SPRING BOOKS NATURE|Vol 447|3 May 2007 of utter stillness or absorbed flow when the self between two numbered strange loops: himself Dawkins and many others. Angier’s distinction is in abeyance. People describe these as being and his opposing sceptic. I keep wondering lies in her exhilarating use of language. Unlike clearer than ordinary consciousness, but this whether I’m no better than sceptic SL #264, Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Every- cannot be explained if self and consciousness who really just doesn’t get it, although he (it?) thing (Doubleday, 2003), The Canon does not are as closely linked as Hofstadter claims. He comes up with some classic objections. rely on personalities to brighten up the prose, also argues that the self loop is indispensable; I keep looking over at my black cat on the even when exploring traditionally difficult this might be challenged by those who have window sill, with her ragged fur brightly lit by areas of physics and chemistry. Instead, anec- attempted, or even managed, to let go of the the morning sun. Does it help to say that the dotes are well chosen, humanizing without illusion of self. He quotes a Zen koan that seems experiencer of this vivid visual experience is a patronizing the scientists involved. Angier beautifully to point the way out of strange loops strange loop? Whatever the answer, this strange has no need to name-drop; her writing style and into awareness beyond self, but he dis- loop is enjoying the question. ■ holds the reader’s attention. (I can vouch for misses it as “just a bunch of non-sequiturs”. Susan Blackmore is a freelance writer, lecturer this, having almost missed my stop while Hofstadter realizes that people will be dis- and broadcaster, and a visiting lecturer at the reading her book on the train.) For once the satisfied, and provides a light-hearted debate University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. blurb — “playful, passionate” — is spot on: this is an astonishingly literary science book, much better written than most. Out goes pedestrian prose; in come references to every cultural form from the scriptures to movies, delicate allusions James Bond with a feather duster to writers from Homer and Andrew Marvell to Sigmund Freud, such words as ‘accoutred’, The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the would also recommend The Canon to profes- ‘trocar’ and ‘miasmic’, teasing alliterations, the Beautiful Basics of Science sionals, and to the already interested public (a occasional sharp political comment and some by Natalie Angier sizeable constituency, as not all school science truly excruciating puns. Houghton Mifflin: 2007. 320 pp. $27 teaching is bad), because this is a remarkable This linguistic fecundity can at times be and delightful book. overwhelming, especially for non-American Kathleen Taylor Angier, an accomplished, Pulitzer Prize- readers, who may find some of the references Natalie Angier’s book The Canon, like many winning science journalist, has clearly thought baffling (Ty Cobb? Bialies? You’d best keep a before it, sets out to persuade the public that carefully about the ‘why bother?’ challenge to search engine handy). A riff on chemical bonds learning about science can be enjoyable. It science communication. She notes but does by analogy to their superspy namesake James focuses on the ‘hard’ sciences, which here not depend on the common arguments that was unconvincing and somewhat distract- means physics, chemistry, evolutionary and the importance of science makes avoiding it ing — if Sean Connery is covalent and Roger molecular biology, geology and astronomy, unjustifiable; that future national prowess Moore ionic, where does that leave Daniel together with introductory chapters on think- requires more scientists; or that a scientifically Craig? — but this is one of the book’s few ing scientifically, probability and issues of scale informed public may at last learn reason and weaker moments. Elsewhere there are glories, and measurement. Angier proposes that what decide to put astrologers and lotteries out of as when Angier remarks of sexual selection scientists do is worth a look even for people business. Instead, she eschews “civic need” for in the peacock: “If you survive long enough traumatized by school science lessons. “neural greed”, aiming to demonstrate that “the to breed, and if you score handsomely, even These wary phobics, rather than kinetic beauty of science” makes it fun, awe- orgiastically, in a single spring spree, who cares scientists, are her target inspiring and as much a source of delight as if you’re a feather duster come summer?” The audience. But I any of humanity’s artistic achievements. peacock’s tail is standard fare in evolutionary This claim, of course, is not new: witness biology textbooks, but few descriptions linger Einstein, Richard Feynman, in the mind as enjoyably as Angier’s. Richard Readers who like their texts spartan will loathe this one, which rarely uses one metaphor, simile, adjective or subclause where two, three or four can be squeezed in. Purists who object to anthropomor- phisms should also take note: The Canon overflows with loyal water droplets, preening cells, anxious and fidgety electrons, and the like. In my judgement, how- ever, the benefits — if only in counteracting the still-prevalent ‘two cultures’ stereotype of science as the preserve of barely literate philis- tines — make the purple passages worthwhile. Those 30 NATURE|Vol 447|3 May 2007 SPRING BOOKS who find the style off-putting should perse- readers. Much is necessarily omitted; vere, because Angier’s gift for metaphor lights the chapter on astronomy in up the dustiest corners. Her explanation of particular feels disappoint- how electromagnetic radiation is produced is ingly slight. Neverthe- superbly easy to visualize; she is lucid on evolu- less, as an introductory tion, and on intelligent design; and her chapter guide, The Canon on molecular biology is an exemplary intro- sets the standard for duction. Science teachers should find numer- science writing and ous useful resources here. Instead of relying deserves at least to on geeks-and-gimmicks clichés — eccen- be shortlisted for the tric geniuses, bitter feuds and zany facts — Royal Society Prize for Angier’s word-painting allows the scientific Science Books. Its style material to speak for itself in some depth. may seem densely, even Consequently, we get a real sense of science formidably, allusive at times, but as an immense collective endeavour, compris- Angier’s gift for accessible explanation is ing both established knowledge and works- outstanding. If any book can help the public in-progress, done but not entirely dominated learn to love science, this is it. ■ by personalities. Kathleen Taylor is in the Department of This is not a cutting-edge specialist text, so Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, Oxford its contents are likely to be familiar to Nature University, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK. The dark heart of the bomb Plutonium: A History of the World’s Most Fermi bombarding Dangerous Element uranium nuclei with by Jeremy Bernstein slow neutrons. Add Joseph Henry Press: 2007. 258 pp. to these the story of £16.99, $27.95 fission, with various elements and isotopes John S. Rigden complicating the plot. Plutonium has either a celebrated or a tragic Los Alamos and the history, depending on your point of view. It development of atomic was the core of the weapon that destroyed bombs are also a cen- much of Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, and has tral part of the plutonium only military uses. For those who find secur- story. Finally, there are the ity standing behind a stockpile of plutonium complications arising from bombs, the element is a reason to celebrate. the element plutonium itself that By contrast, for those who regard the bomb- must be understood and the associ- ing of Nagasaki as a needless repetition of the ated problems solved. Melding these Hiroshima catastrophe, plutonium is a sym- many parts into a short book represents bol of the US–Soviet arms race that dominated a daunting challenge, which Bernstein the second half of the twentieth century. It confronts head on. Lise now signifies the rank and status of a nation’s One of the benefits of this multifac- Meitner was military prowess. eted approach is the opportunity it gives wrongly denied a In his book Plutonium, Jeremy Bernstein the author to educate readers by means share of the prize. acknowledges that everything connected with of historical information and thumbnail The tale of Fritz Houtermans is par- the element is complicated, and that includes sketches of interesting people. In his 1903 ticularly interesting and not well known. plutonium itself and its history. Its discovery Nobel address, for example, Henri Becquerel, Houtermans wrote a report in 1941 in which in 1941 by Glenn Seaborg and Arthur Wahl is who discovered radioactivity, suggested that he considered the absorption of a neutron by part of a much bigger story in which each part the energy associated with radioactivity may uranium-238 and concluded that it would lead becomes a story in itself. involve the modification of atoms in the to plutonium via neptunium. He further con- Plutonium does not occur in earthen depos- radioactive material. Two years later, Einstein cluded that plutonium would be fissionable. its, for example; it is produced instead by the showed that there was a loss of mass, which Perhaps generalizing from his own insights, he radioactive decay of uranium by way of nep- becomes energy according to his famous twice sent messages (from his native Germany) tunium, and it is with uranium that the book equation E = mc2. In 1934, Ida Noddack cor- to the Allies that Germany was “on the track” begins. Then there is the story of the periodic rectly criticized Fermi, suggesting that in his to making plutonium.