J460 Science Writing » STORIES AND REVIEWS

Scientists Confirm Mind/Body Connection

Martina Samm — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:06:27 +0000

Take a deep breath and relax.

Researchers have found more evidence of the mind/body connection. This time at a cellular level.

The study shows that the daily practice of relaxation can change the activity of genes that relate to how a healthy body deals with stress. Certain mindful activities produce a state of deep physiological rest. Meditation, repetitive prayer, biofeedback and tai chi are a few examples of activities that elicit this deep state of rest, known as the Relaxation Response (RR).

Researchers at The Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital released the findings in the July 2008 issue of the open-access journal PLoS One. Funding was provided by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from the National Institutes of Health.

“The latest genetic findings point out that the mind is not separated from the body and Rene Descartes was in error in separating the two," explained Dr. Herbert Benson, co-author of the report. He is the director emeritus of the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital and Mind Body Medical Institute Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Benson is internationally known for his work in the area of mind/body medicine. He described the steps to practice that create the calming effects on the mind and body in his book The Relaxation Response, published in 1975.

Previous studies have identified the genetic effects of RR on the cells of patients with post-traumatic stress disorder. This is the first study to show the genetic effect produced by RR in healthy individuals.

The study compared the gene expression profile of 19 healthy long-term practitioners of RR with that of 19 healthy gender and aged matched individuals who took part in eight weeks of training in the relaxation response. The profiles were then reassessed. Genetic expression profiles were analyzed using bioinformatics technology and computer software that creates a ‘biography’ or map of an individual’s genetic makeup from whole blood samples.

Researchers noted the number of differently activated genes between the three groups. Statistical formulas revealed that over 425 were shared by long-term and short-term practitioners. These results demonstrate that both long-term and short-term RR practice leads to consistent gene expression changes in the formation, development, and maturation of cells.

Researchers at Indiana University (IU) were quick to point out the small size of the sample in the study, but equally quick to point to the significance of the findings. The sample suggests the research should be treated more like a pilot study. Dr. Jennifer Steinbachs, evolutionary biologist and deputy director of The Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics at IU understands the importance of the findings.

“Anything we do will impact our gene expression," Steinbachs said. “Stress wreaks havoc and RR reduces the impact of stress.” On a more personal level, she added, “As I get better with my yoga, I will be impacting my genetic expression.”

Dr. Anne Prieto, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Indiana University, Bloomington expressed similar confidence in the effects of relaxation on a healthy person’s cells. “We create our own stimuli by simply thinking. We trick our body. The mind is a product of the brain. The brain is part of the body. There is no separation of mind and body.”

Stress is meant to be a short-term biological state of readiness that is experienced as an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate and brain activity. Most people experience chronic stress.

“The thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that, I think, we underestimate the effects of stress on our normal daily lives…” said Prieto.

Chronic stress keeps the body in a constant state of readiness. On the molecular level, it decreases the ability of antioxidants to destroy free radicals, the natural byproduct of cells converting oxygen to energy. Free radicals create oxidative stress that deteriorates cells. Stress-related diseases and aging are the results.

The RR practitioners in the study showed a greater capacity for antioxidants to destroy free radicals, thereby reducing oxidative stress and cell damage. RR lessens the negative impact of stress.

–Martina Samm

For instructions on how to incorporate the relaxation response into a daily practice to decrease the negative effects of stress, go to

www.bhimgh.org/basics/whatis_rresponse_elicitation.asp

The Canon: Quirky and highly entertaining

Martina Samm — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:28:43 +0000

Natalie Angier is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author. The Canon, A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science is a New York Times Book Review Editors’ Choice recipient as well as Amazon.com Best Science Book of the Year. Her other books include Natural Obsessions, The Beauty and the Beastly, and Woman: An Intimate Geography, which was a National Book Award finalist. She has been a science writer for 25 years and a regular contributor to the Tuesday ‘Science Times’ section of the New York Times.

Angier begins by explaining why most people tend to disregard science. She writes, ”In the civic imagination, science is considered dull, geeky, hard, abstract and, conveniently, peripheral, now, perhaps, more than ever.” She points to the scientific community as being partly responsible for the lack of educating the public about just how science works. “We’ve failed”, she writes, “we’re pathetic when it comes to educating our nation’s youth. We’re punished by “the system”…that rewards scientists for focusing on research to the exclusion of everything else.” The Canon was written to alter public misconceptions and allow scientists to explain, simply and clearly, the fundamental principles of science that are the catalysts of discovery.

Angier ditches the dry and boring and makes basic scientific knowledge humorous and user-friendly. Science is a part of everyday life, and it’s to our advantage to see the connection. Scientists are getting closer to predicting weather patterns, solving the issue of global warming and, through genetic research, finding the cure for certain types of cancer. Moreover, Angier argues, by understanding the critical thinking, cause and effect reasoning and results based on facts of laboratory science, we can apply these same principles in the laboratories of our lives.

Angier’s approach to explaining science is witty, maybe even too witty. I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the puns and skimming over paragraphs in order to get to the science. I don’t recommend this approach. As I continued reading, I soon found myself skimming through the science to get to her next comeback. I don’t recommend this approach either, for the scientific information becomes secondary to the light-hearted writing style.

In between quotes from interviews with top scientist in the fields of chemistry, biology, physics, geology and astronomy, Angier uses her wit to explain basic scientific principles, reminding me of the wise-cracking kid in the back of the classroom who made the class fun for everyone, except maybe the teacher.

I absolutely recommend this book. Angier manages to write a great overview of basic science in a quirky, highly entertaining way. But it should be read at your leisure, say, over semester break. You will be humored and educated at the same time.

–Martina Samm

Angier’s Canon Sparkles (Sometimes Excessively)

Alex Farris — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:31:41 +0000

New York Times science writer Natalie Angier’s The Canon offers, in the words of the subtitle, a “whirligig tour of the beautiful basics of science.”

She covers all of the beautiful basics in this book, from the atomic reasons why solids have so little give to the unexpected dynamism of our planet to why creationism and intelligent design are pretty much bunk.

But for the most part, she speaks to the choir, which may not win her any new fans, especially those who previously looked askance at science. Then again, we college students, the biology minors and geology majors and PhD candidates, do form part of that choir, and at least for me, it puts to rest any questions about science’s ability to keep learning about our natural world.

The title is a bit misleading. Angier christens the book The Canon, even though she states multiple times that we don’t yet know everything. Historically, a “canon” has been a set of guidelines and beliefs, mostly of a religious nature, that are unchanging, set in stone, or otherwise quite certain. Many of these concepts, though, are incomplete; for example, we do not completely understand how a chain of amino acids bends and folds into an enzyme and how exactly that enzyme changes its substrate. Angier, however, wishes to deal only in the fundamentals of science, and this she does with fascinating skill.

She uses so much skill, in fact, that if one outside of the “choir” were to read this book with an open mind, that reader might join the just sign up to sing. The book bursts forth with metaphors, wordplay, and (a delight to anyone who has trouble grasping science) understandable explanations. It’s just enough to get the reader to see the world from a completely different point of view, like that of an atom.

Of course, being a science writer, she sometimes comes off as too much of a nerd, which may put off some of science’s n00bs. (Okay, I’m a nerd, too, so I liked her quirkiness.) At times, she goes really, REALLY far into the details, and to make those details more appetizing, she showcases a lot of annoying “do you see what I did there?” moments. She deals in excessive alliteration, such as this passage in the molecular biology chapter: “Enamel has enabled many a tooth to last posthumously into posterity.” She does this all the time, and often I did a ::facepalm:: in reaction to its lameness. Regrettably, I have to say that I would rather see those examples of wordplay than not, because for most readers (including myself) they provide mental candy to convince people to keep reading through the details to get to the really awesome parts.

The most awesome part for me was the chapter on evolutionary biology. This is where the book truly separates the science minds from the non-science minds. She has some harsh words for believers of creationism and intelligent design, quoting a scientist as saying, “You have to be diabolically blinded not to see evolution in everything that we do.” Once the reader (a sufficiently open-minded one, of course, and not a diabolically blinded one!) finishes the chapter, those words are most definitely called for. Through the evolutionary story of life in general, of horses, and of humans, Angier is able to convince anyone that evolution is no crackpot theory or “a fairy tale for grownups,” as a bumper sticker says; it is very scientific, it’s backed up by evidence, and it forms the basis for everything in biology.

Everything Natalie Angier provides in The Canon is a foundation for some scientific field, which makes it such an invaluable read. If you, n00b college student, want to learn more about science, please read this. It’ll do you good.

The Canon: It’s not for everyone

Dani Williams — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:58:38 +0000

Natalie Angier loves science. Her passion for all things physical, chemical, biological, geological, and astronomical is clear on every page of The Canon. Unfortunately, her love for quirky phrases and personal commentary negate the universality of the book’s appeal. Simply, The Canon is an interesting read, but not a “one-stop science education” for everyone, as the back cover claims.

Angier’s tour through science is all-inclusive. In a mere 264 pages, readers learn about everything from the fundamentals—probability and scales—to the science most Americans have touched on in school—physics, chemistry, evolutionary and molecular biology, geology, and astronomy. And Angier’s research is thorough. In each field, she cites the work, findings, and passion of many noted scientists.

Of course, inclusivity and thoroughness do not a good education make. After all, every textbook is thoroughly researched and includes the fundamentals. The Canon distinguishes itself from the average science primer by Angier’s unique writing style.

A chapter or two into the book, I found Angier’s writing to be fairly entertaining. She inserts pop culture references and smirking puns into at least one extra-long sentence per paragraph. And as a member of a generation that enjoys the snarkiness of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, passing references to The Love Boat, Milk Duds, and Rocky are generally chuckle-worthy. Such comments get tiresome, though, when they fully saturate every description.

Not only are Angier’s comments often distracting, they are alienating to many of those she seeks to lure into loving science.

Her witticisms frequently aim for smiles from those like Angier: the college-educated, upper middle class. I am of that group so I get the joke, but what about those who aren’t? It’s difficult to imagine my relatives in rural Arkansas, a very intelligent collection of teachers and blue-collar workers, enjoying Angier’s work.

Angier’s personal opinions all too often shine through as well, especially her scorn for the religious. Halfway through The Canon, she tells of David Wake, an evolutionary biologist who sees no problem with being a religious scientist. But her description of Wake seems like a half-hearted attempt at being open-minded.

Her neutrality towards religion is already dashed in the first chapter of the book. Just 26 pages in, Angier derides early American Christians for believing that God causes lightning. By the time she gets to Wake, she’s either bashed the heads of or scornfully silenced any science-curious Christians.

So, who is Angier’s actual target audience? It’s not the sub-upper middle class, who may be more distracted by obscure references than drawn in by them. It’s not the religious of America, who are more likely to be offended by Angier’s condemnations than persuaded by them.

The Canon’s target audience is almost exactly the crowd who would read Angier’s columns in The New York Times. Those who would like this book are those who enjoy snarky hipness and can understand complex ideas with lots of quirk thrown in. I can easily see fellow classmates from high school—now-English majors who claimed to be no good at science, yet always managed to get at least a B—loving The Canon. But do those people really qualify as “science-phobes,” that elusive group the back cover claims will love the book?

No, they don’t.

Not to seem too judgmental (or did I already lose my credibility on that count?), those who will like The Canon will gain lots of good information from it. Angier’s analogies are intelligent and enjoyable. Her descriptions, of chemistry and physics especially, are insightful and interesting. But her book works best to reawaken science-philia in those who have lost it, or to be an amusing detour for scientists weary of dry textbooks.

The Canon may claim to be a “one-stop science education,” but Natalie Angier could have better served the science community by talking more about science and less about Rocky and religion.

–Dani Williams

She Invites Us to Play, One Scientific Discipline at a Time

Megan Meyer — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:52:05 +0000

It’s no small task appealing to the masses if you aren’t a television set—especially regarding the need-to-know issues of our time. No, these issues have little to do with celebrity memoirs or scoring a mate. What Natalie Angier wants everyone to know will make for better voters, smarter consumers, and less likely targets for sensationalism in the news. In her book, The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, she’s making science accessible to all. Even to those “6 out of every 6.0225 Americans” who claim to have flunked chemistry in high school, as Angier puts it.

Well, I didn’t flunk chemistry in high school, I flunked it college, thank you kindly. Yet somewhere between James Bond and dentist-chair hootenannies, she tricked me into understanding handfuls of concepts in chemistry that I thought were forever out of my grasp. And she made me like it.

Angier is a welcome, witty voice to those who learn best by reading stories and anecdotes. There are so many people who are absolutely terrified of mathematical notation—so much that one tiny formula, regardless of how tastefully it is inserted into text, is enough to put them off their lunch and science. For those poor souls, Angier is a good dose of Dramamine. There’s not a formula to be found, save E=mc², which has earned a green terrorist threat level amongst even the most science-phobic. Everything explainable is explainable with words. This seems to be her credo throughout the book.

Merely steering clear of jargon and mathematical notation is not enough to win over the uninitiated, however. Angier makes it fun—but fun is different for different people. She caters to interests vast and sundry. History, etymology, literature, art, music—her palette is huge.

If you are the type to be sidetracked by non-scientific queries around a subject, she reels you back in with just enough information to satisfy. Many students of letters both young and old have the compulsion of needing to know where words came from. To them, knowing a word’s root often helps with understanding how it’s used today. Angier, being a writer herself, seems to be familiar with such a craving. In her chapter on physics, she writes that the word “electron” comes from the Greek word meaning “amber”, which was considered in ancient Greece to be tears of the gods and would become easily charged when rubbed with cloth.

Additionally, she engenders science to the reader by describing ideas and phenomena from multiple perspectives. When talking to Brian Greene about what an atom might look like, she pulls out of him different ways to visualize it. One of them is easy to understand if you are already somewhat familiar with what an atom is, but another draws heavily on everyday objects and experiences to explain. It’s like a cloud or a dust bunny—those are easy to picture.

The Canon provides solid evidence that Angier is not only doing what she loves, but she knows that she’s doing something very important. Putting science into simple terms is an extremely daunting and frustrating task. It is so tempting to fall back on the jargon used by the experts because it’s easier and more efficient—that’s why experts created the jargon in the first place. But there are very real dangers present when scientific illiteracy runs rampant—from life-saving measures being put on hold to witches being burned at the stake. Angier takes on the burden of science education with unparalleled joy and playfulness—and she invites us to play along with her.

–Megan Meyer

The Canon: I would recommend this book to anyone

Maegen Ionoff — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:43:17 +0000

Natalie Angier has made it her personal mission to educate the general public on scientific issues. It’s an unfortunate truth that science is one of those things that the majority of people just don’t know a lot about…and they don’t even try to learn. The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, anthology of various basic concepts important for understanding the larger scientific world, is Angier’s latest effort to win the public over.

Angier fondly recalls childhood days when science was not geeky or tedious, but fun and merely an exercise of curiosity about the world around us, and throughout her book, she attempts, quite successfully, to recreate that mentality, that science is fun.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist covers five scientific areas in her book — biology, chemistry, physics, geology and astronomy – and has interviewed a number of specialists in each field to provide her audiences with as well-rounded and insightful explanations of each topic as she can…without reading like a textbook.

Even though she provides a great deal of information in her book, Angier is able to continually engage her readers with her wit and sarcasm and without intimidating jargon. As a result, The Canon should prove enjoyable and readable to people of a wide range of scientific background.

One negative aspect of Angier’s writing, though, is that she tends to lose herself in her own excitement. I found on a couple of occasions that I would forget what she was talking about and have to skim back over the page just to make sense of what she had written. Regardless, I enjoy and appreciate her enthusiasm and did not find myself putting her book down because of it.

Because a cover-to-cover read may be a little too much, I especially like that the chapters are written to work independently of one another. That is, one doesn’t necessarily lead into the other. If I wanted to learn about astronomy, I could flip to the astronomy chapters of the book, ignoring calibration and biology for the time being, and easily comprehend the material without reading the other 150 pages.

The Canon is not meant to leave a reader well versed in the intricacies and details of any subject, but rather to stimulate some deeper interest in these topics or at least provide a basis.

I would recommend this book to anyone…scientist or no scientist. Angier is fun and upbeat in her writing and has an obvious passion for the subject matter. I learned a little bit from each chapter and think that any reader has something to gain from The Canon.

– Maegen Ionoff

The Canon: Thick with fog, but still worth reading

Theresa Bradtke — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:24:13 +0000

“Science is not a rigid body of facts. It is a dynamic process of discovery. It is as alive as life itself.” — Neil Shubin

Where there is a science writing, Natalie Angier is at the forefront. In her book, The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science, she not only makes a point about the importance of science, but also about the validity of the written word.

With witty, playful sentences, interviews with teachers and scientists, and also a look into her own background, Angier suceeds in portraying the importance of science for the general, ignorant public. She does this by exploring physics, chemistry, cellular and molecular biology, geology, and astronomy, to name a few of the many sciences she covers.

While in college, Angier studied a variety of subjects from English to physics. Passionate about debunking myths and uncertainties of others, she has since expanded her resume to include a number of prestigious media — Time Inc., Discover magazine, and The New York Times, according to the Canon’s official website.

In an honest attempt, Angier strives for science enlightenment, but becomes quite muddled in her numerous attempts at witty phrases and failed jokes. Although upbeat, the muddled premise almost makes the reader want her to stop and talk as a journalist would in an actual article. The 264-page book could easily be summed up within the first chapter “Thinking Scientifically.” Within this chapter, Angier not only discusses what science is, but exactly what it is not: “Science is not a body of facts, Science is a state of mind… thinking.”

What does merit praise is the writer’s attempt to tackle not only basic concepts of science but also important and controversial issues that our society faces every day. It was exciting to think that the public might actually be made to understand the facts behind such science in the news as stem cells and evolution. Unfortunately the fluff got in the way.

Angier’s “linguistic flair” as other book reviewers call it, became almost too thick of a fog for me to finagle through. So much so that I finally had to place the book on the corner of the living room table until another time. The book would have been a success had Angier used her background in daily journalism to not only pull relevant information out of her research and her interviews, but to use it in a way that directly shows how fascinating the facts are. Instead, she bogged it down with frills.

Still, I applaud Angier’s for her work, and for her desire to take people on a tour of a very intimidating field. In spite of the weaknesses, her enthusiasm, positive spirit, and thought- provoking topics still made for an interesting read.

-Theresa Bradtke

The Canon: Romance novel meets science

Jeffrey Maitland — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:29:47 +0000

“The great [people] of science are supreme artists.” – Martin H. Fischer

Natalie Angier attempts to bring the art of writing and science together in her book The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. She’s written the book to get the general public up to speed on the fundamentals of science, so they can better understand the articles they read in the science section of their daily newspaper.

Unfortunately, Angier falls short of connecting the art and science. In fact, her first chapter alienates part of her audience, including me, by telling a story about the time she chastised her sister for getting her kids interested in theatre and museums. Sure, science should be a very important aspect in every person’s life – but really—really? Considering her insatiable thirst for knowledge, you would think she would be happy for people who want to have a well-rounded knowledge base!
I expected more from Angier, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and science writer for the New York Times.

Angier has written what seems to me to be the romance novel of nonfiction science books. Even though there is some real substance in her book, it is overshadowed by her incessant use of – fluff. Perhaps she added the fluff to soften the blow of hard science, but she went too far. She insisted on adding overly complex analogies and anecdotes to make her point – a point that would have been much clearer if she just explained the concepts clearly and concisely.

The general concept of the book sounded great to me. It’s been a long time since I’ve been around hard sciences, and I thought it would be great to get a refresher course. She did an adequate job of explaining fundamental science concepts from a wide range of science fields such as probability, biological structures of organisms, and astronomy. But the distracting side stories made this sole strength, the only true objective of the book, lost on me. I was so annoyed and fed up with hearing personal anecdotes that I lost interest in what I was actually interested in – the science. And that’s what it’s all about, right?

To be fair to Angier, I never felt like this book was directed to me. I feel like this book was meant for an older audience that has long since lost its grade school science roots. It’s almost as if she is defending science against the nonbelievers – the people who see science articles in a periodical and brush it to the side since it’s ever changing.

I hate to end on a sour note, so maybe if you’re looking for a gift for a scientifically curious mind that also likes romance novels, this is perfect.

But if you are like me and would like to brush up on some old science concepts, do yourself a favor: Skip The Canon and pick up a good old science textbook.

–Jeff Maitland

Abhijt Basu: A Scientist Who Loves Rocks and Teaching

Stephanie Pascarella — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:09:24 +0000

At five years of age, when most young boys are throwing rocks, Abhijt Basu studied them.

Like most boys, he loved the outdoors. As a child in Calcutta, India he would roam the unpaved streets for hours. By the end of the day he would accumulate pockets of rocks he would study outside.

“I yearned for outdoor life,” says Basu with a smile. But, in college he followed his parents wishes and went to engineering school. It only took two months before Basu dropped out to pursue a more fulfilling career in geology. “I disliked the mentality of the money-oriented engineering students," Basu recalled in a recent interview in his office in the Geology Building on the Bloomington campus.

Basu’s decision to switch from engineering to geology was a smart one. After earning a PhD in geology from Indiana University in 1975, he went on to accomplish great things.

He has won three distinguished service awards from Indiana University, the Geological Society of America, and the Cultural Association of Bengal (North America). Dr. Basu received the recognition for his hard work and dedication to the subject of geology. For five years, from 2003 to 2008, Dr. Basu also held the Herman B. Wells Endowed Professorship given to an Indiana University professor whose vision and character have led to outstanding levels of achievement in their career and service to humanity.

In his research, his main focus is on sedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks are important because they can be used as construction material because they are soft and easy to cut. Also, sedimentary rocks often form reservoirs in sedimentary basins where petroleum can be found. Basu says he is most proud of field work that predicted and found channel sandstones in India, used for exploration of coal.

As much as he loves the study of geology that has brought him all these awards. Basu’s most rewarding moments have not been found in the field, but in the classroom. Visit his classroom in the limestone Geology Building on 10^th St, and you will see him passionately teaching students about geology. Outside the classroom, he is just as dedicated. Basu says he loves watching student learn something about the natural world. They may not become geologists, but he hopes they will.

He can recall two incidences that made him realize he was making a difference in the lives of students. The first came 15 years back when a student wrote to him saying that had it not been for his support she might have dropped out of school and left geology.

The second incident came a few years back. After punishing a freshman student for academic dishonesty. Some two years down the road, while working at the Tudor Room and finding Basu eating lunch, the student approached, introduced herself and in front of three other lunch-partners thanked him for setting her straight.

Basu looks back on the day he decided to switch from engineering to geology with a smile. That day is what led him to the happy life he leads now. Because of that decision so many years ago, he gets to be around the two things he loves most, geology and his students.

-Stephanie Pascarella

The Canon: A book written to me, about me

Stephanie Pascarella — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:55:45 +0000

Natalie Angier’s The Canon is a great read.

Every sentence is written with care and concern for the reader. Angier’s colorful and descriptive writing makes the book fun to read. She uses adjectives to bring science to life and is very successful in doing so. Her word choice and sentence structure compliment her personality well. The book is funny and often sarcastic, two of the things I loved most about the book.

In journalism we are taught to write with the reader in mind, Angier doesn’t forget that. Often I felt as though Angier was writing specifically to and about me.

I admit to being the type of person who avoids math and science at all cost. When hearing that someone is majoring in chemistry, physics or statistics, I always think, “Oh my, how smart that person must be to take such a hard subject." I now understand that with some patience anyone can love science and math. In fact, Angier’s book taught me that everyone should love science and math because it a part of everything we do.

Angier breaks down the components of each science so it is easy to understand, even for a science-phobe like myself. She makes sure to specify the point that science and math are everywhere in our everyday lives. To go through life with out science would be impossible. No one can afford not to understand science, it’s what makes up our lives, quite literally too!

After reading Angier’s book I know so much more about science. Angier breaks down every science from chemistry to geology. She explains antimatter and the structure of DNA, concepts that are daunting until, in Angier’s hands, it becomes obvious there is nothing to fear.

Because I read The Canon, I feel like I’m a better science writer. Not only did I learn a lot about the basics of science, but Angier’s writing style taught me a lot as well. I can elaborate more on the details of science and am more knowledgeable.

My only dislike about her writing was that the colorful style sometimes made it hard to understand basic concepts. There were a few times her wordiness got to be so much, I had to go back and reread the sentence just to get the main point.

I would recommend this book to anyone. People who have a background in science will appreciate Angier’s passion for the subject. Those not knowledgeable about science will understand much more after reading The Canon.

-Stephanie Pascarella