Taubes, Gary 1956–

views updated

Taubes, Gary 1956–

PERSONAL:

Born April 30, 1956; married; children: one son. Education: Graduated from Harvard University.

ADDRESSES:

Home—New York, NY.

CAREER:

Science journalist.

AWARDS, HONORS:

Three-time recipient of the Science in Society Award, National Association of Science Writers.

WRITINGS:

Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate Experiment, Random House (New York, NY), 1986.

Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, Random House (New York, NY), 1993.

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease, Knopf (New York, NY), 2007.

Contributor to periodicals, including Discover, Esquire, GQ, Science, New York Times Magazine, and Atlantic Monthly.

SIDELIGHTS:

Gary Taubes is a science journalist. A graduate of Harvard University, Taubes is a three-time recipient of the Science in Society Award from the National Association of Science Writers. With a background in physics to his benefit, he contributes widely to periodicals, including Discover, Esquire, GQ, Science, New York Times Magazine, and Atlantic Monthly. Taubes published his first book, Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate Experiment, in 1986.

In 1993 Taubes published Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. The account looks at examples of scientific breakthroughs that turned out to be nothing more than flops, particularly with the false breakthrough with cold fusion technology. A contributor to Publishers Weekly mentioned that Taubes "steers readers smoothly through the technical details in this scientific detective story." Alan Farnham, reviewing the book in Fortune, wrote that "Taubes argues so well that you might close his book believing no scientist of any stature now takes cold fusion seriously. You'd be wrong." Farnham cautioned, however, that the book "ignores the fact that boobs sometimes do make great discoveries—if only by accident." Michael D. Lemonick, writing in People, commented that the book's "details occasionally become exhausting as well, but this remarkable glimpse into the dark side of science is worth the effort." Nevertheless, Lemonick called the account both "exhaustive" and "fascinating." Richard M. Crooks, writing in Science, noted that, in talking about Jones, Pons, and Fleischmann, Taubes's "over-simplification of these characters detracts somewhat from the book as a serious historical reference, but it certainly helps keep the reader intrigued: good and evil are clearly defined here." Crooks concluded that "this book is, in the jargon of pulp fiction, excellent beach reading."

Taubes published Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease in 2007. The book proposes that the reason why many people are overweight is that our understanding of basic nutrition is incorrect. Taubes seeks to find where nutritionists went off track. Regina Wilshire, writing in Common Voice, commented that "Taubes doesn't just argue that what we're told is wrong, he provokes us to examine our beliefs about a healthy diet by providing a wealth of data from hundreds of studies reviewed in his research in writing the book to argue the validity of the scientific process." Wilshire concluded that "no matter what one currently believes, this book is an eye-opening examination of the science and the history that led us to where we are today; a compelling review of the weight of the evidence from both sides; and a resource rich with citations that allow us to begin examining and questioning the validity of our beliefs in the connections between diet and health." Lisa Respers France, writing on the BookLoons Web site, remarked that "Good Calories, Bad Calories makes for compelling reading. Even his cover grabs interest—a piece of toast with a melting pat of butter. It doesn't take the reader long to figure out that the butter is the good calorie and the toast the bad." Booklist contributor Mark Knoblauch proposed that the book "will generate heated controversy and create popular demand for this deeply researched and equally deeply engaging treatise." A contributor to Publishers Weekly described the "provocative" book as an "eye-opening challenge to widely accepted ideas on nutrition and weight loss." Gina Kolata, writing in the New York Times Book Review, commented that "the problem with a book like this one, which goes on and on in great detail about experiments new and old in areas ranging from heart disease to cancer to diabetes, is that it can be hard to know what has been left out." Kolata claimed that "Taubes is a brave and bold science journalist who does not accept conventional wisdom."

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

PERIODICALS

American Journal of Physics, June 1, 1994, A.F. Burr, review of Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion, p. 575.

Booklist, May 15, 1993, Donna Seaman, review of Bad Science, p. 1662; August 1, 2007, Mark Knoblauch, review of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease, p. 5.

Business Week, June 21, 1993, John Carey, review of Bad Science, p. 13.

Common Voice, October 5, 2007, Regina Wilshire, review of Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Fortune, December 13, 1993, Alan Farnham, review of Bad Science, p. 189.

HealthFacts, January 1, 2008, Maryann Napoli, review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, p. 1.

Isis, March 1, 1995, Bruce V. Lewenstein, review of Bad Science, p. 144.

Library Journal, March 1, 1994, review of Bad Science, p. 56; September 15, 2007, Janet M. Schneider, review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, p. 80.

New Yorker, August 2, 1993, Daniel J. Kevles, review of Bad Science, p. 79.

New York Times, January 29, 1987, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, review of Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate Experiment, p. 25.

New York Times Book Review, January 25, 1987, Louise B. Young, review of Nobel Dreams, p. 11; February 28, 1988, review of Nobel Dreams, p. 34; August 8, 1993, John Gribbin, review of Bad Science, p. 9; October 7, 2007, Gina Kolata, review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, p. 10.

People, July 26, 1993, Michael D. Lemonick, review of Bad Science, p. 28.

Publishers Weekly, November 27, 1987, review of Nobel Dreams, p. 79; May 10, 1993, review of Bad Science, p. 65; August 27, 2007, review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, p. 76.

Science, January 7, 1994, Richard M. Crooks, review of Bad Science, p. 105.

Science Books & Films, September 1, 1987, review of Nobel Dreams, p. 17.

Science News, October 27, 2007, review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, p. 271.

Sciences, March 1, 1994, Laurence A. Marschall, review of Bad Science.

Skeptical Inquirer, March 22, 1994, Terence M. Hines, review of Bad Science, p. 296.

Time, February 9, 1987, Michael D. Lemonick, review of Nobel Dreams, p. 55.

Tribune Books (Chicago, IL), August 15, 1993, review of Bad Science, p. 3; December 5, 1993, review of Bad Science, p. 9.

Wall Street Journal, February 11, 1987, Raymond Sokolov, review of Nobel Dreams, p. 24.