What do you think?
Rate this book
Valuepack:Essential Biology with Physical:International Edition/ Practical Skills in Biomolecular Sciences
Essential Biology with International Edition, 2/e This brief text consistently relates core course material to students’ lives, clarifies the process of science and demonstrates how the theme of evolution integrates all of biology. Hailed for its clear writing, scientific accuracy, and real-world examples, Essential Biology with Physiology is a brief non-majors biology text that focuses on the core concepts students need to make scientifically informed decisions throughout their lives. Practical Skills in Biomolecular Sciences, 3/e Practical Skills in Biomolecular Science, is an indispensable book for undergraduate students in the life sciences. The book provides useful support at all stages of a degree course and underpins any practical course in biochemistry, biomedical science, genetics, immunology and microbiology. Now in its third edition, it continues to provide students with easy-to-use guidance for laboratory and field studies, but in addition it now covers broader transferable skills.
Paperback
First published December 29, 2000
26 people are currently reading
232 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
March 18, 2020
Couldn’t find my edition, but this was the closest result.
The writing and visuals were very user-friendly. I’m not into science, but I liked reading this for bio.
The writing and visuals were very user-friendly. I’m not into science, but I liked reading this for bio.
December 3, 2018
It's good for a basic biology textbook
June 23, 2024
Really boring.
Read
November 29, 2025Life is a thing of wonder. It really is. Great textbook!
June 29, 2009
I read this textbook as part of a biology class this summer.
Overall, one could make an argument that it deserves more than two stars because it's not really worse than typical college textbooks. I don't buy that.
First, the good points: its introduction, scientific method coverage, population, community, and ecosystem ecology sections were very good. The scientific method coverage, in particular, took pains to define the scope of scientific discourse very precisely, and explicitly stated that other fields such as religion can also help us to know nature. I appreciated that.
The community and ecosystem sections, in particular, seemed well-written. They didn't just state ideas; they described the studies that supported them and actively encouraged critical thinking about those studies and their results. In my class, we read those sections first, so I had high hopes for the textbook as a whole.
The book covers a very broad set of topics, and some in surprisingly deep detail. It has a good index and glossary as well.
Unfortunately, most of the book follows this pattern:
Thing A performs function X. Thing B performs function Y. Thing C does Z. They fit together as A-B-C. See figure 8-23h.
(repeat over and over, with different values of ABC, XYZ.)
That is, very little explanation of why we believe this is the case, how we learned about it, how the scientific method was applied in the acquisition of this knowledge, or any disagreement among biologists as to the accuracy of the information. They did have very occasional sections on this, but entire chapters might be almost completely devoid of it. Almost never does the book cite its sources for facts either.
As I was reading the chapters on cells -- which have amazingly intricate chemical properties spelled out -- I kept wondering: when and how did we manage to figure THIS out? It was almost never explained. It would have been so fascinating if it had been.
Then there is the tendency to put out rather unsupportable statements, such as this little gem from page 595:
"Composed of up to 100 billion intricately organized neurons, with a much larger number of supporting cells, the human brain is more powerful than the most sophisticated computer." OK, thought-provoking, yes. But how can you scientifically evaluate the power of a computer and a brain on objective terms? I'm not sure I can evaluate the power of a computer on objective terms (the word "power" is just way too imprecise), let alone that of a brain. They cite no source of that, there is no discussion or background of it. It's just thrown out there, then discarded. I hate that. If you're going to say something that interesting, at least make a feeble attempt to back it up!
They also have a habit of saying things are "almost always" true, such as on p. 383, where they say "Solar energy powers nearly all ecosystems." But they rarely explain what the exceptions are, leaving you to wonder whether a given example is an exception or a rule. (OK, so it's more obvious here, but it happens elsewhere).
They do have a number of helpful figures in the book, though they've probably gone overboard on the photos of athletes and things. Yes, muscles make us run. I get it already.
This is an introductory textbook, so perhaps I am overly harsh here. But I've read other introductory textbooks that are more given to precise language, and don't have chapters that are just endless lists of definitions and functions, but explain how we got there. This book could have so easily been excellent.
Overall, one could make an argument that it deserves more than two stars because it's not really worse than typical college textbooks. I don't buy that.
First, the good points: its introduction, scientific method coverage, population, community, and ecosystem ecology sections were very good. The scientific method coverage, in particular, took pains to define the scope of scientific discourse very precisely, and explicitly stated that other fields such as religion can also help us to know nature. I appreciated that.
The community and ecosystem sections, in particular, seemed well-written. They didn't just state ideas; they described the studies that supported them and actively encouraged critical thinking about those studies and their results. In my class, we read those sections first, so I had high hopes for the textbook as a whole.
The book covers a very broad set of topics, and some in surprisingly deep detail. It has a good index and glossary as well.
Unfortunately, most of the book follows this pattern:
Thing A performs function X. Thing B performs function Y. Thing C does Z. They fit together as A-B-C. See figure 8-23h.
(repeat over and over, with different values of ABC, XYZ.)
That is, very little explanation of why we believe this is the case, how we learned about it, how the scientific method was applied in the acquisition of this knowledge, or any disagreement among biologists as to the accuracy of the information. They did have very occasional sections on this, but entire chapters might be almost completely devoid of it. Almost never does the book cite its sources for facts either.
As I was reading the chapters on cells -- which have amazingly intricate chemical properties spelled out -- I kept wondering: when and how did we manage to figure THIS out? It was almost never explained. It would have been so fascinating if it had been.
Then there is the tendency to put out rather unsupportable statements, such as this little gem from page 595:
"Composed of up to 100 billion intricately organized neurons, with a much larger number of supporting cells, the human brain is more powerful than the most sophisticated computer." OK, thought-provoking, yes. But how can you scientifically evaluate the power of a computer and a brain on objective terms? I'm not sure I can evaluate the power of a computer on objective terms (the word "power" is just way too imprecise), let alone that of a brain. They cite no source of that, there is no discussion or background of it. It's just thrown out there, then discarded. I hate that. If you're going to say something that interesting, at least make a feeble attempt to back it up!
They also have a habit of saying things are "almost always" true, such as on p. 383, where they say "Solar energy powers nearly all ecosystems." But they rarely explain what the exceptions are, leaving you to wonder whether a given example is an exception or a rule. (OK, so it's more obvious here, but it happens elsewhere).
They do have a number of helpful figures in the book, though they've probably gone overboard on the photos of athletes and things. Yes, muscles make us run. I get it already.
This is an introductory textbook, so perhaps I am overly harsh here. But I've read other introductory textbooks that are more given to precise language, and don't have chapters that are just endless lists of definitions and functions, but explain how we got there. This book could have so easily been excellent.
September 22, 2019
2 stars
Welcome to the most unmotivated presentation of biology (one of the more applicable sciences) I have ever seen. The introduction (the usual from every other science textbook) was fine, but when it started to introduce the necessary chemistry, the book just started going downhill. For one, the chemistry touched upon focused forever on the most intuitive parts and glossed over the difficulties (i.e. the specifics that you actually do need to know), and I'd say this kind of attitude was present throughout the whole work. For another, when it was introduced, it was barely touched upon in any other chapters, leading me to believe it might have been easier to introduce on an as-needed basis. Its treatment of the diversity of life was also lacking at best, and so much of the way this book flowed seemed like it had been edited hundreds of time, making it so lifeless to read. Please, do yourself a favor and try a different introductory biology book.
Welcome to the most unmotivated presentation of biology (one of the more applicable sciences) I have ever seen. The introduction (the usual from every other science textbook) was fine, but when it started to introduce the necessary chemistry, the book just started going downhill. For one, the chemistry touched upon focused forever on the most intuitive parts and glossed over the difficulties (i.e. the specifics that you actually do need to know), and I'd say this kind of attitude was present throughout the whole work. For another, when it was introduced, it was barely touched upon in any other chapters, leading me to believe it might have been easier to introduce on an as-needed basis. Its treatment of the diversity of life was also lacking at best, and so much of the way this book flowed seemed like it had been edited hundreds of time, making it so lifeless to read. Please, do yourself a favor and try a different introductory biology book.
November 14, 2015
For a science textbook, this book was very easy to read. It was well structured, full of pictures and diagrams, and written in an easy, conversational tone that (for once) did NOT feel like it was talking down to me. Definitely was a great choice for a biology class geared towards students who are not science majors.
Read
September 28, 2008Finish Ch. 15-29. (never finished ch. 15-29.)
December 1, 2009
Probably the best bio textbook I've ever had in the respect that it lists off the social perspective!
May 19, 2013
Read it for a class and helped me more than the actual professor... From there you can tell how helpful and good this book is.
Read
February 2, 2016I think this is useful.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews