023
This book was prompted by three developments, says its author Matthew Cobb: Heritable human genome editing (so-called CRISPR babies), the gene drive technology that has the potential to modify or wipe out entire species, and the application of DNA technologies on (potentially) pathogenic organisms such as viruses or bacteria. It deals with the potential for use and abuse of DNA technology, and describes the history of the debate around this topic since the dawn of molecular biology in the 1950's. Cobb is an active researcher in fruit fly biology and the author of several books on different aspects of biomedical research.
The discussion is far-ranging and detailed, at times perhaps a bit too detailed. However, there are several topics and stories that are brought to life which I, having worked in related fields for a long time, did not know about. And for those topics which I did know about before reading this book, I have been unable to detect any factual errors.
Although the author is opinionated, I do not find this to be a problem in itself. He does not let his opinions bias the description in any substantial way. However, I am not entirely happy about the discussion. It is not very well structured, and at times feels like a record of the author's thinking, rather than a measured and considered argument. He argues that important developments must first be discussed and agreed-upon by consensus in the general public (what are the chances of consensus for anything?), at the same time as scientists should themselves assume responsibility for considering whether some new technology should be worked on or not. There seems to be no realization of the potential conflict between these demands; if scientists discuss among themselves whether a technology should be used or not, it can be construed as trying to decide things over the heads of the general public.
That DNA and biomedical technology have great potential is obvious. But as this book clearly explains, having potential is very far from actually delivering the goods. This is both good and bad. Bad because the hopes for new therapies and other useful applications so rarely pan out. Good when it means that the most dire predictions of the terrible power that the new technologies give us rather often turn out to be overblown.
The book ends on a rather down-beat note. Heritable human gene editing gets a well-deserved thrashing as basically a solution looking for a problem. The discussion about the potential dangers of DNA technology has waned during recent years. Are we becoming complacent? The success story of the mRNA vaccines against Covid-19, and the use of DNA sequencing for assisting in treatment of rare genetic disorders, are some examples of progress. Other advances such as CAR T-cell therapy may prove to be too expensive and difficult to be anything but niche applications.
In summary, Matthew Cobb's book is a useful overview of the history of the field, but its discussion and conclusions do not quite live up to expectations.
The discussion is far-ranging and detailed, at times perhaps a bit too detailed. However, there are several topics and stories that are brought to life which I, having worked in related fields for a long time, did not know about. And for those topics which I did know about before reading this book, I have been unable to detect any factual errors.
Although the author is opinionated, I do not find this to be a problem in itself. He does not let his opinions bias the description in any substantial way. However, I am not entirely happy about the discussion. It is not very well structured, and at times feels like a record of the author's thinking, rather than a measured and considered argument. He argues that important developments must first be discussed and agreed-upon by consensus in the general public (what are the chances of consensus for anything?), at the same time as scientists should themselves assume responsibility for considering whether some new technology should be worked on or not. There seems to be no realization of the potential conflict between these demands; if scientists discuss among themselves whether a technology should be used or not, it can be construed as trying to decide things over the heads of the general public.
That DNA and biomedical technology have great potential is obvious. But as this book clearly explains, having potential is very far from actually delivering the goods. This is both good and bad. Bad because the hopes for new therapies and other useful applications so rarely pan out. Good when it means that the most dire predictions of the terrible power that the new technologies give us rather often turn out to be overblown.
The book ends on a rather down-beat note. Heritable human gene editing gets a well-deserved thrashing as basically a solution looking for a problem. The discussion about the potential dangers of DNA technology has waned during recent years. Are we becoming complacent? The success story of the mRNA vaccines against Covid-19, and the use of DNA sequencing for assisting in treatment of rare genetic disorders, are some examples of progress. Other advances such as CAR T-cell therapy may prove to be too expensive and difficult to be anything but niche applications.
In summary, Matthew Cobb's book is a useful overview of the history of the field, but its discussion and conclusions do not quite live up to expectations.
February 21, 2023
Cobb has written a detailed examination of genetic manipulation from the first recombinant DNA in the late 1960's to the present post-Covid world. He thoroughly discusses the promises and problems, the hopes and fears, and the attempts at regulation by scientists and society. Over the last 50 years, recombinant DNA, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), potential genetic weapons, and genetic cures have ultimately been limited both in terms of consequences and terrors.
Many useful products, such as insulin for diabetics and rennet used to make cheese, are now produced by genetic engineering (recombinant DNA). GMOs include cotton and most feed corn and soy. On the one hand, there have been no adverse health consequences of eating any GMO, and on the other hand, genetic engineering has not produced a better bioterror weapon than anthrax or sarin. CRISPR and newer gene editing techniques are very exciting but not likely to result in any health improvements in the foreseeable future. Why all the fuss? Perhaps because genetic engineering keeps reinventing itself and scientists keep finding new things.
Cobb hopes that he has written a book for the educated public. He gives a one-and-a-half page primer of the necessary genetic information in the Introduction. That was fine for me as a retired biologist, but I doubt that this is enough. There is plenty more genetics and molecular biology brought up through the text that is likely difficult to appreciate.
One strange omission is the role that genetic engineering played in generating the Covid vaccines. The bits of viral RNA injected into all those people were manufactured by genetic engineering. Thank goodness for the previous decades of scientific effort that brought us this capability.
Many useful products, such as insulin for diabetics and rennet used to make cheese, are now produced by genetic engineering (recombinant DNA). GMOs include cotton and most feed corn and soy. On the one hand, there have been no adverse health consequences of eating any GMO, and on the other hand, genetic engineering has not produced a better bioterror weapon than anthrax or sarin. CRISPR and newer gene editing techniques are very exciting but not likely to result in any health improvements in the foreseeable future. Why all the fuss? Perhaps because genetic engineering keeps reinventing itself and scientists keep finding new things.
Cobb hopes that he has written a book for the educated public. He gives a one-and-a-half page primer of the necessary genetic information in the Introduction. That was fine for me as a retired biologist, but I doubt that this is enough. There is plenty more genetics and molecular biology brought up through the text that is likely difficult to appreciate.
One strange omission is the role that genetic engineering played in generating the Covid vaccines. The bits of viral RNA injected into all those people were manufactured by genetic engineering. Thank goodness for the previous decades of scientific effort that brought us this capability.
June 2, 2024
In the year 2018, a groundbreaking event occurred as scientists successfully manipulated the DNA of human babies for the first time. Biologist and historian Matthew Cobb, in his work titled "As Gods", delves into the implications of this achievement, highlighting the deep-seated fears that have permeated the scientific community since the onset of the genetic age. Throughout the last five decades, geneticists have, on four separate occasions, imposed temporary halts on their experiments due to their own apprehension regarding the capabilities of their technology.
It is indeed a cause for concern, as we now possess the ability to wield powers that could potentially drive the extinction of certain species, alter the very fabric of our genetic makeup, or unintentionally spawn virulent strains of diseases in an effort to preempt future pandemics. "As Gods" serves as a comprehensive exploration of the historical trajectory of genetic engineering, underscoring the critical importance of recognizing that this transformative technology transcends the realm of scientific inquiry alone.
The power to wield such immense influence over the essence of life itself raises poignant questions about the ethical implications of placing unchecked trust in the hands of scientists, who possess the capacity to shape reality in ways that could veer towards dystopian realms. As we navigate this brave new world of genetic engineering, it becomes imperative to ponder whether we are willing to entrust these innovators with the responsibility of safeguarding against the unintended consequences of their ingenuity.
It is indeed a cause for concern, as we now possess the ability to wield powers that could potentially drive the extinction of certain species, alter the very fabric of our genetic makeup, or unintentionally spawn virulent strains of diseases in an effort to preempt future pandemics. "As Gods" serves as a comprehensive exploration of the historical trajectory of genetic engineering, underscoring the critical importance of recognizing that this transformative technology transcends the realm of scientific inquiry alone.
The power to wield such immense influence over the essence of life itself raises poignant questions about the ethical implications of placing unchecked trust in the hands of scientists, who possess the capacity to shape reality in ways that could veer towards dystopian realms. As we navigate this brave new world of genetic engineering, it becomes imperative to ponder whether we are willing to entrust these innovators with the responsibility of safeguarding against the unintended consequences of their ingenuity.
August 11, 2025
When starting this book, I doubted I could last through 350 detailed pages of scientific experiments (most of which, as with most science, fail), ethical debates, commercial ventures, and personal stories. I worry that few other readers will make it through. But the author is a fine writer and makes many cogent points. People in the medical and life science fields might have followed events in the news already, but they would probably still benefit from Cobb's sociological contexts and background analyses. One of his key points is that important discoveries are often not recognized as such by the public at the time.
Cobb, a biologist, seems fully committed to rigorous science and investigation. This gives the book its balance. If I were to tally up his judgments, I would probably find him siding about equally often with the proponents of genetic engineering and with its critics. He thoroughly explores the ethical issues and the researchers' lapses. As the book progresses and discusses more and more powerful technologies, Cobb's emphasis on risk increases.
I think that the disappointing history of experiments in genetic history shows that scientists tend to be seduced by a mechanistic view of cell behavior; tweaking one protein might produce results in the lab but doesn't usually work in the real world. As Cobb says in his "Aftermath" chapter: "the simple metaphors of molecular scissors and editing that go hand in hand with CRISPR began to be seen as literally true." (His final chapter muses on the metaphors of life as machine and as information.)
Cobb, a biologist, seems fully committed to rigorous science and investigation. This gives the book its balance. If I were to tally up his judgments, I would probably find him siding about equally often with the proponents of genetic engineering and with its critics. He thoroughly explores the ethical issues and the researchers' lapses. As the book progresses and discusses more and more powerful technologies, Cobb's emphasis on risk increases.
I think that the disappointing history of experiments in genetic history shows that scientists tend to be seduced by a mechanistic view of cell behavior; tweaking one protein might produce results in the lab but doesn't usually work in the real world. As Cobb says in his "Aftermath" chapter: "the simple metaphors of molecular scissors and editing that go hand in hand with CRISPR began to be seen as literally true." (His final chapter muses on the metaphors of life as machine and as information.)
August 28, 2024
An unappealing mashup of tedious history and histrionic moralizing.
The first half is an extremely boring history of the development of genetic engineering, including the names and affiliations of everyone involved, the dates they did things and won awards for them, and the conferences in which they spoke and debated. There is minimal explanation of the actual science, but it's very important that we understand that on June 17, 1968 in Fluttersdam, Sweden, Dr. Joe Schlub from the University of Southern North Dakota collaborated with Professor Emanuel Cannot from the University of Northern South Dakota and presented their refutation to the approach proposed by their rival research team comprised of [another list of names, dates, and places] and so on…
After the requisite condemnation of Monsanto for being the anti-christ in corporate form, we catch up with modern techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9. As the book progresses, we get more and more of the author's opinions, from his utter contempt of Bush and trump, to his disdainful dismissal of transhumanism as "silly". He similarly rejects genetic modifications on humans because it's "creepy". Somehow I was hoping for a bit more substance in the arguments. He's also opposed to many other types of research, because it's either too dangerous, there's the potential for unforeseen consequences, it's too expensive, it could be weaponized, or its implementation would benefit some people more than others.
The first half is an extremely boring history of the development of genetic engineering, including the names and affiliations of everyone involved, the dates they did things and won awards for them, and the conferences in which they spoke and debated. There is minimal explanation of the actual science, but it's very important that we understand that on June 17, 1968 in Fluttersdam, Sweden, Dr. Joe Schlub from the University of Southern North Dakota collaborated with Professor Emanuel Cannot from the University of Northern South Dakota and presented their refutation to the approach proposed by their rival research team comprised of [another list of names, dates, and places] and so on…
After the requisite condemnation of Monsanto for being the anti-christ in corporate form, we catch up with modern techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9. As the book progresses, we get more and more of the author's opinions, from his utter contempt of Bush and trump, to his disdainful dismissal of transhumanism as "silly". He similarly rejects genetic modifications on humans because it's "creepy". Somehow I was hoping for a bit more substance in the arguments. He's also opposed to many other types of research, because it's either too dangerous, there's the potential for unforeseen consequences, it's too expensive, it could be weaponized, or its implementation would benefit some people more than others.
October 20, 2023
The introduction leads one to expect a rather stunning exposé of the dangers we are wielding with recently developed technologies. Thankfully for the risk analysis, but unfortunately for the readability of the book, the true picture is more nuanced. The popularized parlance of “gene editing” and “snipping” makes, for example, Crisp-R sound a lot more precise and repeatable than it actually is. So, no real worries about some basement biohacker developing the next super-virus. That would be reserved for a more well-equipped facility.
In the course of the above paragraph I seem to have veered from "no worries" back to the opposite. Perhaps that is due to over-simplifying. I finished the book with the impression of having been exposed to a welter of very specific history of the biotech field, which is OK, but besides the fact that it’s all very complicated and that scientists are, by and large, making some progress towards self-regulation, and that there are good ideas out there for more and better regulations, I fail to take much away from the reading except for my general impression above.
In the course of the above paragraph I seem to have veered from "no worries" back to the opposite. Perhaps that is due to over-simplifying. I finished the book with the impression of having been exposed to a welter of very specific history of the biotech field, which is OK, but besides the fact that it’s all very complicated and that scientists are, by and large, making some progress towards self-regulation, and that there are good ideas out there for more and better regulations, I fail to take much away from the reading except for my general impression above.
November 22, 2022
I entered this book most excited about reading through the implications of CRISPR, but perhaps the most thrilling part was the history of prior genetic engineering breakthroughs dating back to the 70s, and the scientists who attempted to grapple (or not) with societal implications. Cobb argues eloquently and convincingly for greater democracy and public input as we figure out how, when, and whether to apply these technologies.
As far as the new CRISPR tech itself, in some ways Cobb left me less alarmed (some breakthroughs seem further away than I would have thought) but in other ways more (if something *can* be done, it seems like some scientist will try it). Excited to interview the author on my podcast, Storytelling Animals, next week.
As far as the new CRISPR tech itself, in some ways Cobb left me less alarmed (some breakthroughs seem further away than I would have thought) but in other ways more (if something *can* be done, it seems like some scientist will try it). Excited to interview the author on my podcast, Storytelling Animals, next week.
March 11, 2023
I was extremely excited for this book after reading The Idea of the Brain; however, I found the book failing to deliver on its promise. It felt like every other paragraph had references to literally anything other than genetics/genetic engineering such as climate change, socioeconomic issues, or politics. It felt more like a political manifesto wrapped in the skin of the history of genetics. That said, when it actually talked about the history of genetics, it was just as enjoyable as the author's previous book, despite largely ignoring the positive impacts GMOs had on supporting human life, especially in developing nations.
July 7, 2023
3.5 stars. The author, clearly knowledgeable about his subject, has packed this book with everything you could want to know about the history of genetic engineering but were afraid to ask. Maybe too much has been packed in. At times it became a big of a slog. I was hoping for more of the “moral” aspect alluded to in the subtitle. Just because genetic tinkering can be done, does that mean it should be done? He does address this to some extent but the bottom line is “it depends”.
March 16, 2023
Much better alternatives...
Siddhartha Mukherjee's The Gene: An Intimate History
James Watson's DNA: The Story of the Genetic Revolution
Matt Ridley's Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters
Jennifer Doudna's A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution
,
Siddhartha Mukherjee's The Gene: An Intimate History
James Watson's DNA: The Story of the Genetic Revolution
Matt Ridley's Genome: the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters
Jennifer Doudna's A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution
,
March 19, 2023
I reviewed this for New Scientist, describing it as “disturbing and readable” and noting that it made me question whether many of the most prominent genetic engineering projects are worth the money and effort.
Full review: https://www.newscientist.com/article/...
Full review: https://www.newscientist.com/article/...
July 1, 2024
Thoughtful presentation of the development and implementation of genetic modification, along with the ethical questions that it has raised. Given the lack of insight and basic understanding of genetic modification the general population has, I find this book to be a great read to help feel that void at a time when it is much needed.
December 15, 2023
Very worthwhile and well-written account of the societal context and ramifications of "genetic engineering" and its variously-labeled friends and relations. I was a little more engaged by the later chapters, but overall a valuable and highly-recommended tour of the last 50 years.
May 27, 2023
Well written, researched, and presents a non biased account of events and their implications.
December 28, 2023
Solid retelling of the recent history of bio-engineering, more as an industry than a science.
Read
December 31, 2024Made some very interesting comparisons, and I really liked this more in-depth scope of genetic engineering
July 1, 2025
Genetics has consequences.
November 20, 2022
Cobb delivers an excellent book as expected. As Gods follows the ethical, political, and scientific history of a range of genetic technologies from early recombinant DNA to CRISPR and gene-drive technologies at the forefront today. Great content, writing, and overall book.
August 7, 2024
I really like the book. It gave me a clear vision about human abilities to either greate harmful development for humanity or take it to the top quality, which is preferable by many scientist's .Also, varitions on genetic composition provide an opportunity to learn about possible dangers to avert them, which wil have risen in the future
dnf
April 22, 2025dropped this bc i hate the way he writes
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews