vanessaroko's review against another edition
4.0
I love this author. He is clearly a gifted writer and incredibly knowledgeable. However, I felt like the majority of the book didn’t have a strong audience - the experiments described would likely be confusing and complicated to someone without a science background, but to someone who studies genetics (like me), he skipped over parts that completed the picture, I was still left with lots of questions. The final part about the future of genomics was very well done and thought-provoking, and I enjoyed his personal story of hereditary mental illness in his family intertwined throughout the book.
beatsbybeard's review against another edition
4.0
As the subtitle says, this is a deep dive on the history of genetics, all the way from the first theories of heredity in ancient Greece to the current frontiers of gene editing. Fundamentally, genes are everything: they're responsible for every biological trait that exists and every mechanism of perpetuating those traits through reproduction.
Here are the things I found most fascinating:
This book does a terrific job of laying out the history of our understanding of genetics and how we arrived here, and doesn't shy away from the heavy lifting of what it means to tamper in this domain. A genetic perspective of the world unites us not only as humans, but as members of the animal kingdom and the latest iteration of millions of years of life on this planet. The more we know our genes, the more we'll appreciate how diverse being a human can be.
Here are the things I found most fascinating:
A gene on the Y chromosome, SRY, is a master switch for maleness; on means male, off means female. But there are women who have XY chromosomes instead of XX, and because of this one gene staying inactivated, they develop and identify as female (albeit with lower levels of estrogen, which hinders the typical experience of puberty). This master switch gene (and female corollaries on the X chromosome) affect other genes in a cascade, and each of these genes influences not only how each sex develops biologically, but how individuals view their own gender – a genetic determinant for gender identity, sexual preference, and so on.
Also, a shocking statistic: about one in every 20,000 babies is born with ambiguous genitalia that don't fit the biological binary. This blows up any notion of "the two sexes" or "the two genders."
While there may be distinct genetic bases for things like eye color and sickle-cell anemia, broader determinations like "beauty" and "intelligence" are entirely culturally derived and therefore not only useless, but dangerous. Following this, "race science" and the general notion of distinct races are completely bogus. There are ancestral/ethnic backgrounds that might give rise to physical phenotypes like hair type or skin color, but this lineage does not determine an individual's propensity for creativity, intelligence, empathy, and the like. There is more variation within ethnic subsets than across them; we all share the same genetic recipe.
Nature and nurture are anything but abstract and can't be dealt with as such. There are very few one-gene manifestations in our bodies, and even in those cases they're susceptible to environmental triggers, mutations, and chance. More common are phenotypes that arise from multiple genes with multiple influences, so we're a ways off from pinpointing and altering these more complex expressions.
But even then – and this is a huge facet of this book – the moral and ethical implications are a mountain to be climbed before any of these modifications can be considered kosher. The history of eugenics is an obvious example, but the big question is who decides what is normal/abnormal, healthy/diseased, desirable/undesirable. What we broadly define as normal is how well individuals' genes fit their environment; a different environment could help people with genetic "diseases" – ADHD, autism, dwarfism – to thrive. Even genomically typical people may have latent abilities/drives/desires that go unexpressed because their environment doesn't conduce them.
This book does a terrific job of laying out the history of our understanding of genetics and how we arrived here, and doesn't shy away from the heavy lifting of what it means to tamper in this domain. A genetic perspective of the world unites us not only as humans, but as members of the animal kingdom and the latest iteration of millions of years of life on this planet. The more we know our genes, the more we'll appreciate how diverse being a human can be.
archytas's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
My first really outstanding read of 2023. Mukherjee is surprisingly good at the all the things - the science is really well explained (this is the clearest epigenetics has ever been for me), the history is well researched and documented, and Mukherjee wields words with skill. (e.g. - "In Calcutta, I knew, every accent is a surgical probe. Bengalis send out their vowels and consonants like survey drones—to test the identities of their listeners, to sniff out their sympathies, to confirm their allegiances.")
The sheer breadth of what is coverage is impressive. History covered in depth includes Mendel's pea experiments, Carrie Buck and early eugenics, fascinating portraits of Watson, Crick and Franklin; the agonising of 1970s geneticists Paul Berg and Maxine Singer, the founadtion of genentech and the production of insulin, the intense race to finish line of the Human Genome Project, and the initial - sometimes botched - trials for gene manipulation. The science explained includes Mendelian genetics, the double helix and it's importance for replication, mitochondria, RNA, protein production, epigenetics, stem cells and why they matter, gene therapy and more. Yet the story never feels chunked between these aspects, but integrates smoothly, allowing the discussion of people to alternate naturally with exposition.
On top of all this, Mukherjee's perspective is one I find highly persuasive. Unlike the cruder science writers (*cough*Dawkins*cough*), Mukherjee wants us to understand that genes are not "good" or "bad", but rather engage with environments. Something that provides an organism with a survival advantage in a plague might be a disaster without; genes that protect cells can become cancer in the wrong situation. He deftly extrapolates this in the later part of the book into a warning about genetic engineering: what we call 'disability' might be a mismatch of the situation we have created with a different way of being " It is a peculiar modern fallacy to imagine that the definitive solution to illness is to change nature—i.e., genes—when the environment is often more malleable." Mukherjee also clearly distinguishes between heritable characteristics - once which twin studies indicated are heavily impacted by genes - and inheritable characteristics, ones in which close, but not identical, family will share characteristics. He points out that many traits, such as cognitive ones, are determined by such a complex set of genes that identical twins will share them with each other, but not with parents or children. His discussion of intelligence is considered and to the point: IQ tests don't test holistic intelligence. Whatever they do test, in impoverished circumstances the impact of genes is insignificant. Even amid the wealthy and healthy, environment will contribute as much as genes. This is especially important given the growing conversation around race and genetics. (He also discusses the tests briefly, and the ways in which the construction defines "intelligence" in ways which benefit the skills white men do best in, in contrast to elements (including perception and recall) in which they do worse).
Mukherjee also introduces the importance of "chance" (he once asks, possibly joking, about whether is better thought of as fate). In the focus on nature vs nurture, one of the biggest fallacies has been that everything is one or the other. Rather, our bodies and our minds respond constantly to what is around them, and what happens to them. Random events, fluctuations in molecules, exposure to bacteria all interact with the genome. Our experiences change how RNA activates DNA over our lifetime, and those markers can also be inheritable. In this post-pandemic world, we know this instinctively - exposure to the same virus elicits different responses, based both in genes and in prior exposures and health. There is little that is easily predictable about our individuality, and there is risk in forgetting that (this is well illustrated by the death of an early gene therapy patient, whose immune system reacted extremely to the viral vector, probably because of childhood exposure, - a lesson that bodies have histories).
But Mukerjee wants to warn us of the opposite - assuming that gene editing is so complex it will never happen. This book is littered with technology moving faster than its creators were prepared for. It is not enough, Mukherjee clearly believes, to say "oh well, they will never work out how to elimate , "where x could be Autism, Schizophrenia, Sickle Cell or just having brown hair. We need to be ready to understand how as a society will respond*. It is chilling, in the end, to realise that since the book was published six years ago, Mukehrjee's predictions for how much we will understand by 2020 have not been achieved - or close - but those for how easy genes will be to change have been exceeded.
*There is already evidence that gene editing and selective abortion are drastically reducing the number of people with Down Syndrome in our society. In Denmark, where testing is free and deciding to abort as a result is legal, just 18 babies with Down Syndrome were born in 2019, 11 of whom were not expected to have Downs. Yet, you can't believe many Danes don't appreciate the contribution that people with Down Syndrome make - and while the likely extra health difficulties will be a factor, you can't help thinking that a major motivator is knowing the environment we have built is not as supportive of their needs, and their parents, as it needs to be.
The sheer breadth of what is coverage is impressive. History covered in depth includes Mendel's pea experiments, Carrie Buck and early eugenics, fascinating portraits of Watson, Crick and Franklin; the agonising of 1970s geneticists Paul Berg and Maxine Singer, the founadtion of genentech and the production of insulin, the intense race to finish line of the Human Genome Project, and the initial - sometimes botched - trials for gene manipulation. The science explained includes Mendelian genetics, the double helix and it's importance for replication, mitochondria, RNA, protein production, epigenetics, stem cells and why they matter, gene therapy and more. Yet the story never feels chunked between these aspects, but integrates smoothly, allowing the discussion of people to alternate naturally with exposition.
On top of all this, Mukherjee's perspective is one I find highly persuasive. Unlike the cruder science writers (*cough*Dawkins*cough*), Mukherjee wants us to understand that genes are not "good" or "bad", but rather engage with environments. Something that provides an organism with a survival advantage in a plague might be a disaster without; genes that protect cells can become cancer in the wrong situation. He deftly extrapolates this in the later part of the book into a warning about genetic engineering: what we call 'disability' might be a mismatch of the situation we have created with a different way of being " It is a peculiar modern fallacy to imagine that the definitive solution to illness is to change nature—i.e., genes—when the environment is often more malleable." Mukherjee also clearly distinguishes between heritable characteristics - once which twin studies indicated are heavily impacted by genes - and inheritable characteristics, ones in which close, but not identical, family will share characteristics. He points out that many traits, such as cognitive ones, are determined by such a complex set of genes that identical twins will share them with each other, but not with parents or children. His discussion of intelligence is considered and to the point: IQ tests don't test holistic intelligence. Whatever they do test, in impoverished circumstances the impact of genes is insignificant. Even amid the wealthy and healthy, environment will contribute as much as genes. This is especially important given the growing conversation around race and genetics. (He also discusses the tests briefly, and the ways in which the construction defines "intelligence" in ways which benefit the skills white men do best in, in contrast to elements (including perception and recall) in which they do worse).
Mukherjee also introduces the importance of "chance" (he once asks, possibly joking, about whether is better thought of as fate). In the focus on nature vs nurture, one of the biggest fallacies has been that everything is one or the other. Rather, our bodies and our minds respond constantly to what is around them, and what happens to them. Random events, fluctuations in molecules, exposure to bacteria all interact with the genome. Our experiences change how RNA activates DNA over our lifetime, and those markers can also be inheritable. In this post-pandemic world, we know this instinctively - exposure to the same virus elicits different responses, based both in genes and in prior exposures and health. There is little that is easily predictable about our individuality, and there is risk in forgetting that (this is well illustrated by the death of an early gene therapy patient, whose immune system reacted extremely to the viral vector, probably because of childhood exposure, - a lesson that bodies have histories).
But Mukerjee wants to warn us of the opposite - assuming that gene editing is so complex it will never happen. This book is littered with technology moving faster than its creators were prepared for. It is not enough, Mukherjee clearly believes, to say "oh well, they will never work out how to elimate , "where x could be Autism, Schizophrenia, Sickle Cell or just having brown hair. We need to be ready to understand how as a society will respond*. It is chilling, in the end, to realise that since the book was published six years ago, Mukehrjee's predictions for how much we will understand by 2020 have not been achieved - or close - but those for how easy genes will be to change have been exceeded.
*There is already evidence that gene editing and selective abortion are drastically reducing the number of people with Down Syndrome in our society. In Denmark, where testing is free and deciding to abort as a result is legal, just 18 babies with Down Syndrome were born in 2019, 11 of whom were not expected to have Downs. Yet, you can't believe many Danes don't appreciate the contribution that people with Down Syndrome make - and while the likely extra health difficulties will be a factor, you can't help thinking that a major motivator is knowing the environment we have built is not as supportive of their needs, and their parents, as it needs to be.
renbooks's review against another edition
3.0
I read this for my science book club. My background is in biology and I felt like this book didn't know who its audience was. Was the audience supposed to be laypeople who know nothing of the history of the gene, or people who are scientists who already know a lot of this stuff? Because I found it boring and too in-depth for a lot of the historical stuff. Very little was new that I hadn't been taught in one class or another - so I felt this was aimed at a pop-sci audience who maybe likes science but doesn't know much about it. Then in the chapters on current research and very recent history (last 10 years) it was a bit hard to follow and seemed like he was explaining way more complex concepts. I did listen to the audiobook so maybe that's why I thought it wasn't explained well, but if I didn't follow some of those parts with my background, would people who don't know anything about science follow? I wish science authors would pick who they intend to be their audience, and write only for that. Otherwise you end up with people who don't know what you're talking about, people who already know most of it and get bored, or if you try to please both the book sucks for everyone.
Another complaint I had was the male author describing some of Rosalind Franklin's "personality traits" where he basically called her hard to work with and abrasive. I'd be abrasive too if I was a woman scientist decades ago where men where stealing my ideas and work. I'd love to hear more of her side of the story if she had lived.
Overall, I thought this book was just okay. I won't be recommending this to any of my friends and honestly wouldn't recommend it to the non-scientist either. It's a thorough history of the gene, that is true.
Another complaint I had was the male author describing some of Rosalind Franklin's "personality traits" where he basically called her hard to work with and abrasive. I'd be abrasive too if I was a woman scientist decades ago where men where stealing my ideas and work. I'd love to hear more of her side of the story if she had lived.
Overall, I thought this book was just okay. I won't be recommending this to any of my friends and honestly wouldn't recommend it to the non-scientist either. It's a thorough history of the gene, that is true.
somanytictoc's review against another edition
2.0
DNF: ~ 200 pgs
Mukherjee is clearly passionate about genetics. I learned that I clearly am not. For the first 150 pages or so, he gives a readable overview of early advances in the study of evolution and genetics. For about 50 pages after that, the structure is essentially "Here's a landmark academic study from 70 years ago, including a one-sentence aside about the scientists to add color. Here's another study with similar color, only this experiment is considerably more difficult to understand without a degree in biology." By page 200, I couldn't keep up with the escalating complexity of the findings and gave up.
Maybe that's totally on me. I have an admittedly VERY poor science background (high school bio at best). But I think it became clear, with about 300 pages left to read, that I was not going to be the target audience for this book.
Mukherjee is clearly passionate about genetics. I learned that I clearly am not. For the first 150 pages or so, he gives a readable overview of early advances in the study of evolution and genetics. For about 50 pages after that, the structure is essentially "Here's a landmark academic study from 70 years ago, including a one-sentence aside about the scientists to add color. Here's another study with similar color, only this experiment is considerably more difficult to understand without a degree in biology." By page 200, I couldn't keep up with the escalating complexity of the findings and gave up.
Maybe that's totally on me. I have an admittedly VERY poor science background (high school bio at best). But I think it became clear, with about 300 pages left to read, that I was not going to be the target audience for this book.
abhiasawa's review against another edition
5.0
Hands down one of the best nonfiction books I have ever read.
The writer manages to explain even the most complex scientific concepts in a simple way.
Style wise this book is more akin to reading a fictional thriller.
Highly recommend to everyone.
The writer manages to explain even the most complex scientific concepts in a simple way.
Style wise this book is more akin to reading a fictional thriller.
Highly recommend to everyone.
viveknshah's review against another edition
5.0
For the dislike I have for biology as a subject, this book was a page turner delving into the life story of the gene. Well crafted storyline in a technical domain , got to learn a lot about eugenics. The future unfortunately remains hazy in real life and the book. This book makes for some heavy duty reading with colorful splashes of the characters in the world of genetics from Watson and Crick , Mendel and the whole gang.
elsiebrady's review against another edition
4.0
A very comprehensive history of humans discovering the gene. So many fascinating facets of the ongoing process, including moral implications of our ability to make changes in the genome. The eugenics programs around the world in the 1920’s were appalling, especially in the US but made Hitler‘s programs not seem so outrageous. If anything current understanding of DNA should bring mankind closer together but we humans seem to find ways to divide each other in groups to ensure one group is still better than another. Our genome project proves the opposite. When will we learn?