Skip to main content

Adam Rutherford - Four Way Interview

Dr Adam Rutherford is a science writer and broadcaster. He studied genetics at University College London, and during his PhD on the developing eye, he was part of a team that identified the first genetic cause of a form of childhood blindness. He has written and presented many award-winning series and programmes for the BBC, including the flagship BBC Radio 4 programme Inside Science, The Cell for BBC Four, and Playing God on the rise of synthetic biology for the leading science strand Horizon, as well as writing for the science pages of the Observer. His most recent book is A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived


Why science?

It's the best way I know of for answering questions about how stuff works. It's not the only way of course, and doesn't always provide the most interesting answers. Science might have a way of telling us why Bruce Springsteen and Bach makes my cry with joy, but I'm not sure that it'll be very informative. But in general, this self correcting process is an ever-rewarding, ever-refining way knowing. Historically, the scientific method has had limited value to the study of history, but I think that the advent of the techniques to get DNA out of the long dead has meant that the lines between history and science are becoming blurred, and that has to be a good thing. 

Why this book?

Because only in the last few years have we been able to apply a new scientific field to older academic pursuits, to know our past. DNA has been added to history, archeology, paleoanthropology and genealogy as a new text, a primary source that is helping unveil the question of how we came to be what we are. It's complementary to those older and equally valid pursuits, and has some advantages, for example it is the record of everyone, not just the very rare few who through luck, conquest or regal birthright have been retained through history. Our genomes are a record of sex and death, disease, warfare, farming, culture, invasion, migration, and is not limited to the lucky few.They're the stories of humankind, told with DNA in the armory. 

What’s next?

Ancient DNA is a relatively new field, and genetics itself only a century old. So there's a long way to go. We don't really understand our genomes, and how the complexity and sophistication of a human being emerges from this code. Geneticists, statisticians, medics, patients and historians all have plenty still to do in piecing together the past, and how DNA fits into the bigger picture of a life, and a species. As long as we keep reproducing, new, unique genomes are being made, and our infintie variation still needs to be understood. 

What’s exciting you at the moment?

The field of ancient DNA is changing so quickly that results are being turned over or revised almost every month. That makes it unbearably exciting. But also it was a pain in the arse to write a book about a field that is evolving so quickly, and my friends in genomics labs simply refused my request that they all take a year off so we can all catch up. Nevertheless, one review has already suggested that I do a revised edition of A Brief History every three years to keep it up-to-date. I think I've got some work to do...




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Dialogues - Clifford Johnson ***

The authors of science books are always trying to find new ways to get the message across to their audiences. In Dialogues, Clifford Johnson combines a very modern technique - the graphic novel or comic strip - with an approach that goes back to Ancient Greece - using a dialogue to add life to what might seem a dry message.

We have seen the comic strip approach trying to put across quite detailed science before in Mysteries of the Quantum Universe. As with that book, Dialogues manages to cover a fair amount of actual physics, but I still feel that the medium just wastes vast acres of page to say very little at all. This is brought home here because quite a lot of the sections of Dialogues start with several pages with no text on at all, just setting up the scenario.

As for using a discussion between two people to put a message across, Johnson makes the point that, for instance, Galileo's very readable masterpiece Two New Sciences is in the form of a dialogue (more accurately a discu…

Liam Drew - Four Way Interview

Liam Drew is a writer and former neurobiologist. he has a PhD in sensory biology from University College, London and spent 12 years researching schizophrenia, pain and the birth of new neurons in the adult mammalian brain. His writing has appeared in Nature, New Scientist, Slate and the Guardian. He lives in Kent with his wife and two daughters. His new book is I, Mammal.

Why science?

As hackneyed as it is to say, I think I owe my fascination with science to a great teacher – in my case, Ian West, my A-level biology teacher.  Before sixth form, I had a real passion for the elegance and logic of maths, from which a basic competence at science at school arose.  But I feel like I mainly enjoyed school science in the way a schoolkid enjoys being good at stuff, rather than it being a passion.

Ian was a revelation to me.  He was a stern and divisive character, but I loved the way he taught.  He began every lesson by providing us with a series of observations and fact, then, gradually, between …

Ten Great Ideas About Chance - Persi Diaconis and Brian Skyrms ***

There are few topics that fascinate me as much as chance and probability. It's partly the wonder that mathematics can be applied to something so intangible and also because so often the outcomes of probability are counter-intuitive and we can enjoy the 'Huh?' impact of something that works yet feels so far from common sense.

I think I ought to start by saying what this is isn't. It's definitely not an introductory book - the authors assume that the reader 'has taken a first undergraduate course in probability or statistics'. And though there's an appendix that claims to be a probability tutorial for those who haven't got this background, it's not particularly reader-friendly - in theory I knew everything in the appendix, but I still found parts of it near-impossible to read.

As for the main text, if you pass that first criterion, my suspicion is that, like me, you will find parts utterly fascinating and other parts pretty much incomprehensible. Th…