Skip to main content

Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books Longlist

I've always been a great supporter of the Royal Society's prize for science books, and list the details on popularscience.co.uk, but for reasons that may become obvious, I thought I'd post the announcement of the books on the longlist today.

The longlist for this year’s Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books – the world’s most prestigious award for popular science writing –  is announced today (13 June).

The judges selected a longlist of twelve books:

Serving the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics under Hitler by Philip Ball
(The Bodley Head)
The judges said: “An incredibly interesting look at the politics of science and the decisions all scientists have to make.”

Seven Elements That Have Changed The World: Iron, Carbon, Gold, Silver, Uranium, Titanium, Silicon by John Browne
(Weidenfeld & Nicolson - an imprint of the Orion Publishing Group)
The judges said: “An inspired look at seven very special elements which are essential to the modern world. It’s a captivating read.”

Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age by W. Bernard Carlson
(Princeton University Press)
The judges said: “Full of lots of new messages, Carlson makes you stop and think about the practicalities of science, industry and invention.”

What a Wonderful World: One Man’s Attempt to Explain the Big Stuff by Marcus Chown
(Faber & Faber)
The judges said: “Chown is a terrific science writer. His book is a tour de force that covers an incredible range of topics.”

Dice World: Science and Life in a Random Universe by Brian Clegg
(Icon Books)
The judges said: “A fantastic look at the importance of randomness, full of interesting and philosophical ideas while still remaining open and accessible.”

The Compatibility Gene by Daniel M Davis
(Allen Lane, Penguin Press)
The judges said: “Davis wins you over from the start with touch points you can relate to and engaging descriptions. Dedication and a life spent in pursuit of his subject are evident on every page.”

My Brief History by Stephen Hawking
(Transworld)
The judges said: “Hawking writes incredibly poetically, conjuring evocative images in your mind. My Brief History takes you on a journey of adversities and shows you what has made Hawking one of the most respected theoretical physicists in the world today.”

The Perfect Theory by Pedro G. Ferreira
(Little, Brown Book Group)
The judges said: “Very lucidly written, Ferreira succeeds in a explaining some very tricky concepts. A treasure trove of information.”

The Cancer Chronicles: Unlocking Medicine’s Deepest Mystery, by George Johnson
(The Bodley Head)
The judges said: “A scrupulously researched, well written book that makes excellent use of case studies.”

Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live by Marlene Luk
(W.W. Norton)
The judges said: “Paleofantasy presents an interesting thesis that feels fresh in a very accessible way. The book represents an argument against the accepted wisdom of our time.”

Stuff Matters: The Strange Stories of the Marvellous Materials that Shape Our Man-made World by Mark Miodownik
(Viking – an imprint of Penguin Books)
The judges said: “A contemporary, sideways look at everyday stuff. Miodownik writes with a passionate ability to explain each subject. It’s packed full of excellent stories and is the only science book out there where the author gets stabbed on the London Underground!”

Gulp: Adventures of the Alimentary Canel by Mary Roach
(Oneworld)
The judges said: “An entertaining and disarming read which delves into a usually unspeakable topic with great humour and great insight.”

Professor Nicky Clayton FRS, Chair of the judges, said:

“Choosing just 12 books from the over 160 that were submitted for this year’s Prize was a very difficult task. There really is a plethora of good science writing out there at the moment. I think this shows how science is ever increasingly becoming part of our culture. In the end though, we did have to agree on 12 and we’re delighted with those we’ve selected. Each one takes you on an informative but perhaps more importantly, engaging, journey of the science. Some are woven with humour and passionate personal stories; others are able to illuminate incredibly complex topics. All are marvellously written and full of the wonder of science.”

The shortlist will be announced on 19th September 2014.

The judges on this year’s judging panel are: Professor Nicola Clayton FRS (Chair), Professor of Comparative Cognition at the University of Cambridge and Scientist in Residence at Rambert (formerly Rambert Dance Company); Dr Nathalie Vriend, Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellow, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge; Emma Read, Head of Factual and Features at ITN Productions; Michael Frayn, playwright and novelist, best known as the author of the farce Noises Off and the dramas Copenhagen and Democracy; Lone Frank, former neuroscientist, journalist and author of My Beautiful Genome, shortlisted for the 2012 Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope