The Best American Science Writing 2008

by Sylvia Nasar (Editor), Jesse Cohen (Series Editor)

Edited by Sylvia Nasar, bestselling author of A Beautiful Mind and former economics correspondent for the New York Times , The Best American Science Writing 2008 brings together the premiere science writing of the year. Distinguished by the foremost voices and publications—among them Pulitzer Prize-winner Amy Harmon, Nobel Prize–winner Al Gore, and award-winning and bestselling author Oliver Sacks—this anthology is a comprehensive overview of our most advanced and most relevant scientific inquiries.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Essays

336 pages, Paperback

Published September 9, 2008

About the author

Sylvia Nasar was born to a German mother and Uzbek father. Her family immigrated to the United States in 1951, then moved to Ankara, Turkey in 1960. She graduated from Antioch College in 1970, and earned a masters' degree in economics at New York University in 1976. For four years, she did research with Nobel Laureate Wassily Leontief. She is currently the Knight Chair in Business Journalism at Columbia University. Her husband is economist Darryl McLeod. They have three children and live in Tarrytown, New York.

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

In a series that's usually reliably interesting and intellectually stimulating, this year's collection was somewhat disappointing, due to an unusually narrow focus. In her introduction, Sylvia Nasar tells us that she gravitated to the stories that "people were talking about". An idiosyncratic interpretation of the criterion "best", and it shows. The articles in this book come from -

The New York Times : 9
The New Yorker : 6
The Wall Street Journal : 1
Wired : 1
Scientific American : 1
Policy Review : 1

Biomedical research : 15
The environment : 4

Based on this collection, one would be led to believe that there was nothing of note during the past year in - for example - astronomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, oceanography, marine biology, economics, game theory, artificial intelligence, or nanotechnology.

One can only wish that Ms Nasar had cast a broader net in deciding what to include in this volume.

That said, the articles, by such established science writers as Jerome Groopman, Oliver Sacks, Stephen S. Hall, Richard Preston, Amy Harmon, Carl Zimmer, and Tara Parker-Pope, are interesting and well-written. Ms Harmon's piece on living life with the gene for Huntington's disease is exceptional. One might argue that, with four articles beating up on the pharmaceutical industry, coverage in that area could have been a little more balanced.

In summary, the articles included in this anthology are interesting and worth reading. However, anyone who subscribes to The New Yorker and The New York Times will find little new in this disappointingly narrow selection.

Three stars, because the articles included are generally pretty good; no more because of the unfulfilled potential.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

I tend to agree with Goodreads friend David Giltinan that this is not as strong a collection as in previous years. It relies too heavily on the New York mafia of the New York Times and New Yorker, and it includes articles that don't have the heft or nuance that a "best" collection should.

Nevertheless, there were a few very good pieces. Even though picking an Oliver Sacks article is like predicting the Yankees will make it into the playoffs, his piece on the man who had lost his episodic memory, so that each few minutes were almost brand new to him, but who retained his ability to play and conduct complex music, was compelling. Carl Zimmer's article on how evolution may have selected for cancer and Sally Satel's dispassionate but clear argument for why financial incentives should be used for increasing kidney donations were also good.

There is a lot more good science writing than what appears in the three or four publications that disproportionately make up these annual collections, and it's time the editors stopped mailing it in and spent a little more time scouring the waterfront, if I do say so myself.

[Veach Glines · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of articles is for anyone who takes any medicine prescribed by a psychiatrist, anyone who fails to question their MD's, and everyone who has been told they or their child may have a 'disorder'.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am very disappointed in this book. All of the articles are very interesting, but when I bought this I didn't realize just how narrowly focused it was going to be. I flipped through the book and took a tally. Of the nineteen articles - twelve of them are about medical science, three are about medical ethics(all three about drug reps and two of those by the same co-authors), and four are about enviromental science. Furthermore fifteen of the nineteen are from either the New York Times or the New Yorker. I had been very excited about a broad range of science topics and I now feel duped. It just seems like Sylvia Nasar, who edited the book and collected the articles, either didn't care about this project and did it during a lunch break one day for the paycheck, or had so many restraints that the only thing she could do was have her recognizable name on the cover. If it would have been titled "the best american medical science writing of 2008" I would not have any problem with it at all because I would have know what I was reading. Next year though I will know to examine just what exactly is in the best of 2009 before I think about picking it up.

[Kirill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Science in my view is the process of acquiring knowledge using scientific method. Somehow, though, in the recent literature medical litigation and rules for practicing medicine have taken a lion's share of "science" literature and this book in particular. Maybe this has to do with the fact that the social and political conflicts involved are those between rationality and not. Still, I was a little disappointed to see less of real stories of search of for fundamental understanding of the physical and world. Maybe it's time accepted the fact that making science popular means focusing on the human and social implications of discoveries in favor of the process of discovery. Either way, Oliver Sacks's story about an amnesiac as well as Richard Preston's account of people suffering from extreme tendency for self-destruction was completely mind-blowing. Carl Zimmer's review of the ideas on why people get cancer in the first place was refreshing and very informative. The stories about drug marketing were interesting, too.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lot of people rated this book low because of the focus on medicine. And, indeed, the book should not have been called the best "science writing" because the title does suggest something broader. However, what far too many reviewers left out is just how brilliant the essays in here are. The entry by Oliver Sacks is amazing for its entertainment, but virtually every other essay simply was a knock-out. There were two that disappointed me, but in a book chockful of so much content, it wasn't enough for me to rate this down a star. I'd go 4.5 given the option for that.

And by the way, I'm a scientist, of non-medical persuasion, so my biases were towards being disappointed with the focus on medicine (which, initially, I was), but I came away instead with great respect for many of the authors, and for the knowledge I had gained.

[Ron · Rating 3 out of 5]

The 2008 version of this book though very good fell short of previous years version. The lack of subject diversity made it not as enjoyable as previous years. Three stories on the lack of ethics in the medical drug community was a bit repetitive.

My favorites were probably the two most disturbing articles in the book:
Oliver Sacks - The Abyss About the worst case of amnesia I ever heard of.

<1>Richard Preston - An Error in the Code Describing a mental disorder that causes people to have no control over their own arms. And how those arms often attack their owners. Just plain creepy....

[Calton Bolick · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sub-par entry in the annual series. Contrary to the advert listing above, it is not in the least comprehensive, looking instead like Sylvia Nasar's Medical Science Clipping Service, even being padded with ordinary-quality newspaper stories. No physics, no astronomy, no natural history, no mathematics, and a just few environmental stories and an Oliver Sacks essay thrown in as sops at the end. This is a huge lapse in quality control on the part of series editor Jesse Cohen, who should know better. If you want something actually comprehensive, save your money for the Macmillan "Best American Science and Nature Writing 2009" instead.

[Jennifer · Rating 1 out of 5]

After the 2007 collection, this was very disappointing. Individually, the articles were generally good, but as a collection they fall short. The collection was extremely lacking in diversity, both in subjects (two stories about genetic disorders, two about the drug industry, etc.) and sources....just about every selection was from the new york times or the new yorker. The similarity of topic and style made it drag. The articles weren't even organized well! Similar subjects were put next to each other, which did not encourage me to turn the page when I finished one of the collection.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A compendium or survey of the previous year's best scientific writing accessible to the median layperson. Hopefully there are a handful of others out there, but I lucked out with this edition; the editor mentioned in her introduction that the 2007 edition had too much articles on abstract mathematics. The 2008 edition has a lot of articles informing on health issues, including pharmaceutical industry practices, and genetic testing and research frontiers. Pretty informative for a really inexpensive pick-up at Border's bargain bin.

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Favorite (and available) essays:

An Error in the Code by Richard Preston

Dr. Drug Rep by Daniel Carlat

The Older and Wiser Hypothesis by Stephen Hall

Sowing for the Apocalypse by John Seabrook

[Jonna Higgins-Freese · Rating 3 out of 5]

Several of the essays were fantastic, but others were simply like solidly-written newspaper articles (which I suppose they originally were). The first one, about a woman who decides to be tested for an inherited fatal gene, and how the results shaped her life, was incredible. Atul Gawande's essay about gerontologists and how they help people who are aging, and why there's such a shortage, was as engaging as all his writing. The others didn't really leave an impression.

[Naomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another great collection. All the articles were interesting, accessible, informative and to the lay-person. They address the intersection of science and society using both a personal element and a great deal of information. The stories cover a range of fields (although this collection was a bit heavy on the psychiatry). I highly recommend it for a cross-section of well-written science "current events."

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title of this book should have been "Interesting Medical and Environmental Science Writing 2008." There was no astronomy, no chemistry, no physics, no math, no computer science, etc. At least half of the book was from the New York Times, New York Times Magazine or the New Yorker. I didn't realize that NYC had a monopoly on science writing. Anyway, the stories were kind of interesting, but none stuck with me.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, engaging science writing. Some of my favorites were: the essay on doctors accepting money from pharmaceutical companies (one from a person who was a drug company shill for awhile), the essay about a rare disease that causes the afflicted to mutilate themselves, and the essay about how pain is often under-treated in this country because doctors are afraid of being prosecuted. Interesting stuff.

[Rachel]

Solid reporting and writing on a wide range of topics, from genetics to climate change. A fairly quick read, it's also easy to pick up and put down while traveling, etc. I'd like to see more variety in the publications represented; this collection relies too heavily on the New York Times. I would also like to see more selections that use creative storytelling; a lot of these were straightforward news pieces that didn't take many risks.

[Ms. Phinnia · Rating 4 out of 5]

the al gore essay was seriously lacking in both content and style(proving once again that it's not what you know, it's how loudly you can claim to have invented climate change the internet John-Travolta style comebacks on the tails of a worldwide political issue, but the rest of the book was extremely good.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

As usual I really enjoyed this one - many articles I didn't read when they were originally published. For me this series of books is a good way to stay somewhat connected to what is happening in the science realm since I get very little of that in my everyday life.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Along with the other best of I got these last Chistmas and read them this year. This volume has some very thought provoking topics e.g. when is a MD a drug pusher, supply and demand for organs for transplants etc.

[Randy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good collection of science writing. The first article will pull you in and you'll be hooked. My wife peeked inside of this after I was done and now it's on her nightstand! She's the Jane Austen type.

[Gina · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had read almost all of them before, as they were pretty much only from the New Yorker and the New York Times - lame job of finding stories by the editor! That said, some GREAT stories.

[Naomi Thompson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some really great science articles in here - a lot about psychiatrists' med prescribing practices, which was wasn't surprising, but rather disgusting. Really good stuff in this one! :)

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

i look forward to this collection every year. this year did not disappoint.

[Emily Elert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Agree w/ most others that focus was too narrow-- Nasar sort of admits to this in her introduction-- but there were some really excellent pieces in here. Definitely still worth reading.

[Lucia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Someday people will be paid for donating kidneys, and it'll be a good thing.

[Kyle]

I prefer to read more about physical sciences than medical sciences. I feel like this year's book is focused a bit too much on medicine.

[totoro415]

Love this series! A must read for me every year. Always full of wonderfully written stories about everything from physics to medicine.

[sonia]

this one is not as good as the others. too many medical doctor content. too little actual science. what happened?

[Diane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do like good science stories!

[Joe Maristela · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bought a copy at the mag stand to have Manifold Destiny to read on the plane