4 ms·

I'm tempted to flag this for sensationalist, overly dumbed down presentation of ordinary biology of viruses, but okay evidently some people found it valuable.

by etiam 7y ago

I'm tempted to flag this for sensationalist, overly dumbed down presentation of ordinary biology of viruses, but okay evidently some people found it valuable. As I remember it, the author's novel "The Hot Zone" (1994) was better writing and far better science around Ebola and other filoviruses.

onychomys 7y ago
Better writing, maybe, but the actual science in that book was a little sketchy. https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-the-hot-zone-created-the-worst-myths-about-ebola-1649384576 https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-the-hot-zone-created-the-worst-m...
- etiam 7y ago
  Could well be. It's been a couple of decades since I read it, and a fair bit of education in between. Not sure if that's an argument for or against rereading. But what Tara C. Smith presents in that Gizmodo post is hardly devastating criticism. As she notes, Preston recognized that it was a a dramatized description of the symptoms, and I don't see that it's "utterly wrong" for a bad case, though I'm sure it's frustrating as an epidemiology professor to repeatedly have people believe it's the only case. As I recall it the Reston strain is never described as definitely airborne, and an airborne Zaire strain is never mentioned except as a horrifying possibility if one should acquire the ability (not entirely out of character in a fictional thriller one might think). The criticism for some sort of feminism-deficiency I don't give much for even today, but it seems particularly unfair against a novel which was written decades before today's charged ideological climate on that matter, and I disagree that poor work-life balance and dysfunctional relationships is particularly unrealistic when it comes to career scientists. Remains then relatively low infectivity, but I think Preston might be forgiven for not emphasizing that in work of fiction built around the fear of Ebola infection. Thanks for the remark anyway, because it bears noting that the novel should still not be taken to be a biology textbook.

by etiam 7y ago

onychomys 7y ago

Better writing, maybe, but the actual science in that book was a little sketchy. https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-the-hot-zone-created-the-worst-myths-about-ebola-1649384576 https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-the-hot-zone-created-the-worst-m...

etiam 7y ago
Could well be. It's been a couple of decades since I read it, and a fair bit of education in between. Not sure if that's an argument for or against rereading. But what Tara C. Smith presents in that Gizmodo post is hardly devastating criticism. As she notes, Preston recognized that it was a a dramatized description of the symptoms, and I don't see that it's "utterly wrong" for a bad case, though I'm sure it's frustrating as an epidemiology professor to repeatedly have people believe it's the only case. As I recall it the Reston strain is never described as definitely airborne, and an airborne Zaire strain is never mentioned except as a horrifying possibility if one should acquire the ability (not entirely out of character in a fictional thriller one might think). The criticism for some sort of feminism-deficiency I don't give much for even today, but it seems particularly unfair against a novel which was written decades before today's charged ideological climate on that matter, and I disagree that poor work-life balance and dysfunctional relationships is particularly unrealistic when it comes to career scientists. Remains then relatively low infectivity, but I think Preston might be forgiven for not emphasizing that in work of fiction built around the fear of Ebola infection. Thanks for the remark anyway, because it bears noting that the novel should still not be taken to be a biology textbook.