'The Chemistry of Life' by Steven Rose

So, I'm a prospective NatSci/biochem student and thought I should start reading around my subject, so I decided to read the eponymous book of the thread title. I've just recently finished reading the book, and am left with some questions, which I hope can be answered by anyone else who has read the book.

Firstly, I was wondering whether this level of detail in the book is typical in university courses? The book could get very complex in places, especially concerning the metabolic pathways of respiration -- sometimes I felt it was really hard to follow, although that could be attributed to Rose's style of presenting information.

Secondly, I'm going to apply to Cambridge, and will probably be asked for an interview, and will have to talk about how I've read around the subject in my spare time -- what aspect of the book do you think would be appropriate to put in my personal statement for me to talk about in the interview? I was thinking about the electron transport chain. However, I think this may be too standard, I'm not even sure whether it is covered in my A2 biology syllabus.

Lastly, is it typical for books like this to contain so many mistakes such as incorrect chemical formulae -- unbalanced equations, and general errors?

Any responses will be appreciated. Thanks.

Reply 1

EierVonSatan

Hmm it's a well known book in it's fourth edition, can you give an example of one of the errors?

Reply 2

Liquid27

EierVonSatan

Hmm it's a well known book in it's fourth edition, can you give an example of one of the errors?

1. The demonstration of diastereoisomerism on page 27 involves a diagram of but-2-ene with two to few hydrogen atoms.

2. Page 31 shows one molecule of sucrose -- Rose states that the glyocsidic bond is 1-4, whereas it is clearly 1-5 (judging by how the carbons have been numbered on the very same page)

3. On page 153, Rose shows the equation involving the reduction of oxygen at the end of the electron transport chain, however the equation he gives clearly isn't balanced in terms of charge -- the reactants have a combined charge of +6, whilst the products have a combined charge +4.

4. Also, on figure 19b of page 148, the diagram displays the in correct equation of 3ADP + 3P = 3ADP (where the product should be 3ATP)

Reply 3

EierVonSatan

Liquid27

1. The demonstration of diastereoisomerism on page 27 involves a diagram of but-2-ene with two to few hydrogen atoms.

2. Page 31 shows one molecule of sucrose -- Rose states that the glyocsidic bond is 1-4, whereas it is clearly 1-5 (judging by how the carbons have been numbered on the very same page)

3. On page 153, Rose shows the equation involving the reduction of oxygen at the end of the electron transport chain, however the equation he gives clearly isn't balanced in terms of charge -- the reactants have a combined charge of +6, whilst the products have a combined charge +4.

4. Also, on figure 19b of page 148, the diagram displays the in correct equate of 3ADP + 3P = 3ADP (where the product should be 3ATP)

Eek, seems pretty bad :s-smilie:

Reply 4

Liquid27

EierVonSatan

Eek, seems pretty bad :s-smilie:

Yep, I was quite surprised -- especially seeing as how the book is in its fourth edition, like you said.

I don't think it is so much Rose's fault, but that of the editing of the book.