Neil Schlager is the president of the editorial service, Schlager Information Group, and has edited a variety of reference works. The volume I have for review is the first in a new series on disputed areas of science. To produce this work Schlager has been assisted by an advisory board of seven academics and a team of over 30 contributors. There are around 30 entries in each volume grouped in seven themes: astronomy and space exploration, earth sciences, engineering, life sciences, mathematics and computer science, medicine and physical sciences. For each topic there is a neutral introduction followed by the “yes” essay and the “no” essay. There are lists for further reading, which includes many Web sites, and definitions of key terms. Most of the topics are of current or recent interest, but in some sections a historic dispute is included.
Having become familiar with the structure of the series I took the initial volume as travel reading for a week. At the end of the week I counted up the entries I had read, and found that they amounted to about two‐thirds of the book; I had expected to read about a half. The book is so easy to read and yet so informative and interesting that I covered far more than I had expected, and I had read equally from all sections. Some topics particularly caught my interest. The arguments for and against vaccinating for foot and mouth disease were largely based on recent UK experience. Xeno transplants, origins of life, warm‐blooded dinosaurs and cloning are all areas of current interest. The value of using sampling in census taking, although based on US law, is of interest to those concerned with social statistic. Water on Mars, alternatives to the internal combustion engine and the weight of neutrinos are of less concern to me, but I read them with interest. One article; the danger of space debris has come tragically into focus since the volume was written. The article takes the wider view of the danger and correctly, I believe, argues that the general risk of bits dropping out of the sky is overrated. However, the sub‐argument about the danger to spacecraft is not overstated. Like the argument about whether there should be a flood barrier on the river Thames, the question is not how likely is the event, but how devastating would it be? The article on whether Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemming’s children, although of particularly American interest, illustrates a couple of general points worth bearing in mind. Some versions of the “No” argument are based on reading the past from a present moral code, and the “Yes” argument can depend on a simplistic reading of DNA evidence. Both points are discussed in the relevant essays.
This is an ideal reference work for major public libraries, schools for older children and higher education institutions that teach or research in fields such as public understanding of science, science policy and science and ethics. In an educational context, this book can be used to stimulate discussion, and develop critical thinking. Those reading the book by themselves will be entertained, informed and also forced to think.
