realthog

This morning I was, in connection with my imminent book Bogus Science, looking around the spiffy site called Sense About Science, and out of curiosity took a peek into their "Reading Room" section. There I discovered, to my intense narcissistic joy, a pair of reviews -- of my books Discarded Science and Corrupted Science -- that I had not before known existed. I'm not sure how old they are, although it's obvious on the site that the review of Discarded Science is more recent than that of Corrrupted Science, and was probably posted within the past few months.

Whatever. Cutting to the chase, I can hear you cry, What about some good bits, dammit? Let me oblige.

From the review of Discarded Science by Sara A. Rafice:

Discarded Science has been continually snatched out of my hands by eager work colleagues, friends and family, sparking hours of conversation and laughter. [. . .] Grant has pulled together such a wide variety of subjects that scientists and non-scientists alike will find something to discover, and there is no need to be an expert on every topic. This is a wonderfully interesting, thought-provoking and at times very funny book that I highly recommend.

From the review of Corrupted Science (uncredited):

I tremendously enjoyed John Grant’s latest book on scientific deviance - a rip-roaring adventure through the dark underbelly of science. If you are still under the belief that science is an impartial, noble pursuit of knowledge untainted by ego or undue influence then prepare to be shocked as Grant illustrates that throughout history, dark forces have undermined the scientific process time and time again - invariably to the detriment of both science and the public. [. . .]

One of the joys of Grant’s book is his willingness to name names when it comes to the villains (and occasional heroes) of science - this is not a mild-mannered or impartial report. Grant exposes those responsible for the subversion of science through the ages - not only its major players such as Lysenko and Hwang Woo-Suk, but even those small-time tricksters whose malfeasance hardly registered outside of scientific circles. If there is any doubt in your mind as to Grant’s unforgiving approach, simply read the titles of the last chapter, “The Political Corruption of Science”: Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Bush’s America. Ouch.  

The last para of the latter review, while obviously pleasing me, brought a wry smile for a different reason. It's surprising how we've been psychologically bludgeoned in recent years by those in power and by their cohorts to the extent that objectively identifying crimes, misdemeanours and their perpetrators has come to be thought of as "not . . . impartial". Or perhaps it's simply that the reviewer was searching for some word like "dispassionate"?