Peter c doherty biography of william hill

I received a copy of this via net galley in exchange for an honest review.

Peter Doherty’s account of his path to the 1996 Nobel Prize is a scattershot. There are little bits of a lot of topics nestled into this work, just about all of them having to do with science or the prize in some way, but trying to identify a single theme was difficult. Doherty’s overall purpose seemed to be encouraging people to go into science, into science research specifically, and—if that’s not a possibility—at least to increase their scientific knowledge so they can vote responsibly.

His lack of organized focus made cyphering out his points harder at time. For instance, he criticized politicians who only care about science when it gets them votes rather than when it’s an issue for the well-being of the community. By having voters who are actually informed by real science instead of rhetoric and emotional pandering politicians would have to actually address problems in a meaningful way. He talks at length about genetically modified organisms and climate change as examples of instances where misinformation and emotion get in the way of science and progress. Doherty was very thorough with these issues, although he did stick to the science aspect and did not really go into the economic reasons people protest GMO. As this is a book on science and not on those matters it was fair to leave it out; however, it’s important to note these are examples of a larger dialogue problem between politicians, scientists, and the public and not a treatise on the issues themselves. It’s easy to get lost in complex issues and sometimes it felt like Doherty did so.

Overall, there is not so much science as to lose a reader. The middle of the book where he discusses the actual discovery that won him the prize is pretty complex. He acknowledges that he is simplifying his work so that a non-specialist could follow him, but it was a b