What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Obsessions: The Search for the Oncogene
Describes the search for the genes that control cancer, explains the difficulties of research in molecular biology, and assesses progress towards a more detailed understanding of cancer
394 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1988
23 people are currently reading
509 people want to read
About the author
Natalie Angier
21 books163 followersNatalie Angier is a nonfiction writer and a science journalist for The New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
September 5, 2017
I worked on my biology doctorate in the 90's across the street from Weinberg's lab, so could thoroughly identify with the trials and tribulations (if not the glories) described in the book. Although I was sometimes got annoyed by Angier's dramatizations (especially when describing the physical characteristics of the scientists), overall I thought she did an admirable job of humanizing this Boston institution.
August 7, 2021
As the Washington Post described, this book "portrays the look and feel of science" in the competitive and stimulating years of the race to discover the cancer gene. Personally, it gave me a far better view of what was all quietly going on when I visited Boston in the late spring of 1982 and connected with a sib of a friend who was working in cancer research at MIT. I enjoy Natalie Angier's style and benefit from her persistence in putting out writing in science for interested laypeople.
January 2, 2018
Sometimes the flowery prose obfuscates the science that she's talking about. Maybe that's just me reading it from the perspective of a scientist. I'm not totally sure what the intended audience is but maybe this wouldn't be as frustrating for someone reading it from a non-science background.
January 4, 2026
I think the coolest thing about this book, other than the science itself, is the fact that it’s kind of like an anthropological study on… my job! I don’t think I’ve read any book that covers life in the lab as well as this one. The main difference between Natural Obsessions and all the other science books I’ve read is that this one gives a lot of attention to the trainees themselves, and describes experiments not just in terms of the assay and the results, but also includes the very human aspects of worry, stress, doubt, and joy when it works. There are so many interesting characters and it manages to capture the real life phenomenon of being more interested in a project if you personally know the scientist doing it. Anyway, It’s weird to hear your profession being described in such detail by an observer, but it’s also really cool and lets you see things in a new light.
From a science perspective, this book introduced me to the oncogene field and was also a really fascinating interplay between what I think are the two competing visions of most (or at least many) super important and super interesting biology subfields: i.) the idea that the phenomenon is so infinitely complicated that there’s no way we’ll be able to understand it fully, and ii) the idea that there are simple, fundamental principles to be discovered that will basically solve the problem on a high level, and then you just have to cross t’s, dot i’s.
And, like most interesting biological questions, the answer is… kind of both of them. I don’t think I need to elaborate much on why cancer would be seen through the first lens, given that it’s like the most intractable human disease ever. BUT, in favor of the second lens, this book mainly follows the research of Bob Weinberg (in the late 70s and throughout the 80s) and his lab’s discovery of the first known human oncogenes.
The main technological breakthrough that allowed his lab to do this was transfection - basically treating cell culture in such a way that it can take up exogenous DNA and incorporate it into its genome (and also I think floating around like a mini chromosome). After doing this, you use the selection criterion of cells that form foci of overgrowth, presumably because they’ve become cancerous. Now, it was known already that there were mutant versions of genes that could turn cells cancerous - they were located on retroviruses, and one of those genes was called Ras. The Weinberg lab found that the DNA of actual human cancer cells could be transfected into rat cells to make them cancerous, which was super exciting on its own. Then they cloned the specific gene responsible for this transformation and found that it was homologous to the presumed “viral” Ras gene. Finally, they showed that it was only a single point mutation (!) that turned Ras into its cancerous form.
It’s pretty wild that, despite the complexities of cancer, you’re able to identify these very small changes in the genomes of cancer cells that have such a large effect on their behavior. You can imagine why Bob Weinberg would have a rosy outlook after discovering this (as well as other oncogenes). But, at the same time, one could argue that it didn’t amount to much! Weinberg himself wrote an article in Cell a couple years ago about how oncogene Ras has basically been undruggable and knowing about it hasn’t led to the kind of revolutionary cancer treatments he predicted in this book (the 80s). But I still think his work was important! (obviously I’m biased as a basic researcher)
From a science perspective, this book introduced me to the oncogene field and was also a really fascinating interplay between what I think are the two competing visions of most (or at least many) super important and super interesting biology subfields: i.) the idea that the phenomenon is so infinitely complicated that there’s no way we’ll be able to understand it fully, and ii) the idea that there are simple, fundamental principles to be discovered that will basically solve the problem on a high level, and then you just have to cross t’s, dot i’s.
And, like most interesting biological questions, the answer is… kind of both of them. I don’t think I need to elaborate much on why cancer would be seen through the first lens, given that it’s like the most intractable human disease ever. BUT, in favor of the second lens, this book mainly follows the research of Bob Weinberg (in the late 70s and throughout the 80s) and his lab’s discovery of the first known human oncogenes.
The main technological breakthrough that allowed his lab to do this was transfection - basically treating cell culture in such a way that it can take up exogenous DNA and incorporate it into its genome (and also I think floating around like a mini chromosome). After doing this, you use the selection criterion of cells that form foci of overgrowth, presumably because they’ve become cancerous. Now, it was known already that there were mutant versions of genes that could turn cells cancerous - they were located on retroviruses, and one of those genes was called Ras. The Weinberg lab found that the DNA of actual human cancer cells could be transfected into rat cells to make them cancerous, which was super exciting on its own. Then they cloned the specific gene responsible for this transformation and found that it was homologous to the presumed “viral” Ras gene. Finally, they showed that it was only a single point mutation (!) that turned Ras into its cancerous form.
It’s pretty wild that, despite the complexities of cancer, you’re able to identify these very small changes in the genomes of cancer cells that have such a large effect on their behavior. You can imagine why Bob Weinberg would have a rosy outlook after discovering this (as well as other oncogenes). But, at the same time, one could argue that it didn’t amount to much! Weinberg himself wrote an article in Cell a couple years ago about how oncogene Ras has basically been undruggable and knowing about it hasn’t led to the kind of revolutionary cancer treatments he predicted in this book (the 80s). But I still think his work was important! (obviously I’m biased as a basic researcher)
October 3, 2021
In general a good book, but too wide a scope. The scientific discussion is pretty weak for the first half of the book, and the character portraits don’t always pay off - I didn’t have a good idea of the lab personalities until the very end of the book.
July 4, 2023
Natalie is a great story teller, but this book was 40-50% longer for my liking. Nevertheless, for someone who loves chronological narration of scientific discoveries or progress, you'll like this book.
April 25, 2019
As a scientist, I thought this was a great book to share with non-scientist friends and family to give them a sense of the day-to-day of a lab.
August 31, 2019
I found the politics of science & how labs are run interesting
June 18, 2019
This was a great book to read, which includes many of the behind the scenes moments of doing science. I work in a laboratory myself and the ups and downs of the discovery journey are well described. The politics of science is all too real and something I naively not foresee as young researcher. A great book to read for college students who are considering research as a career or for any other person interesting in understanding the human side of science
Read
July 29, 2008Angier spent a good part of the year in Robert Weinberg's molecular biology lab and put it to good use with this volume. It conveys the excitement and dedication of those working at the cutting edge of study of the human cell, how it works and how it goes wrong. A don't miss for those interested in science in action, biology, genomics, or medical history.
May 21, 2015
All kinds of thoughts from scientists had run through my mind at my college years... Now as a research assistant, my everyday life is vividly described by Natalie. And I really like the tone and the real lives of scientists she depicted in the pages; the failures and frustrations we dealt at lab. :)
July 11, 2007
Easy to read book (non-technical) capturing the the passion and experiences that scientists go thru in trying to discover. The foreward by the always eloquant Lewis Thomas, MD, always makes me a little misty eyed.
September 6, 2013
A great book. Although I am a scientist, one need not be though to truly enjoy this book and the tremendous science involved. The author did a tremendous job of capturing the passion involved in this groundbreaking work.
October 11, 2008
A day in the lab of Weinburg and his cancer research crew. Interesting window into the working of cancer research.
February 27, 2012
An oldie, but a goodie.
April 9, 2015
It was interesting to read about how scientists and trainees worked on cutting-edge problems in the late 80s and early 90s. I enjoyed reading this book.
November 12, 2025
I’ve never read a book before or since that so turned bench science into a thriller
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews