amavi's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0
This deserves only praise. The sheer amount of knowledge that was put into this book is insane. It is a very challenging read-it requires at the very least basic knowledge about the subject from the reader. This book truly inspired me to persue knowledge always and it got me very interested in the field of genetics. I loved the form and style of writing. It was truly an intimate history as the title promised. I am deeply grateful that the author talked about his personal life. And I respect the author for his extensive knowledge, for writing this book.
addictedtobooks's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.5
A very good and informative book. I read it audibly and enjoyed the interweaving of the author's personal history of mental illness in the family and the history of genetics.
rossbm's review against another edition
4.0
Very well written. Does a good job of interleaving personal stories, history and science.
waldr's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
nate_meyers's review against another edition
2.0
The Gene is a messy, excessively long book--and one you should skip. Readers looking for popular science books should look to better science writers such as Ed Yong (I Contain Multitudes) or Elizabeth Kolbert (The Sixth Extinction). I outline what I think are The Gene's major weaknesses below.
1. The Subject. The Emperor of All Maladies was unique in both its topic and the comprehensiveness. Mukherjee chooses "low hanging fruit" for his follow-up. Writing on genes and genetics are a dime-a-dozen. The content in first half of the Gene, chronicling the research of Mendel, Darwin, and Watson & Crick among other "big names in science" is unoriginal, while the content of the second half largely chronicles the work of Mukherjee's mentors and collaborators.
2. The Title. Mukherjee tries to create "An Intimate History" by tying the history of genetics to his relatives with mental illness. However, the underlying genetic changes behind mental illness remain speculative at best and mental illness is fairly common (20% of Americans suffer from mental illness) such that almost everybody has an intimate history with The Gene--especially if the scope is expanded to diseases at large. From this overly broad title, I wish Mukherjee had been more focused in his personal story. In his words, I wish he would have looked to "the future's future." This book could have been much more powerful if he discussed the process behind his decision to have kids--knowing there would be increased likelihood of severe mental illness--and the legacy of this decision. Did he believe at the time that genomics would advance sufficiently that any of his descendants could be cured? Instead, he kept the focus on his uncles and in speculating about the future merely speculates that his uncles could have been cured if they were born much later.
3. The organization--both on the large (whole book) and small (chapter-by-chapter) scales. The first 3 parts of this book are chronological, but the last 3 parts of this book are thematic. However, all 6 parts have dates associated with them that suggest the book moves in chronological order. Because of this organization, the last half of the book was hard to read at several points. The chapters are also messy, with many chapters telling partial scientific stories before swiftly moving to a completely separate story. Perhaps "Abhed," the first chapter of Part 2, is most representative of this organizational problem. It begins with a piece of Mukherjee's personal story, shifts to describing Thomas Morgan's search for a more tangible description of the gene, and then ends by abruptly shifting to hemophelia in the early 1900s in Russia. It's a mess.
4. The length. There is no need for this book to be 500 pages. Based on the crazy number of times Mukherjee describes introns and intergenic spacers, gene penetrance, and the central dogma--it seems clear he expects his readers to take long breaks in their reading. That means the book is too long.
5. The under-representation of women. I estimate the >90% of the scientists Mukherjee highlights are men. While it is true that men have outnumbered women in the history of science, this writing choice is also intentional. He mentions James Watson at least 5x as much as Rosalind Franklin. While he portrays Rosalind as someone that is hard to work with, he never once mentions that James Watson has some extremely bigoted opinions and is not a great human being. Beyond highlighting the research of men much more than that of women, Mukherjee generally seeks quotes from male scientists where a quote from either gender would do. For example, he twice looks for general quotes about gene editing on p476-477 and both times chooses men (George Daley, Francis Collins).
And that'll do it for now. Skip this book
1. The Subject. The Emperor of All Maladies was unique in both its topic and the comprehensiveness. Mukherjee chooses "low hanging fruit" for his follow-up. Writing on genes and genetics are a dime-a-dozen. The content in first half of the Gene, chronicling the research of Mendel, Darwin, and Watson & Crick among other "big names in science" is unoriginal, while the content of the second half largely chronicles the work of Mukherjee's mentors and collaborators.
2. The Title. Mukherjee tries to create "An Intimate History" by tying the history of genetics to his relatives with mental illness. However, the underlying genetic changes behind mental illness remain speculative at best and mental illness is fairly common (20% of Americans suffer from mental illness) such that almost everybody has an intimate history with The Gene--especially if the scope is expanded to diseases at large. From this overly broad title, I wish Mukherjee had been more focused in his personal story. In his words, I wish he would have looked to "the future's future." This book could have been much more powerful if he discussed the process behind his decision to have kids--knowing there would be increased likelihood of severe mental illness--and the legacy of this decision. Did he believe at the time that genomics would advance sufficiently that any of his descendants could be cured? Instead, he kept the focus on his uncles and in speculating about the future merely speculates that his uncles could have been cured if they were born much later.
3. The organization--both on the large (whole book) and small (chapter-by-chapter) scales. The first 3 parts of this book are chronological, but the last 3 parts of this book are thematic. However, all 6 parts have dates associated with them that suggest the book moves in chronological order. Because of this organization, the last half of the book was hard to read at several points. The chapters are also messy, with many chapters telling partial scientific stories before swiftly moving to a completely separate story. Perhaps "Abhed," the first chapter of Part 2, is most representative of this organizational problem. It begins with a piece of Mukherjee's personal story, shifts to describing Thomas Morgan's search for a more tangible description of the gene, and then ends by abruptly shifting to hemophelia in the early 1900s in Russia. It's a mess.
4. The length. There is no need for this book to be 500 pages. Based on the crazy number of times Mukherjee describes introns and intergenic spacers, gene penetrance, and the central dogma--it seems clear he expects his readers to take long breaks in their reading. That means the book is too long.
5. The under-representation of women. I estimate the >90% of the scientists Mukherjee highlights are men. While it is true that men have outnumbered women in the history of science, this writing choice is also intentional. He mentions James Watson at least 5x as much as Rosalind Franklin. While he portrays Rosalind as someone that is hard to work with, he never once mentions that James Watson has some extremely bigoted opinions and is not a great human being. Beyond highlighting the research of men much more than that of women, Mukherjee generally seeks quotes from male scientists where a quote from either gender would do. For example, he twice looks for general quotes about gene editing on p476-477 and both times chooses men (George Daley, Francis Collins).
And that'll do it for now. Skip this book
acatherine's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
such a great read! while it was quite dense the author breaks it down in a way that makes it much more understandable and enjoyable.
thisotherbookaccount's review against another edition
It pains me to give up on this book. Mukherjee's first book, The Emperor of All Maladies, was a revelation to me; an insightful and eye-opening look at the history of cancer and the advancements we have made to cure it. It was written and constructed almost like a thriller, with cancer as the serial killer and the scientists being the detectives. The Gene, on the other hand, is a slow exploration of how it was discovered and the many ways it can be manipulated, recombined and clones -- in many ways, it is about how far we have come and where we can go in the future.
In short, it's a slog, and it reads like a textbook. If you are into biochemistry, I believe there is no better resource to learn about genes. This is as good as it gets, with every page packed with information. On the other hand, because most of the chapters feature scientists working on problems in their labs, its difficult to gain a wider perspective. That is, do these revelations have real world impacts? It does touch on these topics, sure, but it is a little too late.
I was particularly interested in the eugenics section of the book, as well as how early philosophers theorised about the nature of hereditary. Beyond that, though, this book is a well written encyclopedia. And encyclopedias are not fun to read.
In short, it's a slog, and it reads like a textbook. If you are into biochemistry, I believe there is no better resource to learn about genes. This is as good as it gets, with every page packed with information. On the other hand, because most of the chapters feature scientists working on problems in their labs, its difficult to gain a wider perspective. That is, do these revelations have real world impacts? It does touch on these topics, sure, but it is a little too late.
I was particularly interested in the eugenics section of the book, as well as how early philosophers theorised about the nature of hereditary. Beyond that, though, this book is a well written encyclopedia. And encyclopedias are not fun to read.
ahanky's review against another edition
5.0
“It sometimes seems as if curbing entropy is our quixotic purpose in the universe.” James Gleick
A few lines of thought from someone who works in genetics:
The division between DNA and computer programming is blurry. In a gross simplification of both, yes/no switches respond to inputs to create cascading possibilities of form and function. Yet, imagine a computer program that purposefully scrambles its own code, just to see what happens. While at the same time, it can create novel outcomes without changing its original code… I think that computer programs become more like humans when they invite chance (entropy, fate). DNA is so fantastically good at finding opportunities for change.
Nature is our greatest teacher. So many of our best innovations have come from the reworking of what nature has already accomplished. Even our newest genetic technology, CRISPR-Cas9, was originally an invention of bacteria.
With modern genetic technology, we can now do in hours what once took thousands of years. We are experiencing the growing pains of this rapid change. With the power to edit genomes in our hands, we have to figure out what types of genetic manipulation are acceptable.
In a universe falling into entropy, heredity and evolution have made a valiant attempt toward order. DNA has learned to use chance to its advantage… to the point that it can write books about itself.
A few lines of thought from someone who works in genetics:
The division between DNA and computer programming is blurry. In a gross simplification of both, yes/no switches respond to inputs to create cascading possibilities of form and function. Yet, imagine a computer program that purposefully scrambles its own code, just to see what happens. While at the same time, it can create novel outcomes without changing its original code… I think that computer programs become more like humans when they invite chance (entropy, fate). DNA is so fantastically good at finding opportunities for change.
Nature is our greatest teacher. So many of our best innovations have come from the reworking of what nature has already accomplished. Even our newest genetic technology, CRISPR-Cas9, was originally an invention of bacteria.
With modern genetic technology, we can now do in hours what once took thousands of years. We are experiencing the growing pains of this rapid change. With the power to edit genomes in our hands, we have to figure out what types of genetic manipulation are acceptable.
In a universe falling into entropy, heredity and evolution have made a valiant attempt toward order. DNA has learned to use chance to its advantage… to the point that it can write books about itself.
crickets's review against another edition
3.0
This was overall a good, solid read. I was impressed with how well Mukherjee managed to intersperse complex scientific topics, history, and the broader element of humanity, including the (almost hilarious) pettiness of famous researchers, and Mukherjee's own personal family history with mental health issues. It's not a book I'd recommend to everyone, as it can still be quite heavy, but the style works. If nothing else, though, I recommend that people check out "Mitochondrial Eve" and what mitochondrial ancestry is all about. Super cool, and very ironic, considering the relatively common tendency of society to insist on patriarchal structures.
Throughout the book, Mukherjee explains how our efforts to understand genetics have led us to different discoveries throughout history, and how those were used to help and harm people. I'm not an expert, I only had advanced biology for a couple of years, but I'd say it was as up to date as an accessible book of about 600 pages can be on this topic in 2016 (1/4 of the text consist of references). It's an interesting read for people who want to know more about what, broadly speaking, has happened and what will probably happen in the field of genetics, and what the general ethical and political implications of that may be.
Certain parts of the book are clearly misguided, though, and I could have done without. Despite the humanity that the author tries to infuse into the text, Mukherjee clearly understands genetics and illness better than the politics and theories of identity. Because of this, some of the text tries to simplify things in a way that can be seen to (unconsciously, I hope) support prejudiced opinions about important societal topics.
For example, the author spends a considerable amount of time making connections between gender and sexual orientation, disability, and race, without providing clearer context on civil rights or feminist/queer movements. What's more, the text doesn't make a clear distinction between equality and equity, nor does it discuss the power structures that were long presumed to be based on biology, but really aren't. So we end up with whole sections of the book sounding a lot like the author actually believes that, for instance, when a bisexual/homosexual woman is attracted to another woman they're really showing traits that they're a "gender confused" man, because that's a manly thing to want to do. I'm sorry, what? Little girls cutting up their dresses and being energetic at school being presented as evidence that they're a boy. I mean, really? Even for 2016, that's not a great look.
While I appreciated the notes at the end, where the authors says that, indeed, it would not make much sense to, for instance, try to pinpoint sexuality and gender identity, as it all depends on the intersection of genes and environment, the topic was not sufficiently contextualised when it was necessary (read: much, much earlier in the book, to avoid misguiding people who aren't educated on these topics and will take this to be true). I'm not sure why the author tried to approach these topics at all in such a simplified manner, basing a lot of what was said on flawed studies and anecdotes. After all, the author said it themselves, we can only find certain characteristics if we define them so narrowly that they lose meaning. Going with heteronormativity as a standard to understand such a complex part of people's identity made it all sound like a bit of nonsense. It could have been interesting to see a collaboration with experts on the topic, though. On that note, one of the poems featured in in the book:
Show me that you can divide the notes of a song;
But first, show me that you can discern
Between what can be divided
And what cannot.
- An anonymous musical composition inspired by a classical Sanskrit poem
Throughout the book, Mukherjee explains how our efforts to understand genetics have led us to different discoveries throughout history, and how those were used to help and harm people. I'm not an expert, I only had advanced biology for a couple of years, but I'd say it was as up to date as an accessible book of about 600 pages can be on this topic in 2016 (1/4 of the text consist of references). It's an interesting read for people who want to know more about what, broadly speaking, has happened and what will probably happen in the field of genetics, and what the general ethical and political implications of that may be.
Certain parts of the book are clearly misguided, though, and I could have done without. Despite the humanity that the author tries to infuse into the text, Mukherjee clearly understands genetics and illness better than the politics and theories of identity. Because of this, some of the text tries to simplify things in a way that can be seen to (unconsciously, I hope) support prejudiced opinions about important societal topics.
For example, the author spends a considerable amount of time making connections between gender and sexual orientation, disability, and race, without providing clearer context on civil rights or feminist/queer movements. What's more, the text doesn't make a clear distinction between equality and equity, nor does it discuss the power structures that were long presumed to be based on biology, but really aren't. So we end up with whole sections of the book sounding a lot like the author actually believes that, for instance, when a bisexual/homosexual woman is attracted to another woman they're really showing traits that they're a "gender confused" man, because that's a manly thing to want to do. I'm sorry, what? Little girls cutting up their dresses and being energetic at school being presented as evidence that they're a boy. I mean, really? Even for 2016, that's not a great look.
While I appreciated the notes at the end, where the authors says that, indeed, it would not make much sense to, for instance, try to pinpoint sexuality and gender identity, as it all depends on the intersection of genes and environment, the topic was not sufficiently contextualised when it was necessary (read: much, much earlier in the book, to avoid misguiding people who aren't educated on these topics and will take this to be true). I'm not sure why the author tried to approach these topics at all in such a simplified manner, basing a lot of what was said on flawed studies and anecdotes. After all, the author said it themselves, we can only find certain characteristics if we define them so narrowly that they lose meaning. Going with heteronormativity as a standard to understand such a complex part of people's identity made it all sound like a bit of nonsense. It could have been interesting to see a collaboration with experts on the topic, though. On that note, one of the poems featured in in the book:
Show me that you can divide the notes of a song;
But first, show me that you can discern
Between what can be divided
And what cannot.
- An anonymous musical composition inspired by a classical Sanskrit poem