NZSM Online

Get TurboNote+ desktop sticky notes

Interclue makes your browsing smarter, faster, more informative

SciTech Daily Review

Webcentre Ltd: Web solutions, Smart software, Quality graphics

Under The Microscope

THE THREAT AND THE GLORY: Reflections On Science And Scientists, by Peter Medawar, ed by David Pyke; Oxford University Press, 1991; 310 pages; $29.95

The Threat And The Glory bears instant comparison to Max Perutz's Is Science Necessary? -- both books are collections of various articles, book reviews and talks by "great men", respected as scientists and writers, and both have their ups and downs in terms of content. What can be contrasted between the books is their presentation -- The Threat And The Glory is self-confessedly a hagiography, an account of the wisdom of Medawar, and is much the better for it.

The book's contents mostly consist of Medawar's written works left uncollected before his death, and a few items not published in written form. As such, there are repetitions and redundancies -- it is a little much to expect an author to fine-tune a book posthumously -- but these are owned up to by the editor. It's extraordinary how much less frustrating that makes the book to read than Perutz's work.

Once you are given the right rules to read such a work, you can appreciate the author as well as the works. We get a window into Medawar's terrifyingly well-formed mind, and see his major concerns and motivations behind the commentaries. That in itself is worth the asking price.

The famed Medawar incisiveness, however, is a little patchy in this collection. His articles on the mechanics of scientific fraud, experimentation, and the social structure of science, for example, show all the virtues of an expert and literate commentator from the front line.

But when he comments on scientific methodology -- Medawar was one of the few modern scientists to believe that the philosophy of science actually had something to do with its practise -- and in particular on the inadequacy of the inductive model of science and the reality of the Popperian model, he does not seem to realise that the history of science he describes, and his own scientific practise, does not support the Popperian model either. It's an interesting and informative lapse.

Perhaps the best value comes from the flashes of wit. For example, we are informed in a review of a treatise on Nobel Prize winners that "readers used to the tempos and idioms of feature journalism, particularly in magazines with many coloured illustrations, will probably find Professor Zuckerman's book too slow moving for their debauched tastes..."

That's been said before, and it's probably wrong, but few have said it better.

Tony Smith, NZSM Wellington