Lori B. AndrewsCritiques

The writing in the beginning part of this book put me off, but once I got into it I liked the science and procedural elements in this novel, and the fact that the lead character is female. The author, at least fro her bio in the cover flap, seems like a reasonably good source for information about forensic genetics analysis, and I love the idea of books that make modern science more real and accessible to the general public. The writing is a bit awkward at times, with character biographical trivia stuck into the middle of active conversations, and other similar annoying moves that slow the storytelling enough to prevent this book from being a 5, for me at least, but it was still a fun read. It does escalate awfully quickly, and I felt that the writing needed to be better edited to support this otherwise fantastical story, but I've read enough Clive Cussler thrillers to have an idea what the supporting storytelling might look like. This was only Andrews's second novel, so perhaps once she has firmly settled into her own novelist voice, she'll be on par with Cussler. As is, this book certainly stands up to Cussler's early thrillers, only, of course, with more modern science.

Some interesting information, but it's really just a big flurry of references to articles

The AFIP, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology is where this book takes place. In the book it oversees a mish mash of things, research into the genetics of nasty viruses, oversees the DOD blood bank, develops stuff to help the military and even has a forensic unit that is charged with doing the forensics for the military and executive branches.

When a new director gets appointed, Colonel Jack Wiatt, he focuses in on the forensics because he was supposed to have gotten the director position at the FBI. Doctor Alexandra Blake doesn't like it or him. She's trying to find a vaccine for the 1918 Spanish Flue and in addition gets made head of a forensic DNA lab and slowly gets pulled into Jack's investigations.

The writing in the book is alright and most of the characters are well written, their dialogue too. The only problem with the characters was that they were pretty unsympathetic, Jack was a jerk, and Alex for the most part was pretty pathetic. The two characters I really liked actually had the first letter of their names. Luke was Alex's ex-boyfriend and Larry, a developmentally disabled guy that Alex befriended during the novel. Most of the rest of the characters made me frown, but when Luke or Larry were in a scene it usually brought a smile to my face.

Not a bad book, but I've read better forensic mysteries.

Ook dit was weer een goed boek van Lori Andrews. Ik wil ook haar nieuwe boek Immuun nog lezen maar eerst even Ripper van Isabel Allende.

Echt genoten van dit boek. Het is geen hoogstandje maar hij leest wel heel prettig. Gewoon een boek om tussendoor even lekker mee te ontspannen.

Some interesting information, but it's really just a big flurry of references to articles

Scientists may be mapping the genome, but it will be up to us to determine where the map will lead.

A rather predictable thriller about a woman using DNA sequencing to solve a set of murders.

meh½

I was pleasantly surprised by this book. I'm always in search of new authors and happened to pick this up while browsing. Billed as a 'forensic thriller,' I wasn't quite expecting the methodical (but not dragging) pacing of the plot. I thought the background genetics information was really interesting -- come to find out that the author is 'a renowned expert on law and genetics.' Not your average mystery writer! (Well, o.k., barring Linda Fairstein, I suppose.) And although I thought the conclusion was a bit too pat, Andrews did make it logical and (mostly) believable. One thing that I thought really stood out was the way Andrews created a poignant background story for the protagonist that went a long way in explaining her motivation while not being maudlin.

I look forward to reading the follow-up Dr. Alexandra Blake books!½

A DEA agent and a homeless man drop dead the same night from a runaway immune reaction. Poison, plague, or biowarfare?

There's probably a good story in there somewhere, but the writing and characters didn't grab me.½

In this stilted, somewhat repetitive work, Lori Andrews tells us that we need to choose among three models for dealing with genetic testing: the medical model, the public health model, and the fundamental rights model. In truth, however, she seems to be arguing for a fourth model: no genetic testing at all. For Andrews, it appears that no good can come of it. I am left with the feeling that underlying the practical problems, she has an unacknowledged philosophical objection to genetic testing and its medical implications. I would agree with her fundamental rights model because of its emphasis on voluntary decisions, but I fail to see how it necessarily produces better quality.

This book is useful and laudable for a thorough examination of problems and issues to be considered if we are to use genetic testing and counseling. Some of them are frightening. The excesses of the eugenics movement should give us all pause. Tests can be unreliable, more people will have worrisome knowledge that is not useful, or have bad psychological reactions of feeling stigmatized or unworthy. In some cases, Andrews seems to go a little far, arguing that aborting or averting the conception of children who will be disabled is a slap in the face to the living disabled. Perhaps she would like pregnant women to take thalidimide, or like us all to become voluntary quadraplegics so as to make disabilities the norm? There are already those who object to certain amelioration of disabilities, so as hearing aids and cochlear implants, on the grounds that it denies that identity of the disabled person and implies that the disability makes them less valuable.

If we are going to make good decisions, we need to know the potential problems, but we cannot make an informed decision without knowing benefits as well as the present problems. Andrews apparently doesn't see any. Whenever she seems to be on the brink of something positive, she dismisses it or changes the subject as fast as possible. She tells us that ten percent of people who test negative for Huntingdons require psychological counseling, without discussing how many people, knowing that they have a fifty-fifty chance of inheriting the disease need help, let alone reflecting that ninety percent do not need help. She also does not consider, with some of her examples, that the reaction of the subjects might have been different if the test had been available earlier in their lives. Some people, not knowing, had lived their lives as if they had it; finding that they didn't required lifestyle adjustments or regrets (over not having had children, for example.) But those seem likely to be the very people who might have chosen the test and so lived differently.

Andrews worried, for example, about the problem of unwelcome knowledge within a family. If one person gets a test, and the results get out, other relatives will have the potentially unwelcome knowledge that they may have the same hereditary problem. That problem has existed ever since humanity noticed that some illnesses and conditions run in families. Guilt and resentment between relatives who do or do not have a condition, or inheritance of a hereditary problem existed long before genetic tests. Andrews cites the case of a couple who, finding that a fetus was going to have cystic fibrosis, called their family together to discuss the issue. Some relatives resented the possibility that the couple and their child might get an unfair amount of the family's resources. Would the situation have been different if the child had been born with the disease without forewarning?

Andrews tells us that people may feel stigmatized, but again, this is not a new problem with genetic testing, only a more common one. And perhaps the very commonness would be a good thing, the realization that virtually everyone has genetic multiple genetic anomalies would make us more compassionate and supportive of one another.

Andrews also does not really weigh whether or not particular problems can be dealt with. I am left with the feeling that she doesn't want solutions, since she apparently doesn't want testing at all.

This book has very valuable insights into problems of genetic testing, but is by no means a thorough or adequate consideration of the subject.

A DEA agent and a homeless man drop dead the same night from a runaway immune reaction. Poison, plague, or biowarfare?

There's probably a good story in there somewhere, but the writing and characters didn't grab me.½

SUMMARY: The second in Andrews's forensic geneticist Alexandra Blake novels finds the protagonist trying to discern the identities of several Vietnamese skulls in preparation for returning them to their home country in a political ceremony. A letter secreted in one of the skulls leads Alex to investigate further the circumstances of the deaths of the victims and, in the process, she discovers more about her father, who perished in the Vietnam War and uncovers an international plot with global ramifications.

WHAT YOU'LL LIKE: Andrews obviously knows the science and manages to incorporate it well into the plot without rendering it off-putting. The action sequences are able and occur at breakneck speed. Alex is a fun and likable heroine and a few of the secondary characters are intriguing and well-developed.

WHAT YOU WON'T: The plot is a mishmash of red herrings, some of which are interesting but discarded and others which are later resolved but serve no real purpose. The meat of the story resolves itself in a frankly ridiculous denouement which requires an incredible suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader. The villains are easily identifiable before they are revealed and are more caricatures than characters; their motives are plausible and chilling, but the action stemming from those motives is cartoonish.

BOTTOM LINE: An exciting and fascinating premise which was only marginally executed. Andrews is a talented fiction writer and the problems with this novel shouldn't discourage one from reading more of her work; the good outshines the laughable.

This 1994 book offered little hope for the individual that proved to have a genetic disorder, "The ultimate goals of these scientific advances are the treatment, cure, and eventual prevention of genetic disorders, but effective interventions lag behind the ability to detect disease or increased susceptibility to disease. Thus, many genetic services today consist of diagnosis and counseling; effective treatment is rare. " But 12 years later many genetic tests have risk-management guidelines that increase the quality and quantity of life after diagnosis.