Genetics and Health

31 opinions for Michael Crichton is Next

• NCurse
  Nov 26, 2006 at 8:15 pm

  Please tell me about what you are reading as I have to wait at least 2 months to get that book… :(

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Nov 26, 2006 at 10:40 pm

  NCurse: It may take me longer than two months to get around to reading it! :P

• river2sea72
  Nov 27, 2006 at 12:31 am

  Crichton lost all credibility with me when he wrote State of Fear and started debating the scientists on global warming.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Nov 27, 2006 at 10:16 am

  river2sea72: I’m pretty sure I’ve read most of Crichton’s books but it probably goes to show you how seriously I take his books when I can’t really remember them aftwards.

• river2sea72
  Nov 27, 2006 at 12:40 pm

  For science/medical thrillers, I think it’s a lot more interesting to read novelists who actually have (had) some expertise in those areas (Robin Cook and Carl Sagan, for example).

• A Blog Around The Clock
  Nov 27, 2006 at 1:26 pm

  Blogrolling: G…

  Let’s keep moving down the alphabet. Let me know what is missing from this list………

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Nov 27, 2006 at 5:56 pm

  Well, Crichton is a physician too. Harvard grad. In any case, it’s all brainless entertainment to me. I don’t tend to analyze fictional novels all that much.

• doctore
  Nov 27, 2006 at 7:26 pm

  Crichton has a medical degree, but he never completed a residency or practiced medicine–and it shows.

  “State of Fear”, apparently an attempt to spread the Rush Limbaugh view of global warming in the form of fiction, was one of the worst books I have ever read, both as literature and as science. I shudder to think what he will do to genetics.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Nov 27, 2006 at 7:42 pm

  Hi, Doctor E! I had no idea there were so many Crichton haters until I started digging around about Next. I usually just read his books like this: in one eye and out the other. :D Must get off the computer and start reading now.

• river2sea72
  Nov 27, 2006 at 8:18 pm

  Well, Crichton is a physician too. Harvard grad.

  Just goes to show - having an education doesn’t necessarily equate with having wisdom.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Nov 27, 2006 at 8:21 pm

  Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

• river2sea72
  Nov 27, 2006 at 8:35 pm

  Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
  - Plato (wiser than Chrichton, in anyone’s eyes)

• Geordie
  Nov 29, 2006 at 1:58 am

  river2sea72,
  Chrichton is an entertainer and I might add one of the best in American history he is the only person to have the number one movie, book, and tv show all at the same time. Just because he wrote a book that highlight the most controversal debate around and took the side you didn’t doesn’t make him a “fool”. Afterwards, he did speeches telling people not to beleive everything they hear/read because a lot of it is lies. Then he ask the science community to band together to form a better system of peer review analysis which, is also needed. The current system of rushing to publish so that you can get the accolades is silly. Also Carl Sagan is not a model candidate he predicted nuclear winters and establish SETI the study of something that not there yet. Anyway they are fiction writers like Dan Brown there is no need for credibility just entertainment.

• Kolt
  Nov 29, 2006 at 9:20 am

  First of all, I dont think I could discredit anyone just because that person chooses to debate a scientific theory. And yes - Global Warming is a theory. It is disheartening to see how peoples opinions will sway from one extreme to the other simply based on what is socialy, culturally or politically “hip”. I think I truly loath -Bandwagons- Second, I dont ever recall reading any excerpt from Crichton which would indicate that he is against the bettering of our natural environment. He only seems to be questioning our popular methods. As do I. Finally, Crichton is a hack writer. As he as freely admitted himself. His primary goal is to entertain. Social and scientific commentaries are just icing on the cake. Ive started on ‘Next’ and its already proving to be a nice piece of after-work reading material.

• Ghasem Kiani
  Nov 29, 2006 at 2:26 pm

  I have read many of Michael Crichton’s books and I think he is a very good author. His books, besides being entertaining, are very credible, even though they portray scientifically improbable scenarios. I think the main message in “State of Fear” was that we should not replace the scientific and experimental methods with some kind of faith or religion in our seemingly scientific beliefs. Anyway, many ideas that were previously predicted by authors like Jules Verne and H.G. Wells seemed unbelievable at their publication time, but some of them are common facts now. This is what science fiction is for.

• river2sea72
  Nov 29, 2006 at 3:20 pm

  I doubt Hsien intended this to become a debate over global warming (a theory? I defy you, Kolt, to find a single credible study that refutes the fact that the global climate is warming), and I’m sure Chrichton would be thrilled to see everyone coming to his defense.

  There are endless possibilities of wonderful, enlightening books to read by authors with more wisdom and better writing style, and those are the ones I choose to read given my limited time.

  That was my point.

• Carlo Ang
  Nov 29, 2006 at 4:18 pm

  Michael Crichton’s books are okay for me, since he usually gets some random scientific fact and proceeds to create a plot out of thin air… of course, some of the “science” in his novels are true, while some are made for the purpose of the story, but there’s this funny feeling you get that “the story could happen”…

• Rebecca Taylor
  Nov 30, 2006 at 12:53 am

  State of Fear wasn’t my favorite book, but at least it gets one thinking and possibly up off one’s butt to do some research on the subject.

  But I think this discussion is overlooking the most important thing about this entry…

  What a cool picture! I wish I was that creative! ;)

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Nov 30, 2006 at 1:00 am

  Rebecca: Thank you!! That picture was the KEY point.

• Kolt
  Dec 2, 2006 at 11:57 am

  -river2sea72- “…a single credible study that refutes the fact that the global climate is warming.”

  Simply put, it ‘IS’ a fact that the global climate is warming. The studies have been made, the observations are quite clear. I would never choose to refute this basis. I only choose to question its cause. Do you want to know what global warming is really about? It’s about possiblity vs. absolution. So many scientist have observed the warming of our planet yet have only predicted as to why. You accept gravity as a fact, yes? Of course you do. Who wouldn’t. But why do you accept this as fact? because all of the worlds scientist say its fact? A whole bunch of people say somethng is real - that means its real. No - This is not the work of science this is the work of politics or perhaps religion. But not science. Reality has nothing to do with the mass opinion. You accept gravity because, in principle, it is a theory you can test and prove yourself. Many individuals have proven that the planets atmospheric temperature is on the rise but not one individual has proven as to why. charts, graphs and preemtive scale models do not prove they only suggest.

  So does this mean we should completely cancel out the possibility that human beings are playing a significant role in the changing of our environment? Of course not. Thats stupid and its an extreme. Yet accepting it as absolute fact is simply the other end of that extreme. In science, 100 percent devotion to any one point of view is an inherent flaw and definite grounds for skepticism and supspicion. It’s amazing how overtly passionate people have become when defenting global warming. I’ve seen preachers defend the existence of God with less vigor. Speaking of deities, I do not worship Michael Crichton. For those who enjoy techno-babble he writes “easy-reads”. But if a Crichton love trend is strait up silly then a Crichton hate trend is down right absurd. “State of Fear” was an example. A fictional example. He wrote it to propose an idea, entertain readers and make money. Nothing more. You say you find solace in the better writing styles of wiser authors. Well..good for you. And I mean that - without sarcasm. As for me, I enjoy Crichtons hack novels. His scientific bulls**t is entertaining and his scientific truth is just a bonus.

  Thats my point

  Crips! I can’t belive I typed all of that.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Dec 2, 2006 at 12:22 pm

  I don’t know much about global warming, but I do appreciate you guys discussing it and educating me about it!

  Started reading Next last night and have already learned one thing - DRD4 and D4DR are interchangeable.

• river2sea72
  Dec 3, 2006 at 2:00 am

  Perhaps you might be interested in this assessment of State of Fear by a Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard climate scientist, whom I suspect bases his opinion on the causes and consequences of global climate change on a tad more than “religion”.

• Hsien Hsien Lei, PhD
  Dec 3, 2006 at 3:11 pm

  FYI, I finished the book last night and just posted my “review”.

• Genetics and Health
  Dec 3, 2006 at 3:21 pm

  Book Review: Michael Crichton’s Next…

  Just for you, dear reader, I stayed up until 2 a.m. last night finishing Michael Crichton’s biotech thriller, Next. And although the haters will disdain my lowbrow taste, I must confess that I liked it. Overall, I’d give it a B+.
  Compared …

• Kolt
  Dec 4, 2006 at 10:55 am

  Aagh….this is were things get….complicated. Where to begin?-

  -”References”- You’ve given me a reference to another web page written by someone who then gives multiple refernces which support, what we will for now call, a spacific point of view. I suppose in return I could give you a truck load of references that would contradict that point of view. Your guy says it’s heating up, my guy says it’s not heating up. Reference wars.

  Basically we’ve been reduced to - “Oh yeah, well your lasers can’t hurt me because I have a force field” - “Doesn’t matter ’cause my lasers can penetrate force fields so you’ed still be dead” ect ect.. We need to be careful when dealing with references. We are still just letting our realities be determined by what other people are saying. How can I argue that your sources are incorrect? Since I have not conducted these experiements myself, I have no real way of validating my referenes over yours.

  I’m not trying to undermind the importance of references, they do serve their purpose. But let’s not forget that these references deal primarily with the testing and results of “Observational Data”. And observation data does not give us answers it only raises questions. What matters is the understanding of the mechanics. Not what is happening but why. Again, it’s not what we’re seeing, it’s what is the cause of what we’re seeing. The earths temperature may indeed be rising but given the compexities of our natural environment, the ’cause and effect’ factor might not be as simple as - Its all a result of human activity.

  By the end of Michael Crichtons “State of Fear”, Gavin Schmidts concludes that the author sees Global Warming as a non problem. Wrong. Global Warming is not so much a non problem as it is an over simplifacation of, what could be, many problems. Many problems that we don’t fully yet understand. In his book Crichton clearly states that, despite the question of Global Warming, the need for humans to better our methods of natural resource consumption and waste disposal is of the utmost importance. And I couldn’t agree more.

  This debate is not just about the science of our planets ecosystem it is also about media, art and entertainment. Walk into a Barns & Noble and ask the clerk for a copy of “State fo Fear” and they’ll point you to the isle that says “FICTION”. I wouldn’t put it past Crichton for tweaking certaint bits of info to better propel his story. ‘Hack Writer’. I cannot stress that term enough. Glacier exploding eco terrorists who use small baggies of exotic octipi to subdue their victims is pure outrageous but very entertaining. At least for me anyways.

• Shosha
  Dec 10, 2006 at 11:35 pm

  Does he have MS??

• Genetics and Health » Bryan Appleyard Interviews Michael Crichton
  Dec 17, 2006 at 11:30 am

  […] Michael Crichton is Next […]

• Genetics and Health » Genetics and Health in 2006
  Jan 11, 2007 at 10:10 am

  […] December 2006 - Genetics Book Review: Michael Crichton’s Next (I had no idea people disliked Michael Crichton so much until I started writing about his latest genetics thriller.) […]

• Genetics and Health » Michael Crichton and Charlie Rose Talk About Genetics
  Apr 9, 2007 at 4:04 pm

  […] if you think Michael Crichton is totally off base when it comes to global warming, you can’t deny that he is a very handsome man. Here’s a video of the hour he spent […]

• God
  May 16, 2007 at 2:53 pm

  Kolt, I think your way of thinking is rather rare. Most people just believe of what they hear about global warming and basicaly that’s it. Since I studied science I always had an interest in this and found that the famous ‘hockey stick’ theary that was published in Nature has never been checked and that was for me the trigger. It leaves room people like Michael crichton to make a great story since the theory is not yet proven right. So just enjoy this nice novell and let it play with your mind unitl someone actually fully proves the theory. P.S.we are only measuring our planet’s temp. since the 19th century which is actually not so long ago. Who are we to say that it was never this warm before? The temperature models from before that time are made from tree-data and then it depends really where you get them and how you analyze and interprate them. The undiscloused and unverified data from Mann’s hockey stick model is the basis for a lot of speculation. I thought Science was more serious then that but it’s also a business, no?

• Bernardo Ruiz
  Mar 31, 2008 at 10:38 pm

  I finished reading Michael Crichton’s Next just to be able to throw it away and being sure it wouldn’t get any better at some point. I’ve got to say I am just a regular reader who is extremely disappointed about this author. I have read a lot of different novel authors and have got to say that this book is by far the worst I have been through. Not just the plot is very weak, but there are a lot of useless stories written there just for the need to cover different aspects on the genetic issue. It is not that he (Crichton) knows or does not know about the topic, but that the art of writting a novel goes further than putting together some pieces of investigation and some pieces of science fiction. The story did not take me, as a reader, to anywhere but to frustration, after having realized that I spend 10 Euros on a terrible book that left me nothing but a very bad reading experience…

Have an opinion? Leave a comment:

• Use this area to discover new blogs and content in the b5media network.
• Beauty & Style
• Business
• Celebrities
• Entertainment
• Health & Wellness
• Lifestyles
• Music
• Sports
• Team Blogs
• Technology
• Travel & Culture
• Video Games

• Social Web
• E-mail