Here’s my problem. Since when is the predominant, most important, best writing about science all about medical/health/people. Easily, more than half the book contains essays that fall under this rather broad definition. Agreed, I’ve come up with a category that automatically encapsulates a lot. But there is still far too much content in these areas.

There is one article on astronomy. There is one on archaeology. Where is physics, chemistry, the (excuse the expression) hard sciences?

This is not to say that the articles are necessarily bad. Most are well-written and several are very interesting – for example Steve Silberman’s article about placebos and Pam Belluck’s on test subjects who are children of the scientist doing the testing. But I cannot believe there isn’t great writing out there about other subjects. For example, one of the best articles is Tony Freeth’s “Decoding an Ancient Computer” which describes the work being done around the Antikythera mechanism - a gear-driven device that was developed 1,500 years before the first mechanical clocks. One of the best articles is from the dusty category of archaeology, with a little spice of computer science.

Unfortunately, the myopia of the editor’s approach detracts from the quality of the entire product. There is just this part of me that cannot get past the thought that, had the net been spread a little wider, we might have seen even better work ( )

An excellent collection (except for Mooney & Kirshenbaum's whiny rant). Very exciting subjects and articles almost completely free of jargon. ( )