HjemGrupperSnakMereZeitgeist
Søg På Websted
På dette site bruger vi cookies til at levere vores ydelser, forbedre performance, til analyseformål, og (hvis brugeren ikke er logget ind) til reklamer. Ved at bruge LibraryThing anerkender du at have læst og forstået vores vilkår og betingelser inklusive vores politik for håndtering af brugeroplysninger. Din brug af dette site og dets ydelser er underlagt disse vilkår og betingelser.
Hide this

Resultater fra Google Bøger

Klik på en miniature for at gå til Google Books

Indlæser...

The Best American Science Writing 2008 (2008)

af Sylvia Nasar (Redaktør), Jesse Cohen (Series Editor)

Andre forfattere: Benedict Carey (Bidragyder), Daniel Carlat (Bidragyder), Thomas Goetz (Bidragyder), Al Gore (Bidragyder), Jerome Groopman (Bidragyder)15 mere, Stephen S. Hall (Bidragyder), Amy Harmon (Bidragyder), Gardiner Harris (Bidragyder), Joseph Kahn (Bidragyder), Ben McGrath (Bidragyder), Tara Parker-Pope (Bidragyder), Richard Preston (Bidragyder), Janet Roberts (Bidragyder), Tina Rosenberg (Bidragyder), Oliver Sacks (Bidragyder), Sally Satel (Bidragyder), John Seabrook (Bidragyder), Margaret Talbot (Bidragyder), Jim Yardley (Bidragyder), Carl Zimmer (Bidragyder)

Serier: The Best American Science Writing (2008), Best American (2008)

MedlemmerAnmeldelserPopularitetGennemsnitlig vurderingSamtaler
1333162,651 (3.66)Ingen
A latest collection in the annual series features a selection of the year's most significant writings on key scientific developments in genetics, physics, cognition, evolutionary theory, astronomy, and other fields and is complemented by an accessible overview of the year's most important discoveries, research, and events.… (mere)
Ingen
Indlæser...

Bliv medlem af LibraryThing for at finde ud af, om du vil kunne lide denne bog.

Der er ingen diskussionstråde på Snak om denne bog.

Viser 3 af 3
a lot of articles about doctors working for drug companies ( )
  mahallett | May 25, 2015 |
For me, a little too much medical emphasis. And way too much on the pharmaceutical industry (are these really science stories?).

I didn't believe for a moment that writer-psychiatrist Daniel Carlat began shilling for drug companies for anything but monetary motives (OK, at least he has reformed and confessed.) And there was another, from NYT, about drug companies paying censured (not permitted to practice, at least for a while) doctors to conduct trials and do the shilling thing. And yet another on "Psychiatrists, Children and the Drug Industry's Role." Not to be confused with Jerome Groopman on whether children can have bipolar disorder.

Note also Tina Rosenberg's more faceted "When is a pain doctor a drug pusher?" Of course a familiar profile from Oliver Sachs on a damaged musician with a very short-term memory.

Two profiles of people with code mutations that cause hideous diseases. 1) NYer's Richard Preston on Lesch-Nyhan disease, which compels its victims to chew off their fingertips and lips. 2) Amy Harmon makes a compelling, heart-breaking case for more research on the Huntington's gene but profiling a woman who decides as 23 to be tested for the gene and learns she probably has only 12 more years before symptoms set in. But, you know, anyone that reads science pages or popular magazines even occasionally knows about Huntington's and the detection already (a colleague did a story 20-odd years ago on this when Nancy Wexler, mentioned in passing in Harmon's story, was debating whether to be tested herself).

There's a Silicon Valley start-up that aims to offer individuals complete de-coding for $1,000. Any while Margaret Talbot's story ("Duped") on a possible foolproof lie detector doesn't rely on genetic analysis, it does stray into the medical category more than social science. Don't you want more details on how it works and how the old ones do?

I'm a bit surprised Sylvia Nasar, the guest editor, chose so many related to medicine or diagnosis since she isn't a medical doctor. (You expect it whenever a doctor is the editor.) Not that there's anything terrible about any of these pieces--the writing and organization is fine--but it means that, while there are a couple of environmental ones, all the other areas of science were shortchanged--physics, geology, math, botany, evolutionary psych, neuroscience, agriculture, etc.

The one ag piece has a lot of bloopers, imho. (What about slash and burn planting? Not really viable to go back to the mythical pre-Green Revolution time when it was all sustainable and people in, say, India had a 25-year life span. And some food exporting countries have been at it for a very long time. Start with rice.)

While interesting and practical, "Supply, Demand and Kidney Transplants" isn't really a science story either. It's a proposal for public policy and not surprisingly appeared in Policy Review. The ones about the uses of the pharmaceutical industry are essentially policy issues too.

For the most news you can use: "The Older and Wiser Hypothesis," "Evoloved for Cancer" and WSJ on NIH's false alarm re hormone replacement therapy.

This was the year Al Gore won the Nobel Prize, so there's a familiar piece by him. Not that there is anything wrong with the two environmental stories re China but anyone that has lived in the vicinity has heard so many of these. Isn't there room for environmental disaster stories from other parts of the developing world? ( )
  Periodista | Jan 4, 2012 |
Some interesting articles, a lot that struck me as Reader's Digest level 'science'. Doctors are being paid by drug reps! Inappropriate medications are being prescribed for children! There's a rare genetic disease that makes people bite off their fingers! Hmmph. Al Gore's discussion of global warming was interesting, primarily because it's a lot more nuanced than the usual reporting on the subject - we can't destroy the world, but we _can_ make it a lot less pleasant for humans to live in. And some of the genetic discussions were also interesting - commercial gene-sequencing, and global seed storage. Overall, though, the book was a lot less interesting than I thought it would be - there was not one reporting of a real discovery, nor anything in the hard sciences. In the intro the editor mentioned that medicine was the major focus that year - but personally I'd have found some hard science to replace at least one of the three doctors-doing-bad-stuff RD-level stories. I don't think I'll bother to seek out others in the series - though if some have other editors they might be worth my while. ( )
  jjmcgaffey | Jul 9, 2009 |
Viser 3 af 3
ingen anmeldelser | tilføj en anmeldelse

» Tilføj andre forfattere

Forfatter navnRolleHvilken slags forfatterVærk?Status
Nasar, SylviaRedaktørprimær forfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Cohen, JesseSeries Editorhovedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Carey, BenedictBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Carlat, DanielBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Goetz, ThomasBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Gore, AlBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Groopman, JeromeBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Hall, Stephen S.Bidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Harmon, AmyBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Harris, GardinerBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Kahn, JosephBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
McGrath, BenBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Parker-Pope, TaraBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Preston, RichardBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Roberts, JanetBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Rosenberg, TinaBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Sacks, OliverBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Satel, SallyBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Seabrook, JohnBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Talbot, MargaretBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Yardley, JimBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet
Zimmer, CarlBidragydermedforfatteralle udgaverbekræftet

Belongs to Series

Du bliver nødt til at logge ind for at redigere data i Almen Viden.
For mere hjælp se Almen Viden hjælpesiden.
Kanonisk titel
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen Viden Redigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Originaltitel
Alternative titler
Oprindelig udgivelsesdato
Personer/Figurer
Vigtige steder
Vigtige begivenheder
Beslægtede film
Priser og hædersbevisninger
Indskrift
Tilegnelse
Første ord
Citater
Sidste ord
Oplysning om flertydighed
Forlagets redaktører
Bagsidecitater
Originalsprog
Canonical DDC/MDS
Canonical LCC

Henvisninger til dette værk andre steder.

Wikipedia på engelsk

Ingen

A latest collection in the annual series features a selection of the year's most significant writings on key scientific developments in genetics, physics, cognition, evolutionary theory, astronomy, and other fields and is complemented by an accessible overview of the year's most important discoveries, research, and events.

No library descriptions found.

Beskrivelse af bogen
Haiku-resume

Populære omslag

Quick Links

Vurdering

Gennemsnit: (3.66)
0.5
1
1.5
2 1
2.5 1
3 6
3.5 2
4 9
4.5
5 3

Er det dig?

Bliv LibraryThing-forfatter.

 

Om | Kontakt | LibraryThing.com | Brugerbetingelser/Håndtering af brugeroplysninger | Hjælp/FAQs | Blog | Butik | APIs | TinyCat | Efterladte biblioteker | Tidlige Anmeldere | Almen Viden | 162,458,496 bøger! | Topbjælke: Altid synlig