Review: The Society of Genes

The Society of Genes by Itai Yanai
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

In the intro, the authors say that while The Selfish Gene was important, it didn't answer the question of how said selfish genes interacted, and this, a more "holistic perspective" builds on that. In ten chapters, Yanai and Lercher cover topics from the last couple decades of research, starting with the mutations required for cancer, green beard genes, how different is the .5% difference between individual humans (still millions of base pairs), positive feedback loops, and endosymbiosis theory, among other things.

Aimed at a general audience with illustrated metaphors, this is a great introduction to current genetic knowledge (or a refresher if it's been a while since undergrad genetics). I still haven't read The Selfish Gene, so I can't judge how well this works as a successor in describing ideas on how genes interact and function (I assume TSG is also aimed at a general audience, but I also think it might be deeper? Won't know until I've read it).

View all my reviews

Goodreads review: Resurrection Science: Conservation, De-extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things by M.R. O'Connor

Resurrection Science: Conservation, De-extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things by M.R. O'Connor
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Resurrection Science: Conservation, De-extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things feels like a companion/response to The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History because the touch on similar themes: what have we humans done to our ecosystems? Unlike Sixth Extinction, though, Resurrection Science examines some of the efforts in response to what seems to be one of the biggest massive die-offs we've seen.

Or is it? The intro muses over how we define the numbers of species going extinct and how we calculate it. It seems as the rates have been overestimated so that's somewhat cheering, but habitats are still being lost at a rapid rate. When we make efforts to conserve a species, just what are we conserving- the species itself, as many amphibian species such as the spray toads of Kihansi in Tanzania have their largest populations in captivity, or habitat restoration? What about the Frozen Arks-we preserve the DNA, the blueprints for many organisms, but does that save behaviors and interactions between species? (If we continue the blueprint analogy, it's like using Anasazi blueprints for a kiva but not really knowing what to use it for or how the ceremonies were performed)

Technology can be used for good (Ben Novak's passenger pigeon project is nothing short of ambitious, but also amazing considering he was able to extract over 60% passenger pigeon DNA from museum specimens- a huge win for studying old DNA). But, it shouldn't be considered a substitute for a more comprehensive view of our world, and while we can rescue species, does it matter if their habitats and their interactions are gone?

As my last couple updates indicate, I really enjoyed the coda where O'Connor considers why we feel this drive to save endangered/revive extinct species- what exactly is "nature" and "natural" in an age where Homo sapiens have touched every part of the globe in the last thousands of years? Pupfish populations are isolated and scattered- if one originated because a fish biologist moved them to a non-military site location, is it natural, or does that even matter because pupfish are so rare? The intangibility of 'nature' doesn't mean we shouldn't try to atone for our actions as a species, but consideration should be made on why we feel the need to do so.


View all my reviews

Writer's block crosspost from LJ: Study Break

What are you studying or did you study in school? Is it related to what you want to do for your career?

 View 660 Answers

Genetics! For science, of course.

In high school I really hadn't a clue what I wanted to do. Or rather, I did know I wanted to do something with the life sciences, but not what. Luckily, I had a good counselor who helped me focus on molecular biology/genetics. Why? Because it's life's alphabet- everything from a toadstool to a banana to a giant squid is encoded by DNA. Genetics is a more specific subject than "I want to study biology!", but on the other hand it has many broad applications- evolutionary biology, medicine, archaeology, etc.

Gradually, I've figured out it's not entirely what I want to do. While extremely fascinating, I'm not sure I want to follow specific chemical pathways and see that x secretes y- I want to know if that pathway will yield a distinctive physiological change in the organism for a particular reason. Forest and not the trees, I guess. While I jokingly tell people "Imma gonna do SCIENCE" when asked what I want for a future career, I think I'd much prefer working on the organismal, physiological side of things. I want to do research, which is a very broad, very grey unknown area but that's the fun part. If I had to choose a specificity, I'd probably want to investigate deep sea communities for unique behaviors and structures that are a) weird and b) potentially useful for human use.

So, yes, I think I'd need to know genetics to figure out what makes a tubeworm be able to live in very acidic, very hot water full of metal particles.