MixedNaturePrevious biographers...[never] fully addressed Harriot’s scientific contributions, as Arianrhod tries to do ... Arianrhod does not hesitate to call him a genius, and the evidence she presents is impressive. Yet she fully explores his rightful position in the pantheon only in a page-long endnote; I think this shortchanges the \'general reader\' she seeks to enlighten. Some might find her technical passages challenging, although they are necessary to her argument. And it is irksome to see diagrams relating to Harriot’s navigational work in an appendix, rather than with the text they illustrate ... Arianrhod...has revealed a scientific mind, but the face is more elusive[.]
Venki Ramakrishnan
PositiveNatureSome readers might take issue with how events or personalities are presented in Gene Machine. Yonath’s pioneering work is fully acknowledged, for example. Yet, as Ramakrishnan’s principal competitor, she sometimes appears in an unfavorable light. This is not an objective history of the field, but a highly personal account. As such, anyone who wants to know how modern science really works should read it. It’s all here: the ambition, jealousy and factionalism—as well as the heroic late nights, crippling anxiety and disastrous mistakes—that underlie the apparently serene and objective surface represented by the published record.
