I’ve already mentioned somewhere that the New York Times‘s list of 2016’s 100 notable books had about 2 or 3 science books, and its shortened list of the 10 best books had no science books. Given the “two cultures”, one would expect more.
Our own Matthew Cobb noticed the same issue with the Guardian’s 110-best list (chosen by writers) , and tw**ted about it, showing that the proportion of science books was even lower than in the New York Times‘s list.
Well, the Guardian has taken steps to repair the situation, surveying 11 scientists and asking them what were their favorite reads of 2016 (“Favourite reads of 2016—as chosen by scientists“).
Here’s the intro to the Guardian piece, citing our already-famous Dr…
View original post 147 more words