3 science books compelling enough to speak to all readers

Bob Berman's 'Zapped,' Max Tegmark's 'Life 3.0,' and Richard Dawkins's 'Science in the Soul' succeed in turning science books into good summer reads.

Zapped: From Infrared to X-rays, the Curious History of Invisible Light By Bob Berman Little, Brown 272 pp. Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist by Richard Dawkins Random House Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence By Max Tegmark Alfred A. Knopf

The challenge inherent in writing popular science books for a mainstream audience is obvious. Recent polls about scientific literacy conducted in the US, the UK, and Australia have all revealed depressing results, including, most alarmingly of all, that only roughly half of all respondents know that the Earth orbits the sun and takes a year to do it. In other words, for large swaths of the population of the modern, industrialized world, Kepler and Galileo – to say nothing of Newton, Curie, and Einstein – lived in vain, or might never have lived at all. 

This reflects a massive and systematic failure in science education, and that failure creates an ever-widening gap between scientists and non-scientists. Popular science writing has always tried to close that gap, and three of the latest examples in bookstores make valiant attempts. 

Astronomy magazine columnist (and science editor for "The Old Farmer's Almanac") Bob Berman, for instance, takes a jaunty, conversational approach in his new book Zapped: From Infrared to X-rays, the Curious History of Invisible Light, telling his readers right at the start that they are surrounded by his subject. “At this moment, as you sit quietly reading this book,” he writes, “you are awash in it.… You cannot see, hear, smell, or feel it, but there is never a single second when it is not flying through your body. Too much of it will kill you, but without it you wouldn't live a year.”

Berman tells readers the history of science's discovery of such things as gamma rays, cosmic rays, and ultraviolet rays, and he's an unfailingly congenial explainer, always ready with the kinds of fascinating facts his readers might have missed in school. “Did you know that a single whole-body CT scan often delivers more radiation than was received by Hiroshima survivors a mile from ground zero?” he asks. “Or that living across the street from a nuclear power plant for a full year gives you less radiation than eating a single banana?” (Bananas, it turns out, contain radioactive potassium-40).

MIT physicist Max Tegmark opts for a less collegial though no less fascinating approach in his new book, Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. The title refers to a third, as-yet hypothetical stage of life. 1.0 is simple life, “where both the hardware and the software are evolved rather than designed.” 2.0 is evolved life that can design software. And Life 3.0 would be software that could intentionally and with increasing creativity design more software – and the “would be” is a very borderline thing, thanks to the “smart” technology currently proliferating all over the world. “Life 1.0 arrived about 4 billion years ago, Life 2.0 (we humans) arrived about a hundred millennia ago, and many AI [Artificial Intelligence] researchers think that Life 3.0 may arrive during the coming century, perhaps even during our lifetime.”

Although it's probably not his intention, much of what Tegmark writes will quietly terrify his readers. He spins scenarios in which the technology on which humans depend consults those humans less and less, preferring instead to learn, adapt, and innovate on its own – building security systems, national power grids, and medical and financial information networks, all using algorithms to change and grow, often in unpredictable ways that don't mirror humanity's own developmental path. “After all,” Tegmark writes, “why should our simplest path to a new technology be the one that evolution came up with, constrained by requirements that it be self-assembling, self-repairing and self-reproducing?” As his wife likes to point out, “The aviation industry didn't start with mechanical birds.”

Fiercely different in its own way from either Berman's joviality or Tegmark's disquieting predictions is the approach of the third of these books, Science in the Soul, a generous anthology of the speeches, essays, and occasional writings of one of the great science popularizers of the last half-century, Richard Dawkins. In this collection, which features a large number of pieces previously unpublished in the US, editor Gillian Somerscales introduces and contextualizes 41 works by the outspoken and always-interesting author of "The Selfish Gene" and "The Ancestor's Tale," with new notes and comments supplied along the way by Dawkins himself, who strikes in these pages a passionate tone that would have been immediately recognizable to Kepler, and Galileo, and those others. “There is objective truth out there and it is our business to find it,” he writes. “There is mystery but never magic, and mysteries are all the more beautiful for being eventually explained. Things are explicable and it is our privilege to explain them.” Dawkins's book ranges from parodies to polemics to ideological tributes to everybody from Charles Darwin to Carl Sagan to Christopher Hitchens, all of it rendered in gloriously spiky and opinionated prose. 

In addition to everything else they are, these three volumes constitute urgent invitations to their readership: think, learn, investigate – before it's too late.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 3 science books compelling enough to speak to all readers
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today