Scan barcode
A review by crickets
The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee
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