art of science book review

8/2/2019 Art of Science Book Review

1/1

TheArtofScience:ANaturalHistoryofIdeasRichardHamblynAshistitlesuggests,RichardHamblynsanthologyofsciencewritingattemptstobridgethetwoculturesoftheartsandsciencesthatC.P.Snowidentified,byshowingthatsciencewritingcanbeasaccessibleandimpressiveasanyproseemanatingfromthearts.Thisishardlysurprising,asthisanthologyshowstherehasbeennoshortageofarticulatescientistsoverthemillennia,evenifthephenomenatheydescribemaynotcountassciencebythestandardsoftheday.Whatsmostsurprisingisnottheselectionofpiecesno-onewouldexpecttoseeDarwinsspeculativeandincorrecttheoryofpangenesisinplaceofthegrand,ifoftencitedconclusiontoOntheOriginofSpeciesbutthatthecaseneedstobemadeatall.Thatitstillneedstobemade,isshownintheinterchangebetweenHamblynandacolleagueofhiswhostatedthathedidntgetonwithscientistsbecauseImnotontheautisticspectrum,acommenttowhichHamblynwishedhedhadthepresenceofmindtorespond:ifitsaspectrumsunshine,theneverybodysonit.Hamblynisalecturerincreativewritingnotascientist.Hehasanexcellenteyeforastoryandhishelpfulintroductionstoeachpieceprovidevitalcontextthatmanyscienceanthologiestakeforgranted.WithHamblynssupport,manyofthesepiecesglowwiththeenthusiasmandhumanityofsomeofitspractitionersthoughnotall.Watson(ofDoubleHelixfame)criticisesfellowscientistRosalindFranklinforfailingtowearlipstickordressfashionably,andinsodoinginadvertentlylumpinghimselfinwiththegoodlynumberofscientistswhoarenotonlynarrow-mindedanddull,butalsojuststupidhecomplainsaboutbarelyapage

earlier.HamblynsselectionwhichbeginswithAncientBabylonandendswiththeGodParticlemakesacompellingcaseforsciencewritingasadisciplineinitsownright.Notallofthepiecesarebyscientists,asHamblynnotes(andWatsondemonstrates)theyarenotalwaystheirownbestadvocates,sothelikesofCopernicusandNewtonareinterpretedbyothersontheirbehalf.Nonetheless,itisworthrememberingthatwhilemanyoftheearlierpieceswere,effectivelydirecttransmissionsfromsciencetosocietyinalanguagethatmosteducatedlaymencouldunderstand,thesciencecommunicatedatsymposiahaslongsincebecomeacodethatthenon-scientistcanbarelycomprehend.Thisisnotsolelythefaultofscientistsoureducationsystemhasfailedtoprovidescientistsandartistsalikewiththeknowledgeortoolstocommunicateclearlyaboutscienceleavingmanyofusvulnerabletoquackeryanddistortionsthatweareincapableofchallenging.Scie

nceshapesourlivesandifitsdebatesanddiscoveriescannotbecommunicatedclearlythennotonlyarewemissingout,weareindangerofbeingmisledandtheconsequencesofthatmaybemoreseriousthananyofuscanimagine.