Skip to main content

And the winner is...

Tomorrow night is popular science's equivalent of the BAFTAs - the Royal Society Prize for Science Books will be awarded. There's a interesting  shortlist:

We need to talk about Kelvin Marcus Chown Uses everyday observations to plunge into quantum theory, thermodynamics and cosmology. Great fun and very readable. Shortlist
Why Does E=mc2 Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw Explanation of the derivation of the world's most famous equation, exploration of the standard model master equation and great exposition of Higgs - but too technical for the general reader. Shortlist
God's Philosophers James Hannam Highly informative and surprisingly readable book filling in just what developments were made in the history of science during the medieval period. Short list
Life Ascending Nick Lane Visit bookshop Visit bookshop        Short list
A World without Ice Henry Pollack Visit bookshop Visit bookshop        Short list

I have to say for me there are some oddities in there. In the table above you see the ratings of the ones we've reviewed on the Popular Science website (click the titles or summaries for a detailed review) - some, yes, are great. Some, frankly, rather less so. I can't help but think this is in part because of the odd nature of the judging panel. It is Maggie Philbin, Radio and television presenter (Chair); Professor Tim Birkhead, Fellow of the Royal Society; Tracy Chevalier, author; Robin Ince, stand-up comedian, writer and actor; Dr Janet Anders, Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellow. So, basically, a couple of academics, a couple of media types and a fiction writer. How many popular science writers? Well... none. Nothing like getting the experts in.

On the Popular Science website we also feature our 'extras' - books that were published in the right period and really should have been on the shortlist, rather than some of those weird choices. This year it looks like this:

Atomic: the first war of physics Jim Baggott Riveting and detailed history of the development of nuclear weapons in Germany, the UK, the US and Russia. Fascinating in its depth and the lost possibilities for alternatives to nuclear proliferation. Overview
Before the Big Bang Brian Clegg The latest ideas on how the universe began, the limitations of the Big Bang theory and more in excellent popular history of how humans understand the universe. Cosmology
Dazzled and Deceived Peter Forbes Excellent book on the fascinating topic of mimicry and camouflage, covering both the natural world and military attempts. Great insights into evolutionary mechanisms. Biology, technology
Heatstroke Anthony Barnosky Excellent exploration of the impact of climate change on species, and how the present global warming could devastate nature. Earth science, biology
Microcosm Carl Zimmer Fascinating study of the bacterium E. coli with plenty of lessons for the understanding of life as a whole, and our attitude to human genetic material. Biology

Any road up, good luck to all those attending tomorrow. For me, the obvious choice is Marcus Chown's book - but let's face it, book prize panels specialize in not going for the obvious choice.


  1. Interesting that they are all male authors, on both shortlists. Does this mean that women don't write popular science books? Or that they do but they aren't considered to be very good? Or that they propose them but can't get them published? Or other?

  2. Maxine - there are a lot fewer female authors writing popular science books than male, but this was an unusual year in this regard.

    Perhaps a better guide would be our 'best' by year guide - so far, out of 9 in 2010, 3 are by female authors and out of 8 in 2009, 2 were by female authors.

    (The two female author books didn't qualify for the Royal Society Prize because, though we reviewed them in 2009, they were first published in 2008).

  3. Oh well, it looks as if the prize itself is now in trouble, owing to lack of sponsor...

  4. Indeed. Perhaps Nature could take up the mantle...

  5. It would be about three millionth on the list of similar requests, Brian ;-) But you never know....

  6. I am just relieved to see that Professor Brian Cox has not found his way onto the judging panel. I am tired of seeing him appear on anything vaguely scientific.

  7. Maxine - I can't imagine there are three million requests of the same standing as the Royal Society Prize.

    Tim - there would have been a touch of conflict of interest: one of his books is on the shortlist.

  8. Charles Freeman.23 October 2010 at 10:54

    I had profound doubts about God's Philosophers,so much so that I have written about it on the New Humanist blog. I think it would have been embarrassing to the reputation of the Royal Society if it had won. Charles Freeman.

  9. You can find Charles Freeman's detailed analysis of God's Philosophers here:

    I can't help but feel, Charles, that both points of view, yours and the author's are perhaps too highly flavoured by your attitude to religion - I can't see either as neutral.

    I gave the book a largely positive review (click the description above to read it), though much more on feel as a popular science book than analysis as scholasticism. (In fact, it really irritates me the way the RS prize almost always goes to academic books - I think, if anything they should be less significant than popular science books in this kind of prize. But then that's MY bias showing!)

    I think what is true is that for a long time the message has been that really nothing happened in the West in science between the ancient Greeks and Galileo, and this just isn't true. My own pet subject, Roger Bacon, is a good example. And to that extent at least, I would applaud this book for trying to remove a hugely misleading viewpoint, even if the author does so with a particular bias.

  10. Thanks for your reply , Brian. What I was really trying to say was that a large number of things that James Hannam talks about are simply not supported by any evidence and as such should not be taken seriously. You can take the simple point that I begin with, his view that there was no hiatus in progress (in fact he 'argues' for an 'advance') between the Roman empire and the early Middle Ages. I have read very widely in the scholarly literature of this period as it plays a large part in a book I have just finished on medieval relic cults, and I can assure you that the evidence for collapse is overwhelming. I could have gone on quoting more scholars like Chris Wickham (who talks of 'drastic simplification' in the economy of this period), etc, but my review was far too long as it was and I thought I had done enough. What worries me is that Hannam often says such things as if he was an authority. Does it not worry you that what he writes about humanism (in his PhD which seems sensible mainstream stuff ) and what he writes in God's Philosophers is so completely different?
    I am not sure who are all these people who hold such misleading opinions about the Middle Ages. There is wonderful scholarship on this period and no one should find it difficult to find out what really happened if they seriously want to find out. i would not start here! Robert Bartlett ,for instance, is very readable.

  11. Charles Freeman.25 October 2010 at 18:56

    P.S. I do have to present my bias. For many years, I was a Senior Examiner on the International Baccalaureate's Theory of Knowledge course. Students had to write critically about knowledge issues. Every statement they made in their presentation essays had to be footnoted accurately and their evidence was subject to checking. Their arguments had to follow coherently. I am afraid old habits of examining die hard but this book was shortlisted for a Prize by one of the world's top academic institutions and surely should be judged according to high academic standards.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope