5 comments about Oppenheimer: Portrait of an Enigma.

1. What I found as an "enigma" after reading this book is how
   other people thought that this was a good book! There is nothing
   here that has not been discussed elsewhere. I would recommend "Brotherhood of the Bomb" to learn about Oppenheimer and his contemporaries.



2. Robert Oppenheimer's life ties into three enormous dramas of the 20th century: the ascendancy of particle physics as a huge, thrilling new area of human knowledge . . . the creation of the atomic bomb . . . and the McCarthy-era struggles over Communist threats both real and imagined. As a result, Oppenheimer's life story appears most often in the midst of hugely detailed, panoramic books that go on for 600 pages or more. The best of these are great reading, but sometimes they're overwhelming.
   
   Jeremy Bernstein has inadvertently (see below) created something very different. His book is a slim 240 pages that takes us through Oppenheimer's life and times very briskly. Oppenheimer's status as a child prodigy? Noted for a paragraph or two, and then WHOOSH!, we're off to something new. Oppenheimer's doomed romance with Communist-minded Jean Tatlock? Discussed directly for a few pages and alluded to periodically, but hardly dissected hour by hour.
   
   Sometimes that brevity is very welcome. Bernstein writes lucidly about the culture of Berkeley and Los Alamos, making a few words count for a lot. He provides deft primers on the necessary physics, aiming at the lay reader who had at least a smattering of physics in high school or college but who doesn't subscribe to (or get published in!) Physics Today. In those sections, he shows the sure hand of a long-time New Yorker staff writer known for his science profiles.
   
   But in other areas, Bernstein either says too little or isn't sure what he's saying. He presents Oppenheimer as a "leftwandering" intellectual in the 1930s, accidentally dabbling in Communist circles -- without really saying anything persuasive about why Oppenheimer would do this, or how much/how little it affected him. He also writes about the controversies over early H-bomb development in a way that is so stridently anti-Teller that it made me wonder: "What's the other half of this story?"
   
   Bernstein also doesn't show a sure hand in writing about the McCarthy-era hearings that led to the loss of Oppenheimer's security clearance. He quotes at length from hearing transcripts. But he has a hard time explaining persuasively why each character chose the path he or she did. At times, Bernstein reduces Oppenheimer's opponents to ridiculous caricatures, making fun of their clothes, their educations and their diction. We learn too much about the author's prejudices, and not enough about what America was like in 1954.
   
   Jeremy Bernstein was just coming of age as a scientist in the 1950s, and the book includes at least a dozen fleeting anecdotes of his encounters with key players in the story. Sadly, almost all of them are inconsequential. They distract rather than illuminate.
   
   In some introductory remarks, Bernstein explains that he had wanted to write something substantial about Oppenheimer for many years, but felt stymied again and again. As the book's subtitle itself suggests, the author's greatest problems lay in figuring out Oppenheimer's motivations, fears and dreams.
   
   Those challenges remain largely unsolved in this biography. Yet for anyone wanting the essentials of Oppenheimer's life in a very readable, slim book -- this passes the test.



3. It has seemed to me for a long time that Oppenheimer's life story, what little we know of it, would be an excellent resource - a lumberyard of plots and characters -- for a spy novelist of great talent and deep knowledge of real espionage, like John LeCarré.
   
   It is easy to guess what LeCarré would do with this material: He would write a novel about a double agent.
   
   This spare, succinct biographical essay about Oppenheimer is not as compelling as Bernstein's wonderful book about Albert Einstein. But then, Oppenheimer seems to have been much less interesting than Einstein -- as a physicist.
   
   The fascination with Oppenheimer arises, not from his physics, but from his technological and administrative accomplishment in creating the atomic bomb; from his leftist politics; from his love affair; and from his apparent victimization by communist hunters and by Edward Teller. It is a story with a lot of conflict, betrayal of and by old friends, a lot of sneaking around, and a lot of pomping around, too.
   
   Oppenheimer worked in great secrecy during the war, so there is a huge hole in his life from the standpoint of writing biography. You get glimpses, and a before-and-after picture of who he was. A man seen through prisms. In general he seems to have been a curious sort of fellow - a golden boy all his life.
   
   I do think that biography is simply the wrong form for a book about Oppenheimer. He led a substantially secret life, and he led it a long time ago. Only a novelist would have the freedom to fill in the many and enormous blanks.
   
   This book is a good read and it pares down a lot of the story to details that might indeed be useful - even crucial -- to a novelist who might be penning the story of a double agent. Given the sudden tide of new books about Oppenheimer, perhaps one of these days we'll get just such a novel.
   
   On page 1 you would find the strange scene of the lover's suicide but in the novel, of course, it would not be a suicide but an assassination accomplished, in wartime, by an agent or agents of a nation at war -- but which nation?
   
   And so forth.
   
   Highly recommended. Just understand that story doesn't cohere. This is just because it is perforce restricted to the knowable facts.
   



4. Not knowing anything about Oppenheimer, I thought I'd dive in with Jeremy Bernstein's short bio. With Bernstein's credentials as a long time writer for the New Yorker, and as a physicist who knew Oppenheimer, this looked like a great intro.
   
   I couldn't be more wrong. Sadly, this is a poorly written, poorly edited book. Bernstein's credentials intrude embarassingly often as he frequently inserts inconsequential and irrelevant asides with anecdotes about when he perchance met someone in the narrative. He comes across as self-aggrandizing (and without merit - ouch!).
   
   That aside, he also writes poorly, not knowing how to organize his story, when to provide details, etc. I can't imagine I've ever read a book (especially a short 200 page essay) with so many awkward forward references: "I will come back to the matter ..." occurs far too many times for readibility. On the other hand, he will detour into a technical explanation of Plutonium-239 v Plutonium-240, then not use the information for any apparent purpose.
   
   All that said, I can imagine that real students of Oppenheimer might find this interesting precisely for the odd tidbits he may offer that aren't in any other bios or narratives of the time. Such students also will find it easier to navigate through his disorganized narrative of the hearing and so forth. More general readers should look elsewhere. I myself will be trying Brotherhood of the Bomb next.



5. From Oppenheimer's childhood days at the Ethical Culture School and the professors that influenced him to his time spent at the Institute towards the end of his life, Bernstein gives an enjoyable and easily readable overview of the physicist's life. Not only focusing on the trial and keeping a good balance between the darker and lighter sides of Oppenheimer personality, Bernstein never truly explores Oppenheimer's psychological problems or attempts to render an explanation for his unusual behavior. Although this might have brought the reader closer to the subject of the book it could be the effect that Bernstein intended as throughout the book Oppenheimer appears to be more than just a man and more of an enigma. The book is also clearly a work of passion from Bernstein who was an acquaintance and intellectual admirer of Oppenheimer's, thus his reason for wanting to write the biography, which makes the book seem biased, although the author does do a good job of distinguishing the biases of his sources. Overall the book was very enjoyable and I actually looked forward to reading it. Considering my limited knowledge of the physics behind the atomic bomb project I could understand and learn what happened relatively easy. This book is perfect for anyone wanting to know more about the contributions to the Los Alamos project and Oppenheimer's life with some understanding of physics and chemistry.

5 comments about Out of their Minds: The Lives and Discoveries of 15 Great Computer Scientists.

1. If you're a computer scientist, programmer or what have you, then this book is a must read. The book presents key contributions of 15 computer scientists. While the book does contain some level of computer science speak, those who don't have computer science backgrounds will still find the book easy to read and follow. I first read this book when it was first published, and I occasionally refer back to it so I don't forget about all the great contributions made to computing.



2. I was looking for a good source on the masterminds who shaped the Computer Science field and I found in this book. I think this book delivers a good mixture of personal stories plus technical details about the main contributions of the 15 computer scientists who shaped the field.



3. from an insiders point of view, I've been in this environment all working life, this book puts everything in perspective.



4. Very enjoyable and entertaining book. But I've been working in the computer business for 30 years, a novice would have other opinions.
   
   The subtitle is very descriptive -- "The Lives and Discoveries of 15 Greaat Computer Scientists".
   
   Each is covered in a chapter, mixing together an account of how their life's journey ended up in important work.
   
   I knew some of the stories, but this book filled in lots of others. For example, I just know of Leslie Lamport's LaTeX system, not his other work!
   
   If you have an interest in computer science, this is a good survey of the
   individuals behind some of the fundamental discoveries.



5. This is a fast paced fun read. The book covers 15 scientists of the early to middle ages of computers. No list will satisfy everyone (note some of the reviews who were unhappy with this book). There is no section on Alan Turning, John von Neumann or Woz from Apple (sorry Apple PR machine), although the first two are mentioned at various times.
   
   The chapters cover the scientists within four sections: linguists, algorithmists, architects, and sculptors of machine intelligence. Within each chapter is a brief and generally entertaining biography and provide a concise discussion and explanation of some basic concepts that reveal the work that made the individual scientist famous within the field.
   
   The reference section is excellent for further research and enlightenment. It is broken down by chapter and is easy to reference.
   
   It is a fun read which I have allowed myself twice already.

3 comments about Grace Hopper: Admiral Of The Cyber Sea (Library of Naval Biography).

1. I was at a coctail party at a computer show when this lady in a white Navy uniform came it. It was Grace Hopper. Someone asked her for an autograph. Admirals don't need to carry pens around, so I promptly offered her mine. And after she signed one of her business cards for him, I said that I'd like one also, so she signed another. I still have it.
   
   This all came back to me as soon as I saw this book. I picked it up, I opened it to a page where it talks about her first reporting to Howard Aiken at Harvard to work on the Mark I computer. Aiken handed her a manual and told her to write a program. Almost exactly twenty years after she was given the manual, the Army did exactly the same to me - here's a manual, here's the equasion I want solved.
   
   Even in her advanced years at the time I met her, she was still one very bright lady. This was in the very early days of the PC, and she had a basic understanding that enabled her to predict many of the things that were going to happen while the rest of were stumbling around thinking about word processing.
   
   Grace Hopper was quite a lady, and that's reflected in this book. Between 1934 and 1937 hers was the only Ph.D. in mathematics awarded to a female. It was quite a life that she led, and that too is reflected in this book. Adm. Hopper lived in a time when women didn't need to be educated, they were just going to be housewives, and they certainly weren't going to be Navy Admirals. This book is a story of one remarkable woman, but more than that it's the story of computing and of our changing times.



2. I had a chance to hear Grace Hopper speak in 1970's in the early days of my own computer career. She was impressive then, and, after reading this book, I'm even more impressed by her career and her accomplishments, which were underrepresented in the 'computing history' to which I had previously been exposed. Through interviews and delving into untold amount of original source material, Ms. Williams has found MANY fascinating tidbits about Grace and the environment in which she lived and worked. For example, Grace DIDN'T invent the term computer bug. However, the interesting facts are strung together in an oft times confusing narrative - it took me much longer to read than usual. And the index didn't mention her engaging physical representation of a nanosecond. A worthwhile book, nonetheless, for those interested in computing history, and/or women who made a difference in technology.



3. Grace Hopper's contributions to computing were very impressive - I knew that before reading this book because I was a COBOL programmer. Nonetheless, "Admiral of the Cyber Sea" provided a very informative and interesting biography of this lady. It was also interesting to learn of the signal achievements of her siblings - reminding me of President Eisenhower, one of many "stars" in his household.
   
   Born in 1906, Grace Hopper graduated from Vassar, and got a PhD in mathematics from Yale in 1933. She married in '43, and divorced 15 years later. During WWII she followed her grandfather (an admiral) and joined the Navy - WAVES division. At that time she wrote programs for the Mark I computer housed in Harvard - focus was on ballistic trajectories, and accomplished at the speed of 3 operations/second. The Mark I was an electro-mechanical giant - 50' long, 8' tall, and 8' deep, with 3 million wire connections and weighing about 5 tons, and only having 72 words of storage.
   
   The term "Bug" came about when the Mark II was stopped by a relay failure - a moth had been trapped inside one of the relays. The moth was fished out, and taped to the computer's log book.
   
   Hopper then went to work on compiler development, having foreseen their potential for drastically reducing programming efforts while reducing "bugs." Retired from the Navy Reserve in 1966 as a Commander.
   
   However, the Navy soon realized it needed Hopper's continue service, and brought her back. She was impatient with bureaucracy - and displayed it with a clock that ran backwards and a Jolly Roger flag on her desk. One might suspect that Hopper would be one wedded to the "big iron" computers of her day - however, she early on saw the potential and value of microcomputers, and for networking minis.
   
   Commodore Hopper received her new rank (equivalent to today's Rear Admiral) in 1983 at a White House ceremony attended by President Reagan. Retirement took place 12/86 on the deck of the U.S.S. Constitution - the Navy's oldest commissioned ship. The very next day civilian Hopper, twice retired from the Navy, reported for full-time work at DEC.
   
   Grace Hopper died in 1992 at the age of 80, having worked and given almost daily speeches cross-country until the prior Summer. Truly an inspirational achiever!

5 comments about Descartes's Secret Notebook: A True Tale of Mathematics, Mysticism, and the Quest to Understand the Universe.

1. I'm a Mechanical Engineer with enough Mathematics and Philosophy study in my past to have a basic understanding of Descartes. I went into the book with no knowledge of Aczel, the secret notebook, or of the details of Descartes life. With that said I found the book to be great. I walked away understanding much more of Descartes' life and studies. I feel the secret notebook was addressed fairly well through out hinting that it existed through Descartes' fear of publishing. We know the secret notebook is lost to time and very little of it is known, so I'm not sure that we can expect the detail that some reviewers are demanding. All in all I liked it. Fine, if you are a mathematics or Descartes scholar you will not learn much here. But for 99.9% of the population, you will learn of a great Mathematician and Philosopher. Thanks Aczel.



2. When one reads a book titled "Descartes's Secret Notebook," one expects a few things: a) information about Descartes, b) information about the secret notebook. But Aczel does a slipshod job of presenting both to us.
   
   First, information about Descartes. What biographical information we can find within this book we can find on the internet in greater abundance and depth. I see no reason to buy this book if a) there are many points of inaccuracy with regard to facts in this book, b) what can be found here can already be found on the net.
   
   Second, the secret notebook. We expect to see the links between Rosicrucian teachings and Descartes's notebook, but what we find is the links between Descartes' life and Rosicrucian teachings, and that between Leibniz's beliefs and Descartes' notebook. So Aczel does not offer us what he promises when he claims a connection between the notebook and Rosicrucian teachings.
   
   Besides, why should I buy this book when it is a poor summary of a 1987 article by Pierre Costabel? Aczel should be ashamed.
   
   And if the Wikiproduct report at the bottom of this page is true (and evidence suggests that this is so), then Aczel should be as ashamed of his lack of integrity as he should be at his lack of scholarship.



3. It's no surprise that this book wasn't published by an academic press, because no peer review process could possibly have permitted Aczel so completely to misrepresent the contents of Descartes' `secret notebook.' When he purports to be describing the theorem Descartes discovered, Aczel is actually describing work that was done by Euler more than a century later.
   
   One of the `Featured Reviewers' at this site says Aczel "has a talent for explaining mathematical ideas and formulas that might seem daunting to the lay reader." But how can the `lay reader,' including this reviewer, assess how good well he's explaining the material unless he is already familiar with it? Otherwise, an `expert' like Aczel can fabricate his story, the `lay reader' will never be the wiser.
   
   In about 1750 Euler proved that if you count up the number V of vertices of a convex polyhedron, the number E of edges and the number F of faces, then V - E + F is always equal to 2. This is the theorem Aczel attributes to Descartes in the last 2 chapters of his book, a book which is otherwise just a rehash of old biographies of Descartes.
   
   What Descartes actually proved is this: take the same convex polyhedron, calculate the angle deficiency at each vertex and sum these up - the answer is always 8 right angles (720 degrees). What's an angle deficiency? It's the sum of all the plane angles that meet at a given vertex, subtracted from 360. Let's take the octahedron as an example: at each of its vertices, four equilateral triangles meet. So the angle deficiency is [360 - (60 + 60 + 60 + 60)], which is 120 degrees. Since an octahedron has 6 identical vertices, the sum of the angle deficiencies is 6x120 = 720 degrees, or 8 right angles. The octahedron is only one particular case; this works equally well for any convex solid figure. Try it yourself for a cube, where 8x90 = 720.
   
   Well, these two theorems are certainly very different results, but in the late 1800s, after Descartes notebook was re-discovered, people realized that you could deduce Euler's theorem from Descartes theorem. As a result, in the early 20th century some French chauvinists renamed Euler's formula for Descartes.
   
   There is no evidence that Euler ever saw Descartes notebook, although Aczel fabricates a `fact' to make it seem like he did. There is no evidence that Euler ever visited Hanover.
   
   Now the real facts would make a really good story for a popular math book. A real master of the genre, like William Dunham, Simon Singh or Eli Maor, would explain both Descartes' theorem and Euler's theorem to their audience and then demonstrate the logical equivalence of the two.
   
   Aczel is apparently incapable of doing this, or at least was unwilling to do the real work that it would involve. Instead, he describes Euler's theorem where he claims to be describing Descartes' notebook. Specifically, he claims that Descartes counted the edges of a polyhedron, which he most certainly did not. Euler was the first person ever to consider the edge of a polyhedron as an item of mathematical interest, so that he actually had to coin a Latin word (acies) for it.
   
   As is well documented in other reviews: (1) most of this book is a re-hash of various biographies of Descartes and 90% of it has nothing to do with `secret notebook,' and (2) it is absolutely loaded with factual errors about mathematics and the history of mathematics.
   
   What's much worse is the tiny portion that does cover the notebook itself is an amazingly inaccurate and even dishonest misrepresentation of what Descartes really did. Shame, shame, shame.



4. I've enjoyed several other Aczel works: Fermat's Last Theorem, God's Equation, Mystery of the Aleph, and I struggled mightily to get through this one, but it's just too dull. Blah, blah, blah, then this clown wrote to that one and said meaningless things; blah, blah, blah, these phrases from this ancient manuscript appeared in this person's letters, proving he was influenced by it. Blech.



5. The very fact that the German polymath Leibniz sat down to transcribe pages of a "secret notebook" written by Rene Descartes could send chills up the spine of any fan of these superstars of the Enlightenment, and indeed that is exactly what happened to me. I was so intrigued by the title that I pre-ordered this book and waited for it to arrive in Japan with a kid on Christmas eve kind of feeling. But after I devoured it in one sitting, I found myself wondering how this mishmash of potted biographies and wobbly argumentation (Descartes was in such and such a city at the same time as such and such a reputed Rosicrucian was passing through the same city, therefore Descartes was a Rosicrucian), could add up to a book to be taken seriously. I learned that Descartes might have been poisoned, that he might have fathered a child by a mistress, that maybe he routed a boat-load of pirates all by his Popeye self, which would have made him a considerable scrapper if it were true. Leibniz comes in for an even more nebulous portrait as he glides through the pages, a mere excuse for the plot to ramble on. Finally, at the end of the book we're allowed to look over Leibniz's shoulder as he decrypts and transcribes (in record time!) an equation that would later be rediscovered by Euler, the great mathematician and associate of Gauss, the Beethoven of pure math. Yes, this is remarkable stuff, but it's really not explained in enough depth before Aczel attempts to stretch the significance of Descartes' discovery into a hyper-Einsteinian cosmological intuition of the nature of the dimensional structuring of the universe itself--a truly breathtaking, and--a truly unwarranted--leap. Add to this mix the halting, spavined style that hobbles the narrative and you have what resembles a one trick pony of a book that will leave you hoping for a Native Dancer to canter by some day.

5 comments about From X-rays to Quarks: Modern Physicists and Their Discoveries (Dover Classics of Science & Mathematics).

1. Segre's style on physics is straight forward and non-intimidating. But what make this book is his stories. Emilio met and worked with many of these men. He describes their personalities attitudes and politics, and they come alive in his book. This is history the way it ought to be taught. Squisito! Bravo! Bravisimo!



2. This is a great book on the history of quantum mechanics. I highly reccomend it. Unfortunately the book is out of print and one needs to hunt down a used book.

   It begins with the discovery of X-rays in 1895 and ends with events around the early 70's. It is interesting how the technological advances of today have come about after a sudden chain of discoverires starting with just 2 discoveries that acted as sparks: xrays and radioactivity (both of which thanks to some photpgraphic film that developed without the intention of the scientist). The chronological developments are nicely intertwined.

   I enjoyed how the author has written of the rigorous development of quantrum mechanics from 3 different viewpoints of schrodinger, heisenberg and dirac and how they later proved that all 3 were the same. There are great photographs of the scientists of the time also. Overall very well written with lots of stories about the featured scientists. Can finish the book in one day, it was that incaptivating (to serve as a reference, am a chemistry student).




3. Segre` has written two excellect histories for the educated non-scientist. These are not "light" reads, but they are informative and entertaining. This is the second part of the pair (the first, "From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves") and is just exciting as the first. One could almost call this work, "The Story Continues". It tells of scientists working for years on end in attempts to understand the universe and its workings. Of course, we meet those geniuses that discovered a new aspect of reality or a long-sought explanation.

   What is remarkable is how these great men and women used the work of each other to further their own endeavors. The practice of documenting new find and publishing scientific journals began during this era. Exquisite writine with diagrams, photographs and illustrations.




4. This is a wonderful book. I'm glad it's back in print again. Highly recommended, together with "From Falling Bodies to Radio Waves".



5. What this book is not:
   A text book
   Written to explain some controversial theory
   Promoting a world view or pseudo religious belief
   An artful work of literature
   Written for a general audience
   
   What this book is:
   A chronological narrative of the development of modern physics
   A series of stories about scientist and the nature of their experiments
   A tome that covers the most important physics discoveries for the era it covers
   
   Why read this book?
   I would recommend this book to anyone who studies the hard sciences
   This book would nicely augment a modern physics course
   Because knowing the history of science promotes real understanding

5 comments about Tycho & Kepler.

1. An amazing and inspirational account of one of the greatest stories in the history of science. Extremely well written and scholarly. I have average reading skills but at times found the book impossible to put down. In spots I had to stop reading it because emotions took over. The best book I ever read about the classical scientists.



2. Kitty Ferguson tells the tail of the unique and often humorous relationship between Johannes Kepler and Tycho Brahe that led to some of the greatest astronomical discoveries of our time. Going against the common belief of the geocentric universe, Kepler changes the world forever with the essential help of Brahe's observation on the heavens. Although the result of their relationship is extraordinarily beneficial to astronomy, the relationship is not as peaceful as one would think. Ferguson makes this evident throughout the story and gives numerous examples of their feuding and bickering over their work together. It reminded me of a 17th century spin off of the odd couple. Both informative and entertaining, this book covers everything from Brahe's golden nose to Kepler robbery of Brahe's information and is definitely worth reading if you are interested in the subject.



3. Tycho & Kepler - The Unlikely Friendship that Forever Changed Our Understanding of the Heavens is, for the most part, an excellent novel and easy read. Although it is a little confusing and dry at the times when complex astronomical concepts are being explained, they are outweighed by the wealth of historical accounts and gratuitous, but juicy tidbits. For instance, besides explaining the extensive instruments that Tycho built, Ferguson offers that he was also the first Dane to write a poem in Latin, that he had a twin that died at birth, and his aunt and uncle kidnapped him from his parents who wanted a girl and didn't much care. As for Kepler, not only did he develop the Harmonic theory, but had a miserable marriage, a mother accused and tried for witchcraft, and was the first author of a science fiction novel. Kitty Ferguson thus tells the life stories of the astronomers Tycho and Kepler in an informative, educational, yet narrative and interesting way. She effectively spans the 20-year gap between Tycho and Kepler by beginning the book describing Tycho's childhood and indeed his life exclusively up until the advent of a comet on December 27, 1571. Ferguson explains that, when Tycho saw the comet, he was out at one of his 60 manmade fish ponds on his estate at the Danish Isle of Hven, catching fish for dinner that evening. Meanwhile Kepler saw the same comet, but he was only five, and it was during a rare warm moment that he shared with his mother on a hilltop in Leonberg. Thus Kepler enters the story. For the rest of the book, Ferguson fluidly integrates the two men's lives, switching back and forth in an understandable, connected way. She eventually merges the two stories in a dynamic, functional manner, and shows how they used each other, and that many of their final results were synthesized versions of their combined efforts. Basically, Tycho provided excruciatingly accurate data that Kepler confirmed mathematically and extrapolated on. Kepler could have never figured out all that he did with out Tycho's data; he had bad eyesight and could not observe the sky he so dearly slaved for. It was because Tycho initially mistrusted Kepler that Kepler received only slight amounts of data that Kepler discovered that planetary orbits are elliptical - Tycho gave him only data on Mars, which happens to have the most extreme elliptical orbit, otherwise Kepler never would have noticed. Tycho also used Kepler to advance his own work and complete (among other things) the Rudolfine Tables, which are not merely the positions of planets, but guides to figure out what positions they are in at any time, (now, 586 years ago, or one thousand years into the future). The aptly-named chapters are elegantly punctuated with helpful pictures, like paintings of people discussed, illustrations of instruments, maps of the places mentioned, explanatory diagrams, and more. There are also obliging appendixes in the back, explaining astronomical terms (even though they are well-explained in the reading), and an index.
   Just as the accomplishments of these men were great, so were their lives, which is probably why Kitty Ferguson felt compelled to tell the story of them. I would highly recommend it, even if you do not much care for astronomy.



4. Tycho and Kepler: The Unlikely Partnership That Forever Changed Our Understanding of the Heavens, by Kitty Ferguson, is a 402-page dedication to two astronomical greats of the early seventeenth century, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. Beginning with an examination of the society into which Brahe was born, the book traces him throughout his childhood and adulthood, from the building of Uraniborg, Brahe's astronomical observatory on the island of Hven to his banishment from the kingdom of Denmark. Not until nearly the hundredth page is Kepler discussed, but from that point forward, tales from each man's life are alternated. It seems that more time is devoted to Brahe. The two stories come together when the men meet, and it follows them together from that point forward. When Brahe passes away, the focus immediately and entirely shifts to Kepler and follows him to the end of the book. The story comes to an abrupt finish with Kepler's death, though the volume also contains three appendices explaining and elaborating on complex astronomical terms discussed in the body of the book.
   I think Ms. Ferguson decided to recount this story because she was interested in both astronomy and history. From reading the book, one can feel the interest the author has in the subject matter. While reading this book, I became interested in the topic as well, but sometimes felt a bit lost. Occasionally, it seemed that she went too much in depth on certain topics, such as the construction of Uraniborg, which she described in great detail. In general, however, Kitty Ferguson seems to like enjoy writing about this topic, and conveys her enthusiasm in her writing.
   This is a good book. I read it for a school assignment, and was not especially interested in the topic at hand at first, though I rapidly became drawn into the story. I only grew bored of the book when it began to explain complex astronomical concepts. While all ideas were explained in full and in understandable language, accompanied by appropriate pictures and diagrams, it was still somewhat tedious for someone not especially knowledgeable about astronomy to wade through. The flow of the book is excellent. It never felt rushed, and the transitions between sections focusing on each scientist were smooth. The one thing that I really disliked about this book was its sudden ending. It ends at Kepler's death; it does not even mention the impacts of Brahe and Kepler's work on later scientists. Despite this inadequacy, I was left with a good impression of Ms. Ferguson's book, and with much more knowledge about astronomy, Tycho Brahe, and Johannes Kepler than I had when beginning to read this book.



5. I had read a couple of biographies of Tycho Brahe years ago, but never anything on Johannes Kepler except the bare-bones discoveries that made him famous. This book was a well-conceived and well-written biography of both men. Starting with Tycho and his observations and ending with Kepler and his discoveries based on Tycho's data, the book interleaves their lives in the middle where they were contemporaries. What a shame that Tycho died only a year or so after taking Kepler on board. It's interesting to speculate what might have happened if Tycho had lived. But he didn't, and Kepler's brilliant use of Tycho's data made them both famous and greatly advanced the science of astronomy. Thruout, you can see astronomy splitting away from astrology and leaving it in the dust.

5 comments about A Smile as Big as the Moon: A Teacher, His Class, and Their Unforgettable Journey.

1. a wonderful read... a triumph of heart, mind and human spirit. great job mike, robynn and students. The movie will be a must see on my list.
   maj. davie a megahan, usa-ret, huntsville al.



2. a wonderful read... a triumph of heart, mind and human spirit. great job mike, robynn and students. The movie will be a must see on my list.
   maj. davie a megahan, usa-ret, huntsville al.



3. I usually prefer fiction books, however, this true story of a teacher so dedicated to his students was too hard to resist. It is uplifting and motivating to see that there are others in education who will put their heart and soul into helping their students succeed! So many children need teachers like Mike and Robynn.



4. A Smile as Big as the Moon, by Mike Kersjes, is a very inspiring and encouraging book. Personally, I was happy to see a teacher who took risks to make those children with disabilities feel proud of themslves. Personally, as an employee at a school with disabled children, I know what it takes to make those children happy. I can call Kersjes a gifted teacher who devoted his time, energy, and money to help those children in special education. Based on a true story, it is very interesting and keeps the reader eager to know what happened next. I would reommed this book to teachers, parents and older children.



5. This is a very inspirational book. Great for in-service teachers. I loved their dedication and devotion to their students' success and belief that they are "human."
   Wonderful.

2 comments about Every Other Thursday: Stories and Strategies from Successful Women Scientists.

1. Life is tough. Scientist or nonscientist, man or woman, we go up against great odds to make progress, teach and inspire others, and pave the way for the future. So why does the world make this process so hard? In this book, Ellen Daniell describes the support network of young scientists, mostly women, that helped its Bay Area members overcome family troubles, deal with the whims of fate, and face despair in academic and institutional settings. Along the way she describes the psychological approach to success that we can provide for one another. Read this book, and make friends, and be happy that we get this great chance in life!



2. Let's say you have problems at work. You have an unreasonable deadline. You're up for promotion. Your boss seems intent on attacking you. You are going to have a baby and that's not welcome news at work. You feel excluded from important conversations. No one will go to lunch with you. Ellen Daniell tells us all a great way to handle these work-related emergencies and bad vibes: form a weekly discussion group focused on professional issues.
   In addition to providing friendships, now at a premium in this society, the group can say how strategies worked (or didn't work) for them, support the stressed worker, and keep her/him from giving in to the pressures of work. Daniell's own group includes members of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers and professors and industry scientists. Most have been women historically (over the 25 years this group has functioned). She was invited to join by a prominent male molecular biologist 25 years ago. She gives us the history of the group, lots of detailed anecdotes of its functioning, and then turns to how to form and run such a group for your own sanity.
   I found this book both inspiring and disquieting: Daniell herself describes how she was denied tenure at a prestigious university, fought the decision, and was denied anyway. Then she became an administrator in the biotech industry, and today she's a full time writer. Her self esteem came through thanks to the group process. But as a woman in science, who took the trouble to read Daniell's pre tenure publications, I am appalled that she was denied. What were they thinking? But don't get the idea that this book is full of rage. That's my own, not Ellen Daniell's. Through her group, she has dealt successfully with the decision and put it behind her comfortably.
   I recommend this book very highly; get it for your mental health and well being. I agree with Rita Colwell (former director of the National Science Foundation) who is quoted on the back cover saying that she wished she could have read it back at the start of her career.

3 comments about The Third Man of the Double Helix: The Autobiography of Maurice Wilkins.

1. Maurice Wilkins was a first-rate scientist who was deeply involved in the most important scientific discovery of the 20th century- the discovery of the structure of DNA.

   His story needs to be told, since he has been written about often by authors such as Watson, Crick, Anne Sayre, Brenda Maddox and others.

   He was a central figure in the continuing saga of Rosalind

   Franklin and her "Photograph 51", recently the subject of a televison documentary of the same title, and a previous BBC

   special produced by Peter Goodchild some ten years ago.

   He was clearly not the equal of Rosalind Franklin in
   experimental ability, nor of Watson and Crick in their aggressive utilization of the work of others.

   Perhaps the key story of this book was Wilkins' graciously declining co-authorship of the basic DNA Publication in Nature, which also, much to the relief of Watson and Crick, avoided having to acknowledge how they obtained Photograph 51.

   As Sir John Maddox said recently, "If all these publications had arrived at Nature when I was Editor, I would have smelled a rat"

   In any case, Wilkins comes off as a thoroughly decent person, although one wonders why he permitted the consistent publication
   of articles representing Rosalind Franklin as one of his subordinates- which she never was.




2. The Third Man--The Autobiography of Maurice Wilkins
   by Maurice Wilkins
   Reviewed by Donald Siano

   Wilkins was involved in one of the watershed scientific events of the twentieth century--the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA. He was the guy who really got the study of the x-ray diffraction studies going, and showed that the features seen were universal to a variety of different organisms, and therefore that it was an important scientific problem. He showed that the structure was probably helical, got Rosilind Franklin started on the problem, and was the link from her to Watson and Crick, who finally made the famous model that shook the world.

   This book, published fifty years after, fills in some of the details of the event, correcting and contesting some claims made by others who have written on it. Some of his corrections are quite convincing. For example, a claim was made in one of the books on this affair that his research group contained only one other female, implying that he was something of a misogynist, while a picture of his laboratory coworkers in the book is about half female.

   The tension between him and Franklin is made much of in historical accounts, and Wilkins unflinchingly covers this, and is pretty hard on himself too. The incident graphically shows how people from very different cultures (Franklin was a rich, pushy Jew) who are ostensibly working on a common goal can fail. Diversity in a laboratory group is not always the asset that the universal dogma asserts. His regrets and "could'a shoulda's" are revealing and even moving at times.

   Another revelation in the book was his involvement in the Communist party, and his flirtation with Freudian psychology. A scientific education unfortunately appears not to immunize one completely from quackery.

   The thing I took away from the book is how the simple stories generated and perpetuated in the mass media and in historical accounts are almost always wrong in important ways. Scientific discoveries and important inventions are almost always complicated events, only part of which is even known and understood by any single writer or even the actors involved. But more than that, practically every writer has his prejudices and angles to massage. Autobiographers are no exception to this, but Wilkins has added to our understanding, and should only be applauded for it.




3. +++++
   
   There is a joke by a famous comedian that asks who the three tenors are. Most people know two of them and the third man is known as "what's his name." The same situation occurs when you ask people who shared the 1962 Noble Prize (in physiology or medicine) for their discovery of the structure of DNA (and other nucleic acid achievements). Most people say, "(Dr.) Watson, (Dr.) Crick, and what's his name."
   
   What's his name is Dr. Maurice Wilkins (1916 to 2004). Most people are unaware that Wilkins was a brilliant physicist (he worked on the Manhattan or Atomic Bomb Project during World War Two) and later on was a biophysicist whose contribution was essential for discovering DNA's structure. Wilkins states this more eloquently: "[My] team of researchers at King's [College, a division of the University of London in the UK] laid the foundations for the double helix structure that Watson and Crick [both of whom worked together in a different UK laboratory] demonstrated so peruasively with their model in 1953."
   
   Wilkins ten chapter autobiography is divided into three parts: those days before, during, and after the discovery of DNA's structure. This book contains almost forty black-and-white photographs. Wilkins' aim in writing this book was to tell his life story (that begins before he was born) and, perhaps more importantly, clear up "the tensions, accusations, confusions, and controversies that have attended the telling and retelling of the DNA story."
   
   I felt that Wilkins was totally honest (and at times naive) throughout this book. Some of the reasons I say he was honest are as follows:
   
   (1) He was an octogenarian when this book was published and thus I feel he had nothing to hide at this advanced age.
   
   (2) He reveals many aspects of his personal life that many people would be reticent to reveal, especially in print. For example, he tells us he "felt a bit suicidal at times."
   
   (3) He says many times that in retrospect "he should of" or "he could of" done things differently. I got the impression that at times he was a bit hard on himself.
   
   (4) Finally, he tells us that both he and Crick found Watson's book "The Double Helix" (1968) "distasteful." They both protested to Watson's publisher. (Wilkins said Watson's book was "badly written, juvenile, and in bad taste.") As a result the book was not published. (However, another publisher published it, and the rest is history.)
   
   Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Wilkins' book (at least for me) was the controversey surrounding Rosalind Franklin (1920 to 1958), an "x-ray [diffraction] specialist" who worked in the same lab as Wilkins. He gives us detailed information of what occurred. From other books (particularly the 1975 book by Ann Sayre), I learned that two major things occurred:
   
   (1) There was tension between Frankin and Wilkins. I got the impression from these other books that this tension was due to personality and gender differences. Not true. Wilkins explains why this tension really arose and gives proof of his assertion.
   
   (2) Wilkins gave a critical X-ray photograph (a reproduction of it is included in Wilkins' book) taken by Franklin to Watson without her permission. This photo gave Watson the concrete evidence for DNA's structure. Again, this is not entirely accurate according to Wilkins.
   
   This critical X-ray photo brings up the question of the recognition Franklin should have received. For example, would she have been a contender for the Nobel Prize? I would say yes if this prize was only for determining the structure of DNA. But, as Wilkins explains, he, Crick, and Watson DID NOT receive the prize for this! I checked this out at the offical Nobel Prize internet site. (Note that the inside front and back flaps of Wilkins' book incorrectly says they were awarded the prize for discovering DNA's structure.)
   
   Even so, was Franklin recognized for her achievements and contributions at this time? Watson and Crick did not recognize her for her achievements in their Nobel Prize lectures. However, Wilkins did recognize her (as well as others who made major contributions) in his lecture. (Their actual lectures can also be found at the official Nobel Prize internet site.)
   
   Finally, I still have a few minor questions regarding Wilkins' story. However, my major question is as follows: "Why did he wait half a century after the discovery of DNA's structure to tell his side of the story?"
   
   In conclusion, this autobiography shows that Wilkins was a decent, honest, and brilliant scientist. He also clears up any misconceptions regarding the discovery of the structure of DNA. Be sure to read this book so as to learn the true story of Maurice Hugh Frederick Wilkins and the true story of the discovery of the structure of DNA!!
   
   +++++

No comments about Galileo's Instruments of Credit: Telescopes, Images, Secrecy.