Fascinating but explains very little. I guess it's not too bad as it did get me interested in the topic but you'd hope that a scientist would actually try to explain the science as well. ( )

Only got through half of this before I had to give it back. Very vague. No glossary. I think they just wanted to get the first book about epigenetics out there. ( )

Most writers and commentators on the subject seem concerned with how epigenetics has the potential to 'alter the way we view evolution,' which is why I picked up this book. Sadly the only compelling argument I found regarding epigenetics was for 'social inheritance,' in which one generation does have the ability (usually through a fetus in the mother's womb) to pass down stress-related tendencies, weight-related tendencies, etc to children based off of the mother's current environment. Francis undeniably does a thorough job explaining this social inheritance process.

However, I am waiting for someone to bring the big guns out for heritable epigenetics. I went looking for two things and found neither: 1) a geneticist/biologist that can give reasonable evidence for epigenetically-altered DNA that survives reprogramming and is passed down to a subsequent generation; and 2) a writer that opens the door and peeks around human evolution to explore all the potential revelations of such a monumental discovery.

Only when I find feasible, compelling, and thorough evidence that Lamarckian evolution is possible, will I believe it. And not a moment before. ( )

Review

When I was but a young man, so many moons ago, I used to delight in annoying my oh-so enlightened scientistic brethren by doubting that the current Darwinist Settlement (Blessed be Its Name!) had given a final account of evolution. I leaned in the direction of some sort of Lamarckian materialism, of course never really settling on the physical mechanism of cultural-inheritance because there were no obvious contenders.

By 'cultural inheritance' I meant back then that behaviors and events in parents lives could somehow influence and even change the genes they passed on to their children and their childrens children. What made me think this likely was all the anomalies that Darwinism (as then understood) could not explain. (For those interested, Rupert Sheldrake has, in his many books, detailed them quite exhaustively.) I am now quite satisfied that Epigenetics, this latest addition to the Darwinist understanding, will eventually take that mountain of anomalies and turn it into a mound. God, how I hate toeing the party line! But even those who merely repeat received wisdom are not always wrong... Dammit.

So, what is epigenetics? Well, there are genes, and then there is the material that surrounds the genes. Epigenetics studies how this material influences (the correct term is 'expresses') the genes. The material "can alter the behavior of the genes to which they are attached; and they can cause genes to be more or less active." And this influence can even (in certain rare circumstances) be passed on for several generations. ("... epigenetic states, some environmentally induced, can be transmitted from grandparent to grandchild.") So you see, Lamarck was right; there is some sort of heritability of acquired characteristics. But the Darwinists were right too; these epigenetic changes do not effect the genome itself and eventually evaporate, like a surging river inevitably disappearing into some endless, feckless desert it had so blindly sought to cross.

So No. Epigenetics is not Lamarckian; but all intelligent Larmarkians (imho) will eventually accept epigenetics, - and therefore Darwinism!

This is a very good first book to read on the subject of epigenetics. But I agree with the reservations of earlier reviewers. It is very anecdotal and I am certain that anyone with a background in biology will find it rather thin. After reading this book I am not sure I understand the mechanisms of epigenetic change fully. But I am sure there will be more books to come. Four stars for an excellent introduction. But where does one go next?

Speculation

While reading this book I was struck by the notion (I should rather say 'the fear') that epigenetics will one day be used as a means of population control. I had always thought and hoped that no government would use genetic manipulation to control the behavior of people because of the risk involved. What risk? The world is no longer as safe as the scientific uniformitarianism and gradualism that was commonly taught when I was young assumed. The comet Schumacher-Levy 9 twenty years ago was probably the nail in the coffin. We are all, to varying degrees, neo-catastrophists now.

Why would any government monkey with the Human Genome? Well, any change through genetic manipulation would obviously be done to make the populace more obedient and useful to the powers that be. The only parameters to this manipulation would be that the people must be fit enough to reproduce themselves and continue to work in order to produce material civilization. So you see, not every genetic manipulation would be useful. People must have babies and go to work.

In my judgement it is a good thing that old myths that no longer serve any purpose die. Uniformitarianism and gradualism were but scientistic fairy tales. They assured us that we could both know everything (I mean by this a 'Theory of Everything') and that we would always have time to react to some unexpected change in the natural world. We now certainly have reason to doubt the latter... (I doubt the former too, but that is another review.) Besides the real danger of asteroids and comets, recent work in climate change throughout prehistory shows how terrifyingly fast climate change can happen.

For those of you who remain committed uniformitarians and gradualists I will point out that only a couple of weeks ago (3/26/2014) the discovery of a 'dwarf planet' (2012 VP113) in the Oort cloud was publicly announced with an orbit inexplicable by our current understanding of the greater solar system. When I was young the solar system was a simple thing: rocky inner and gaseous outer planets. (Pluto was something of an anomaly, later resolved.) Now, we have inner and outer planets, the Kuiper belt, and the Oort cloud. And of this last we know fleetingly little. One of the possible explanations for the orbit of 2012 VP 113 is there may be, somewhere in the Oort cloud, a planet (or planets!) to rival the size of earth! Of course, there are other explanations. As our technology improves, we are certainly likely to find other dwarf planets outside of the classical solar system with long period eccentric orbits. Any one of them could be a potential threat.

So you see, neo-catastrophism really does seem now to be our fate. And because of this I serenely thought that genetic manipulation was off the table as a means of controlling populations. Why? We know that the human species in pre-history survived catastrophic events. Change our genetics base, for whatever reason, and one could not be certain this would be true in a catastrophically altered future. Every change has unexpected and unwanted consequences. This would also be true of any and all supposedly 'useful' changes in our genome.

But I fear that epigenetics changes all that. In radically changed conditions, any previous epigenetic manipulation of humanity would disappear quite rapidly in those radically changed conditions. I fear that the elites who rule the world, and intend to continue to do so, have noticed this.

...And I fear for the future.

Only got through half of this before I had to give it back. Very vague. No glossary. I think they just wanted to get the first book about epigenetics out there. ( )