- Email: [email protected]
Is science necessary?
~]OOK eukaryotic regulatory proteins and the control of their synthesis. Again, diagrams and text complement each other, making these chapters easier to read than I had expected. This clarity is assisted by references not being in the body of the text, but at the end of each chapter, with emphasis on review articles rather than original publications Admirably, a large proportion of these come from T/G. If I had one criticism to make, however, it would be that the
Is Science Necessary? by Max Perutz, Barrieand Jenkins, 1989.(xvii + 285 pages) ISBN07126 21237 One of the good things about New York is the New York Review of Books, and one of the best things about the Review is that Lord Zuckerman and Max Perutz write for it. Now Perutz has made a collection of his writings in this book, Is Science Necessary?, including several of his book reviews, a long essay that gives the book its name, a fragment of autobiography and short essays on a variety of topics. Perutz writes with a directness and simplicity of expression that belies the hard work behind the writing. His style is shown best in the autobiographical fragment, Enemy Alien. This recounts Perutz's experiences of being imprisoned as an alien in the UK at the outbreak of World War II, and his subsequent recruitment to top secret research! At this remove, the behavior of the UK Government seems to be a classic case of bureaucratic myopia, prejudice and crass insensitivity. (The US government was no better in its treatment of Japanese citizens in that country at the same time.) It is remarkable that these 'aliens' retained their faith in a country that could behave in such a way. Perhaps not all of them did. Perutz was taught quantum physics by a fellow internee, Klaus Fuchs.
[~EVIEWS
authors have not fully achieved their aim of discussing the similarities and differences in regulation between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. In particular, similarities in the structure of the regulatory factors, and their common DNA-binding motifs, have not been dealt with in any depth. Perhaps this might be excused, as the significance of this was not fully appreciated until last year. Indeed, the authors could probably write another book covering the most recent advances and
not repeat themselves. On the whole, therefore, this is an excellent, modestly priced book that will be of great value, particularly to undergraduate students in their final year, as an update on recent progress in the molecular biology of gene regulation.
The flowing style of the autobiography contrasts with the long essay, Is Science Necessary?, which reads rather like a catalogue. This is unfortunate because it is clearly the essay that Pemtz feels to be the most important in the book. The essay is an account of the ways in which science has promoted, and will continue to promote, the wellbeing of mankind. His passionate belief that only science can solve the problems of malnutrition, energy supply and medicine is evident. There is no doubt that Perutz is right to emphasize this in opposition to the apparently increasingly antiscientific views of many in society, but I am afraid that it will be the least satisfactory essay for many readers. I enjoy Perutz's book reviews. The best are those in which he not merely reviews a book but also adds to our knowledge of its subject by drawing on his own experiences, for example in the reviews of the books on Fuchs and Rutherford. Perutz is properly intolerant of incomprehensible writings and pompous platitudes. Two other essays should be mentioned, those on Karl Popper and Erwin Schrodinger. Perutz's views on science, and especially on Karl Popper's philosophy of science, are, in contrast to those who often pontificate on such matters, refreshingly based on his experiences of doing research. Pemtz does not have sympathy with those who feel that biological phenomena are somehow beyond explanation in terms of biochemistry. Popper's talk at the Royal Society and Perutz's response are interesting records of the continuing and still
confused debate on 'vitalism'. Schrodinger was one of those who thought that biology might produce new laws of physics and it is said that his little book What Is Life? inspired physical scientists to enter biology to search for those new laws. As Perutz points out, this is rather strange in view of Schrodinger's muddled treatment of thermodynamics and biological processes. Linus Pauling has made the same point and it is difficult to know why the book made such an impact, if indeed it did. UK science has been fortunate in having, over the years, eminent biologists who had the ability to write good prose about a whole variety of topics related to science. The tradition goes back as far as T.H. Huxley and reached its apogee in the period when J.D. Bernal, Julian Huxley, Lancelot Hogben and J.B.S. Haldane were writing for publications as diverse as the Illustrated London News (Huxley) and The Daily Worker (Haldane). Peter Medawar was a famous exponent of the art of the scientific essay, and his review of Teillhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man is a classic hatchet job. I do not think that Max Perutz has quite reached the standard of this group, but I enjoyed this book a lot. I hope he will continue to write about science and I shall continue to look eagerly in the pages of the New York Review of Books.
TIC,NOVEMBER1989 VOt. 5, NO. 11
PETERGOLDF~ MolecularToxicologyGroup, Departmentof Biochemistry, Universityof Surrey, Guildford GU25XH, UK.
JAN WrlXOWSKl
CoMSpringHarborLaboratories,Banbury Center, POBox 534, ColdSpringHarbor, NY 11724, USA
Is Science Necessary? by Max Perutz, Barrieand Jenkins, 1989.(xvii + 285 pages) ISBN07126 21237 One of the good things about New York is the New York Review of Books, and one of the best things about the Review is that Lord Zuckerman and Max Perutz write for it. Now Perutz has made a collection of his writings in this book, Is Science Necessary?, including several of his book reviews, a long essay that gives the book its name, a fragment of autobiography and short essays on a variety of topics. Perutz writes with a directness and simplicity of expression that belies the hard work behind the writing. His style is shown best in the autobiographical fragment, Enemy Alien. This recounts Perutz's experiences of being imprisoned as an alien in the UK at the outbreak of World War II, and his subsequent recruitment to top secret research! At this remove, the behavior of the UK Government seems to be a classic case of bureaucratic myopia, prejudice and crass insensitivity. (The US government was no better in its treatment of Japanese citizens in that country at the same time.) It is remarkable that these 'aliens' retained their faith in a country that could behave in such a way. Perhaps not all of them did. Perutz was taught quantum physics by a fellow internee, Klaus Fuchs.
[~EVIEWS
authors have not fully achieved their aim of discussing the similarities and differences in regulation between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. In particular, similarities in the structure of the regulatory factors, and their common DNA-binding motifs, have not been dealt with in any depth. Perhaps this might be excused, as the significance of this was not fully appreciated until last year. Indeed, the authors could probably write another book covering the most recent advances and
not repeat themselves. On the whole, therefore, this is an excellent, modestly priced book that will be of great value, particularly to undergraduate students in their final year, as an update on recent progress in the molecular biology of gene regulation.
The flowing style of the autobiography contrasts with the long essay, Is Science Necessary?, which reads rather like a catalogue. This is unfortunate because it is clearly the essay that Pemtz feels to be the most important in the book. The essay is an account of the ways in which science has promoted, and will continue to promote, the wellbeing of mankind. His passionate belief that only science can solve the problems of malnutrition, energy supply and medicine is evident. There is no doubt that Perutz is right to emphasize this in opposition to the apparently increasingly antiscientific views of many in society, but I am afraid that it will be the least satisfactory essay for many readers. I enjoy Perutz's book reviews. The best are those in which he not merely reviews a book but also adds to our knowledge of its subject by drawing on his own experiences, for example in the reviews of the books on Fuchs and Rutherford. Perutz is properly intolerant of incomprehensible writings and pompous platitudes. Two other essays should be mentioned, those on Karl Popper and Erwin Schrodinger. Perutz's views on science, and especially on Karl Popper's philosophy of science, are, in contrast to those who often pontificate on such matters, refreshingly based on his experiences of doing research. Pemtz does not have sympathy with those who feel that biological phenomena are somehow beyond explanation in terms of biochemistry. Popper's talk at the Royal Society and Perutz's response are interesting records of the continuing and still
confused debate on 'vitalism'. Schrodinger was one of those who thought that biology might produce new laws of physics and it is said that his little book What Is Life? inspired physical scientists to enter biology to search for those new laws. As Perutz points out, this is rather strange in view of Schrodinger's muddled treatment of thermodynamics and biological processes. Linus Pauling has made the same point and it is difficult to know why the book made such an impact, if indeed it did. UK science has been fortunate in having, over the years, eminent biologists who had the ability to write good prose about a whole variety of topics related to science. The tradition goes back as far as T.H. Huxley and reached its apogee in the period when J.D. Bernal, Julian Huxley, Lancelot Hogben and J.B.S. Haldane were writing for publications as diverse as the Illustrated London News (Huxley) and The Daily Worker (Haldane). Peter Medawar was a famous exponent of the art of the scientific essay, and his review of Teillhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man is a classic hatchet job. I do not think that Max Perutz has quite reached the standard of this group, but I enjoyed this book a lot. I hope he will continue to write about science and I shall continue to look eagerly in the pages of the New York Review of Books.
TIC,NOVEMBER1989 VOt. 5, NO. 11
PETERGOLDF~ MolecularToxicologyGroup, Departmentof Biochemistry, Universityof Surrey, Guildford GU25XH, UK.
JAN WrlXOWSKl
CoMSpringHarborLaboratories,Banbury Center, POBox 534, ColdSpringHarbor, NY 11724, USA