True Science
Jul. 7th, 2004 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mtvesselJan 2004
The Making of Memory - Steven Rose - Vintage 2003.
* * * * *
First, I must declare a bias. When I was fifteen or so, I read a book by Steven Rose which quite literally changed my life. It was called "The Chemistry of Life" and it was a succinct and clear introduction to the major chemical processes occurring inside plant and animal cells. At the time I was trying to decide what A-levels to do - I knew I wanted to study science, but I didn't really have the maths to be a good physicist and the dull organic and inorganic chemistry that we had been taught at O-level didn't really interest me. It was hard to get enthused about the Kepler blast furnace or the industrial synthesis of nylon. Then I read the the Chemistry of Life and went "wow! That's going on inside me? That's really interesting!" More than that - I was stunned by the sheer elegant beauty of the way the enzymes in a cell pick apart a glucose molecule to extract the maximum energy from it, breaking carbon-to-carbon bonds in a way that organic chemists find next to impossible. And at room temperature. And at atmospheric pressure. And at neutral pH. I knew then that I wanted to do biochemistry at university.
And knowing what course I wanted to do changed my life. If I hadn't known, I would probably have tried and failed to get in to do natural sciences at Cambridge (the course for scientists who don't know what kind of scientists they want to be), or I wouldn't have tried for Oxbridge at all. Instead I applied to read biochemistry at Oxford, where I met most of the friends I still have today and where I have lived for the majority of the last twenty years. My enthusiasm for metabolic processes developed during the course and I became interested in biotechnology, the application of biochemistry to practical problems. That led to me doing a PhD and a postdoc. Because I had to do seventh term, I spent nine months at IBM, which is why I do the job I do today. And all because of that book.
So Steven Rose is an author I much admire, even now that he's descended to punditry on Radio Four's "The Moral Maze", and I have to admit that's almost certainly biased me. But I still think that this book is wonderful (and so did the judges of the Rhone-Poulenc prize, which it won in 1993). It's about his day job, which is the study of the chemical changes that occur in the brain during the formation of memories. But it's not a dry, scholarly description, nor is it the standard "story of ..." triumphalist narrative so common in popular science books. Instead, Rose has produced a book that is about how science is actually done. He describes a day in the lab (which will leave some people feeling very uncomfortable - he uses day-old chicks in his experiments which are, however humanely, killed in the process. Rose does not dodge the ethical questions this raises, though doubtless some will find his answers unconvincing). He talks about the less glorious periods in neuroscience, such as the infamous "memory molecules" theory which took hold in the 70s and 80s and which was subsequently discredited. He even bravely admits that modern practice in labs simply doesn't accord with the way that science should be done - it is rare for an experiment done by one lab to be replicated in another because there is no kudos in it, allowing honest mistakes and dishonesty to be perpetuated. Possibly he goes a bit too far. I can imagine people reading this book and coming to the conclusion that science and the stories it tells about the physical world are not to be trusted. In moderation, a bit of distrust is a good thing, but if it stops people from trying to understand scientific theories then it is dangerous. Scientists don't get everything right, but I think of science as a rising tide coming up a beach - rocks of ignorance, social or personal prejudice, incompetence and dishonesty may stick out of the water for a while, but given time everything gets covered.
Other weaknesses? Well yes, a few - there are a number of inelegant sentences that a good editor should have fixed, and even I had to read some of his explanations twice before I fully grasped them (not helped by the occasional outbreak of that common researcher's disease, acronym-itis). Rose also downplays a major part of many researchers' lives which is the scramble for research funds and the endless stream of grant applications which distract from the basic research. Nonetheless, his description of the experiments that unravelled the changes in the chick brain as it learns an aversion response, and in particular the neat explanation for some apparently anomalous results (a eureka moment if ever there was one) reminded me of why I loved doing experimental science and how much I regret that I had to give it up.
As to the breakthrough that might lead to an Alzheimer's treatment mentioned in the book's blurb - well, it's certainly an interesting finding. Amyloid precursor protein (APP), the protein from which beta-amyloid, the protein that forms plaques in Alzheimer's, is derived, appears to be a cell adhesion molecule that promotes long-term memory formation by gluing neurones together. The disruption of its normal function could be the cause of the memory loss associated with Alzheimer's. Rose's lab has found a three amino acid polypeptide which appears to compensate for the malfunctioning APP. As Rose himself admits, the jury is still out on whether it will turn out to be a general finding that leads to a major treatment, and I personally would not have allowed my publisher to use it as a major selling point in the blurb. I fear that this will turn out to be the kiss of death, like having your innovative product shown on Tomorrow's World. Still, anything that might offer a cure for this most terrible of diseases should be investigated.
The Making of Memory - Steven Rose - Vintage 2003.
* * * * *
First, I must declare a bias. When I was fifteen or so, I read a book by Steven Rose which quite literally changed my life. It was called "The Chemistry of Life" and it was a succinct and clear introduction to the major chemical processes occurring inside plant and animal cells. At the time I was trying to decide what A-levels to do - I knew I wanted to study science, but I didn't really have the maths to be a good physicist and the dull organic and inorganic chemistry that we had been taught at O-level didn't really interest me. It was hard to get enthused about the Kepler blast furnace or the industrial synthesis of nylon. Then I read the the Chemistry of Life and went "wow! That's going on inside me? That's really interesting!" More than that - I was stunned by the sheer elegant beauty of the way the enzymes in a cell pick apart a glucose molecule to extract the maximum energy from it, breaking carbon-to-carbon bonds in a way that organic chemists find next to impossible. And at room temperature. And at atmospheric pressure. And at neutral pH. I knew then that I wanted to do biochemistry at university.
And knowing what course I wanted to do changed my life. If I hadn't known, I would probably have tried and failed to get in to do natural sciences at Cambridge (the course for scientists who don't know what kind of scientists they want to be), or I wouldn't have tried for Oxbridge at all. Instead I applied to read biochemistry at Oxford, where I met most of the friends I still have today and where I have lived for the majority of the last twenty years. My enthusiasm for metabolic processes developed during the course and I became interested in biotechnology, the application of biochemistry to practical problems. That led to me doing a PhD and a postdoc. Because I had to do seventh term, I spent nine months at IBM, which is why I do the job I do today. And all because of that book.
So Steven Rose is an author I much admire, even now that he's descended to punditry on Radio Four's "The Moral Maze", and I have to admit that's almost certainly biased me. But I still think that this book is wonderful (and so did the judges of the Rhone-Poulenc prize, which it won in 1993). It's about his day job, which is the study of the chemical changes that occur in the brain during the formation of memories. But it's not a dry, scholarly description, nor is it the standard "story of ..." triumphalist narrative so common in popular science books. Instead, Rose has produced a book that is about how science is actually done. He describes a day in the lab (which will leave some people feeling very uncomfortable - he uses day-old chicks in his experiments which are, however humanely, killed in the process. Rose does not dodge the ethical questions this raises, though doubtless some will find his answers unconvincing). He talks about the less glorious periods in neuroscience, such as the infamous "memory molecules" theory which took hold in the 70s and 80s and which was subsequently discredited. He even bravely admits that modern practice in labs simply doesn't accord with the way that science should be done - it is rare for an experiment done by one lab to be replicated in another because there is no kudos in it, allowing honest mistakes and dishonesty to be perpetuated. Possibly he goes a bit too far. I can imagine people reading this book and coming to the conclusion that science and the stories it tells about the physical world are not to be trusted. In moderation, a bit of distrust is a good thing, but if it stops people from trying to understand scientific theories then it is dangerous. Scientists don't get everything right, but I think of science as a rising tide coming up a beach - rocks of ignorance, social or personal prejudice, incompetence and dishonesty may stick out of the water for a while, but given time everything gets covered.
Other weaknesses? Well yes, a few - there are a number of inelegant sentences that a good editor should have fixed, and even I had to read some of his explanations twice before I fully grasped them (not helped by the occasional outbreak of that common researcher's disease, acronym-itis). Rose also downplays a major part of many researchers' lives which is the scramble for research funds and the endless stream of grant applications which distract from the basic research. Nonetheless, his description of the experiments that unravelled the changes in the chick brain as it learns an aversion response, and in particular the neat explanation for some apparently anomalous results (a eureka moment if ever there was one) reminded me of why I loved doing experimental science and how much I regret that I had to give it up.
As to the breakthrough that might lead to an Alzheimer's treatment mentioned in the book's blurb - well, it's certainly an interesting finding. Amyloid precursor protein (APP), the protein from which beta-amyloid, the protein that forms plaques in Alzheimer's, is derived, appears to be a cell adhesion molecule that promotes long-term memory formation by gluing neurones together. The disruption of its normal function could be the cause of the memory loss associated with Alzheimer's. Rose's lab has found a three amino acid polypeptide which appears to compensate for the malfunctioning APP. As Rose himself admits, the jury is still out on whether it will turn out to be a general finding that leads to a major treatment, and I personally would not have allowed my publisher to use it as a major selling point in the blurb. I fear that this will turn out to be the kiss of death, like having your innovative product shown on Tomorrow's World. Still, anything that might offer a cure for this most terrible of diseases should be investigated.