The Two Faces of Consciousness Rich Rewards

books and arts

of broader positions, a practice that is less appropriate in the academic context and only The two faces of exacerbates the above problems. The later chapters on parapsychology, hallucinatory consciousness states and meditative spiritual traditions are Consciousness: An Introduction also less successful than the rest; Blackmore’s by Susan Blackmore combination of expertise and scepticism Hodder and Stoughton: 2003. 544 pp. £19.99 makes her an ideal ‘tour guide’ for such Oxford University Press: 2003. 460 pp. realms, but ultimately these chapters estab- $39.95 (pbk), $79 (hbk) lish little and do not seem to connect with Ilya Farber the ideas developed in the earlier sections. Ultimately, this remains a very satisfying The study of consciousness being rather book. It could serve well as a core text for broad, its more science-oriented practition- courses in philosophy,psychology and related ers quickly become adept at glancing disciplines, and would provide useful con- through promising-looking new books to text for other, more discipline-specific texts. discern whether they partake a little too Its broad scope and clear explanations also much of the ‘cosmic’. This isn’t usually make it an excellent choice for independent difficult, but Susan Blackmore’s new book study. It’s a shame about the cover, though. almost seems to have been intentionally This might seem a petty complaint, but designed to thwart such attempts at classifi- Books about consciousness divide into the considering that academic respect for the cation. Consciousness: An Introduction is scientific and the ‘cosmic’ — but which is this? study of consciousness is still grudging and clearly intended and marketed as a college- probational, such matters of appearance level textbook, but it sports a cover that is in its comprehensiveness, but the discussion are not trivial. I’ll be using Consciousness dominated by a glowing humanoid outline is carefully structured: ideas appear not as in my course next semester, but I’ll also be festooned with chakra-like circles and individual items to be memorized, but as passing out a nice selection of book covers reaching ecstatically towards some sort of steps in an integrated, multifaceted process on the first day of class. ■ celestial radiance. of investigation. Ilya Farber is in the Department of Philosophy, A glance through the copious figures The book does have a bit of a split George Washington University, initially reveals a reassuring profusion of personality, seeming at times like a guide- Washington DC 20052, USA brains and graphs and experimental proto- book to self-discovery and at others like a cols, but in the final quarter of the book primer on recondite academic disputes. these give way to buddhas, drug-induced It soon becomes clear, however, that this visions and floating spirits. Even the usually bipolar character is strategic. The chattier reliable strategy of investigating the author’s bits (full of second-person questions and Rich rewards credentials just generates new puzzles. A exhortations) provide excitement and moti- Pioneers of Microbiology and the search through Blackmore’s oeuvre turns up vation, and encourage students to adopt an Nobel Prize near-death experiences and memes,a book on engaged, reflective approach to the material, by Ulf Lagerkvist testing your psychic powers and a chapter on whereas the more scholarly parts delve World Scientific: 2003. 182 pp. $24, £16 why parapsychology tells us nothing about unapologetically and at length into the W. F. Bynum consciousness. For decades she described details of particular theories and problems. herself as a hopeful and open-minded inves- This double structure should make the Historians of twentieth-century science tigator of psychic phenomena,but was all the book accessible and attractive to a wide often write about their subject in terms of while on the board of the magazine Skeptical range of readers. Nobel milestones. Laureates are convenient Inquirer, and in 2001 she announced the end There are a few notable problems. One markers of major scientific advance, and of her involvement in such studies. It is easy is an unfortunate tendency for favourite have the added attraction that a great deal to imagine potential readers or teachers giv- authors, such as Daniel Dennett and Ben- of information about them is generally in ing up in bafflement,unable to figure out just jamin Libet, to crop up again and again in the public domain. This in itself reinforces what kind of book this is. different contexts, sometimes in place of their scientific visibility and assures us that, That would be a shame, though, because others who would arguably be more rele- on the whole, the various bodies that Alfred Blackmore has in fact written a truly excel- vant. Blackmore draws on a wide variety of Nobel asked to adjudicate his prizes have lent textbook. Two years ago she gave up her philosophically engaged scientists (includ- done their job correctly. Disciplines such university position to work on this project ing Francis Crick, Antonio Damasio, Ray as mathematics, evolutionary biology and full-time, and the attention shows. The Jackendoff, Vilayanur Ramachandran and geology, overlooked by Nobel, have their book’s 27 detailed chapters cover every major Francisco Varela), but is much less careful own means of rewarding excellence, and aspect of consciousness, and Blackmore with scientifically engaged philosophers, historians use these accordingly. reveals herself to be a careful and judicious often letting Dennett stand in for the whole That scientists also value the award of researcher: the central figures and theories pack.This is most problematic in the chapters the ultimate scientific prize far beyond its of most chapters are familiar, but they are on neuroscience,where one would have liked considerable monetary value has recently presented with unusually careful attention to see more coverage of the specific proposals been demonstrated by the contested 2003 to details of argumentation and evidence, of philosophers who specialize in the topic, prize for medicine or physiology, which was rather than being reduced to the sort of such as Patricia and Paul Churchland, Kath- awarded for medical magnetic resonance simple iconic positions that fuel most ‘battle leen Akins, Ned Block, Owen Flanagan and imaging (see Nature 425, 648; 2003). of ideas’ texts. Many lesser-known authors Thomas Metzinger. Blackmore, an experi- Although it took some time for the current and positions are also introduced, and some enced author of popular-science books,often prestige of the Nobel prizes to develop, of the most interesting ones receive extended uses the journalist’s technique of using indi- the second award in physiology or medicine treatment. The book is nearly encyclopaedic vidual scholars as symbolic representatives (1902) exacerbated a priority dispute between

Winging it The colour and intricate detail of a moth’s wing, like the one shown here from the painted lichen moth (Hypoprepia fucosa), is rarely appreciated. Although there are many more species of moths than butterflies, their nocturnal habit tends to keep them from view. Print-maker Joseph Scheer became interested in moths when he began using a high-resolution scanner to capture directly images of insects. The prints allow a view of the anatomical detail, previously only available through a stereomicroscope, across an entire specimen. Now Scheer has become something of an amateur lepidopterist, studying the diversity of the local moth populations as he collects more specimens for his prints, a selection of which can be seen in Night Visions: The Secret Designs of Moths (Prestel, £29.95). Mary Purton

Ronald Ross (who got the prize) and Giovanni Erik Johannson, professor of physiology at the first awards was Nobel’s stipulation that Battista Grassi (who was overlooked) over the Karolinska, probably persuaded Nobel the science prizes ought to be awarded for the their relative contributions to knowledge of to add ‘physiology’ to the medical prize. best research ‘in the preceding year’. Mem- the role of Anopheles mosquitoes in malaria Johannson campaigned ardently against the bers of the awarding bodies knew that it takes transmission. Nobel had made provision for award of a prize to Paul Ehrlich, his reason time for the permanent value of a scientific each of his prizes to be shared by up to three being that Ehrlich’s famous ‘side-chain’ discovery to be judged, and one of Nobel’s people, although shared prizes in science theory of antigen–antibody interaction was original trustees,Ragnar Sohlman,managed were rare before the inter-war period and too speculative and had been contested by to get the terms of the will relaxed. The became the norm only after the Second Svante Arrhenius, the deserving winner of Medicine or Physiology Committee seemed World War. the 1903 prize for chemistry. to have adopted a rough ten-year guideline, Ulf Lagerkvist’s discussion of the early Grumblings about nationalistic bias which explains why some of the early medicine or physiology prizes is by far the surfaced early in international attitudes recipients were deemed eligible. Thus the most original part of his little book, which towards Nobel committees, and it must be first winner, von Behring, had done his focuses on the lives of four pioneers of said that the first two Scandinavian medical important work on diphtheria (the word is microbiology who all won the coveted prize: laureates, Niels Finsen (1903) and Allvar irritatingly misspelled throughout Lager- Emil von Behring,Robert Koch,Paul Ehrlich Gullstrand (1911),have not exactly remained kvist’s book) roughly a decade earlier. By the and Elie Metchnikoff. He describes the household names, if they ever were. Johann- time of the award he was engaged in largely composition and deliberations of the early son may have been unusual in raising the fruitless research on tuberculosis. committees of the Karolinska Institute, the Scandinavian issue,and the internationalism Few would quibble with the decision to institution charged by Nobel with choosing of the early prizes is evident in all the sciences. crown each of Lagerkvist’s four pioneers. the laureate in that loosely defined area.Johan The medical committee was also adventurous From the historical perspective, however, in how it shared a couple of even the informal ten-year rule of the Com-

AP early prizes.Two of Lagerkvist’s mittee creates problems. Koch was a giant four principals — Ehrlich and of bacteriology in the 1870s and 1880s, but Metchnikoff — split the 1908 his later years, with tuberculin, the radical prize, and the committee had distinctiveness of bovine and human already divided the 1906 prize tuberculosis, and the wanderings in Africa between Camillo Golgi and investigating tropical diseases, did not Santiago Ramón y Cajal. In produce the stuff of greatness. By 1908, both cases, the recipients held when Metchnikoff received his prize, he was diametrically opposed views more obsessed with intestinal hygiene and on their research areas, Golgi longevity than with basic immunology.Only and Ramón y Cajal publicly Ehrlich remained unremittingly dedicated disputing the structure and to his laboratory craft. function of neuronal elements. Some of these issues have to be teased out Ehrlich and Metchnikoff rep- of Lagerkvist’s volume, which tries to do too resented chemical and cellular much in too little space. The first half, a approaches to the main deter- potted biographical history of medicine, has minants of immunity. In con- been done many times before, and should trast, the early shared physics have been omitted in favour of a more exten- prizes went to people who sive and subtle examination of the achieve- had worked together, and the ments and careers of his four principals, chemistry committee did not each of whom left permanent legacies. ■ award a shared prize until 1929. W. F. Bynum is at the Wellcome Trust Centre for the The other awkwardness History of Medicine, University College London, Nobel prizewinners: Paul Ehrlich (left) and Emil von Behring. that had to be resolved before 24 Eversholt Street, London NW1 1AD, UK.