As I got tired of spending $50 a week for the privilege of going to work, I’ve been commuting on the bus for a little while and it has given me an extra hour or two a day to get some reading in. Recently, I finished Jim Endersby’s A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. On the whole I liked it.
Endersby essentially chronicles the development of modern biological science starting before Darwin with the curious case of the Quagga. From there Endersby traces the history of biological science forward, each chapter devoted to a particular organism that helped make the discovery. My favorite chapters actually ended up being the ones on Drosophila and Oenothera (a kind of fruit fly and the evening primrose, specifically). However, the chapters on the hawkweed, passion flowers, phage, guinea pigs and the rest are all remarkably entertaining and quite informative. The next to last chapter, on zebra fish, is almost entirely devoted to the University of Oregon’s program and their pioneering zebra fish work, which came as a nice surprise.
Looking at the way in which major discoveries in biological science were made, and the somewhat strange things believed by even leaders of the discipline such as Darwin, has got me thinking more about what Khun was on about. Emphatically not his acolytes’ view that truth is, like, socially constructed…maaaaan. Not that, but that science happens in a sort of unplanned path on which personalities are just as important as the facts at hand. Anyway, for that reason alone Endersby’s book is worth picking up.
The only place where it really goes off the rails at all is during the final chapter on the OncoMouse - a mouse that has been genetically modified in order to have a particular gene that raises its cancer incidence. Endersby tries to make a couple of economic points as he does in other parts of the book, and while his earlier economic statements are usually at least plausible, those in the final chapter are just sort of silly. Not eye-rollingly silly, but they evoke the deep sigh so often associated with moderate liberal economic views. It’s like he understands just enough economics to be a little bit wrong in exactly the kind of way that irritates me. However, this is no reason not to read his book. Read the book, it’s good.
Glad you liked the book, for the most part. Sorry my limited grasp of economics disappointed you; perhaps you could be a bit more specific?
Jim Endersby
June 9th, 2008
Professor Endersby -
First of all, thanks for taking the time to read my little review. I really did quite like the book.
To be more specific, and having briefly reskimmed the OncoMouse chapter again - I think the only bit of the book I didn’t like was the last few paragraphs. And, calling it an economic error was probably slightly churlish on my part.
I think you raise some excellent points about science telling us a lot about what, but not necessarily a lot about why, but I’m not sure the track record of government is particularly stellar in this area either.
Thinking of the whole book, and I apologize because I really am a quite terrible reviewer, the only other quibble I have (and I don’t have specifics because I didn’t take notes) is that in a couple of places, I think mostly regarding international trade, you gave some explanations that I would’ve worded differently. Again, that’s very minor and I’m sorry I can’t be more specific. In any case, I really do think your book is excellent and I’ve been suggesting that all of my friends read it. My girlfriend, I’m sure, is sick of hearing me get all excited about the history of fruit fly breeding.
Timothy
June 9th, 2008