A Trio of Non-Fiction Winners

I’ve been reading a lot of non-fiction lately. This is kind of a new habit with me and one I really enjoy. The thing is though; I find it much more difficult to write a review when it’s a non-fiction book than a novel. So I’ll do my best here with three that I read recently. I’m not a scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so these are the impressions of a reasonably intelligent, reasonably insightful layperson, not an expert.

First, and most recent, is The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot.



Very memorable because it brings into focus the morass of ethics surrounding human tissue culture and research. In short Henrietta Lacks was a black woman who died of cervical cancer in 1951. Unbeknownst to her, the doctor treating her took samples of her tumor as part of an ongoing effort to culture human tissue for research purposes. At the time (and even now) doctors have a right to do this without expressly telling the patient what they plan to do. Luckily for us Henrietta’s cancer took to culturing like no other human cells ever had and we have all benefited immensely. The biggest “product” of research involving the HeLa cell line created from Henrietta’s cancer is the Polio vaccine. There are probably hundreds of other treatments, protocols, drugs and vaccines that came as a result as well (like chemo therapy) and so the overall good of human society is greatly increased. At what cost though? Was removing part of Henrietta’s tumor ethical? Is she or anyone else automatically entitled to money because of it? Did the creators of the cell line violate her privacy? Would we feel differently if Henrietta was a rich white lady of vast fortune? Would we feel differently if her cells came to nothing and were not much good to medical research at all? All of this and more will make you think about the past and present state of human biological research, ethics and practices. It isn’t all science all the time though, a large part of the book is spent with Henrietta’s surviving family and their struggle to make sense of what happened and its effect on their lives.

Second is Guns, Germs and Steel; The Fates of Human Society by Jared Diamond.



Most people have at least heard of this book and I remember a CEO of a former employer quoting it in meetings. Basically this book tries to find a non-biologically based reason for why the divide between the haves and the have-nots exists in human society. Even more basically, why Europeans conquered the rest of the world and not the other way around. The question has occurred to me more than once in my reading. If the Inca and Aztec civilizations were so sophisticated (and even advanced beyond then-contemporary Europe), why didn’t they sail across the Atlantic and invade, conquer, exterminate and enslave Spain?

Complex? You bet, but Jared simplifies things so that at least the underlying reasons for his conclusions are apparent. In a nutshell it comes down to (in his estimation) geography. Eurasia is a continent blessed with factors that led to success for humans in some key areas; its orientation is largely east/west and so moving along great distances does not change the climate, hours of daylight or growing season very much, the continent contained animals and plants highly suitable for domestication, its rivers are large and navigable. So early humans had the materials at hand to become herders and farmers. Increased availability of food meant larger populations. Larger populations meant more stability and might in the face of smaller populations. Stable populations meant people could explore other skills and not be directly involved in food production. Specialization in other skills meant invention could develop and eventually flourish. Things invented included metallurgy, weaving, pottery, writing, medicine and tool and weapon manufacture. The people still involved in animal husbandry became exposed to the diseases their animals carried and through hundreds of generations improved the people’s ability to fight them off.

Only in Eurasia was this possible. The geographies of the Americas and Africa are north south oriented and also feature many barriers to human movement like deserts, jungles and high mountains. The large animals needed for muscle power and food were unavailable (no horses, cows, goats, sheep, camels or pigs in those areas). Also missing were the types of crops that could be planted easily and would yield highly nutritious food (no wheat crops grew in America or Africa in the wild). So as a result the people who lived there did not develop robust farming or herding. Their early populations weren’t as large or homogeneous and couldn’t reap the benefits of a large homogeneous group. They didn’t have writing to spread the word of their culture or inventions. They didn’t develop immunity to animal-borne diseases. They didn’t have horses to ride into battle. In short, they just didn’t have the technology or the social mechanisms to deal with Europeans when they arrived. An absolutely fascinating idea and plausible.

Lastly, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.



Sadly, the people who need to read this book most won’t. Ostensibly this tries to explain why humanity clings to superstition and why it has evolved to be so prevalent; what evolutionary advantage does it have. Unfortunately it doesn’t do that very well and is largely a giant rant against the religiously minded. Granted, I think they’re delusional as heck, but I also don’t think my brain can encompass every nuance of the universe. Dawkins does. But I knew that going in and basically read this to satisfy some need to hear someone else bemoan the destructive power of religion. Nothing else on earth has caused more pain and suffering than religion. Of all types, but mostly of the Abrahamic stripe; Islam, Judaism and Christianity. If you are a weak agnostic or an atheist, this book will appeal to you. If you’re a religious person struggling with your “faith” this will help you. If you’re already inoculated in religion by your parents and scorn the unbelievers and heathens, this book will make you really angry. Mostly because it challenges stuff you can’t really defend or explain rationally and boy does that tick religious people off. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

So that’s it. Three worthy non-fiction books to keep your brain from atrophying.