The WELL: inkwell.vue.309: Ann Finkbeiner's "The Jasons: The Secret History of Science's Postwar Elite"

#76: Tell your piteous heart there's no harm done. (krome) Sun 11 Nov 07 20:17

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:17:00 PST

I can't recall if he was mentioned in the book:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12koval.html?hp

"George Koval also had a secret. During World War II, he was a top Soviet spy, code named Delmar and trained by Stalin*s ruthless bureau of military intelligence.

Atomic spies are old stuff. But historians say Dr. Koval, who died in his 90s last year in Moscow and whose name is just coming to light publicly, was probably one of the most important spies of the 20th century.

On Nov. 2, the Kremlin startled Western scholars by announcing that President Vladimir V. Putin had posthumously given the highest Russian award to a Soviet agent who penetrated the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb." [Read entire topic]

#75: Brian Slesinsky (bslesins) Sun 11 Nov 07 13:02

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:02:00 PST

This wasn't Jason, but it sounds like similar work:

"The contractor building the satellites, Boeing, was still giving Washington reassuring progress reports. But the program was threatening to outstrip its $5 billion budget, and pivotal parts of the design seemed increasingly unworkable. Peter B. Teets, the new head of the nation*s spy satellite agency, appointed a panel of experts to examine the secret project, telling them, according to one member, 'Find out what*s going on, find the terrible truth I suspect is out there.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washington/11satellite.html

Unfortunately, the panel of experts gave the go-ahead, and the rest is a classic tale of project mismanagement. [Read entire topic]

#74: pardon my amygdala (murffy) Fri 19 Oct 07 18:17

Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:17:00 PDT

I'm sorry folks for my unexpected absence. Thanks so much for joining us, Ann. I really enjoyed the discussion and the book. [Read entire topic]

#73: What is going to amuse our bouches now? (bumbaugh) Wed 17 Oct 07 12:04

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:04:00 PDT

Much fun, Ann, as well as an opportunity to learn. Thank you, best of luck with your next projects (and good ol' life!), and do stop by here again.

Thanks for the elaboration, krome, esp. the point about *seeming* distance. That was roughly the inspiration for my "it isn't all that clear," since from the start physical forces (gravity, perhaps most notable among them, but others) have been susceptible to the action-at-a-distance charge. Much of the research agenda of physics has been set by the demand to respond to those charges -- as may the case in biology over the last century (a propos of Ann's remark it's like physics after WWII). [Read entire topic]

#72: Ann Finkbeiner (afinkbeiner) Wed 17 Oct 07 11:19

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:19:00 PDT

Well, thank you for your kind wishes. I've enjoyed this -- writers do enjoy talking on and on about their books, and you've certainly got a lively and intelligent community here. I'll check back in now and then to see whether the conversation has continued. [Read entire topic]

#71: Cynthia Dyer-Bennet (cdb) Wed 17 Oct 07 10:34

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:34:00 PDT

Everybody's welcome to participate in all our Inkwell conversations, <krome>.

Ann, thanks so much for joining us for the past couple weeks. This has been a remarkable conversation, and we're glad you could be here. Thanks also to Mark Harms for leading the discussion.

Though we've now turned our virtual spotlight to a new guest, that doesn't mean this conversation has to stop. This thread will remain open for futher questions and comments indefinitely, so please feel welcome to continue if you can.

If you've got other things on your schedule that demand your time and attention, know that we're glad you were able to share some of your time with us, and good luck with your new book, Ann! [Read entire topic]

#70: Lisa Harris (lrph) Wed 17 Oct 07 10:11

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:11:00 PDT

But of course. Come on by, it's right over in the next topic. [Read entire topic]

#69: Tell your piteous heart there's no harm done. (krome) Wed 17 Oct 07 09:32

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:32:00 PDT

"but it isn't all that clear biology is more prone to action-at-a-distance charges than particle physics is."

There was/is a sticker by the 5th floor freight elevator in the the chem building at UT Austin which says, "Chemistry is Everywhere". Indeed it is. That is to say that there is no action-at-a-distance in any chemical system(and WRT to particles we are still talking chemistry just as chemistry is fundamentally about physics). What resists the modeling are the steps involved in so many biological systems which make it *seem* that things are happening at a distance from the cause. Of course, they are not. All the actions in the forementioned hormonal cascade are immediate and close. But that doesn't mean that the cause and effect are obviously linked.

That is to say that in biological systems the interactions can be many more and more varied than in many strictly physical systems(and here I should point out that I have only a layman's grasp of particle theories).

And I would like to be in on the biotech discussion if I may. [Read entire topic]

#68: Ann Finkbeiner (afinkbeiner) Tue 16 Oct 07 17:04

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:04:00 PDT

Nice of you to ask. I've just finished up some interviews at the University of Chicago and Fermilab for my next book -- on astronomers and a survey they bit off that was too big to chew -- and in the next month will give two talks on Jason, one to the Space Telescope Science Institute and the other to U Penn. That plus regular life. I love regular life.

Biology and biotech -- my unlettered take on that is that those fields are more or less where physics was just after WWII. That is, politicians and the public had just figured out this stuff is useful.

This has been fun. And thank you, everyone. [Read entire topic]

#67: What is going to amuse our bouches now? (bumbaugh) Tue 16 Oct 07 14:57

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:57:00 PDT

krome should speak for himself, of course, not me for him, but it isn't all that clear biology is more prone to action-at-a-distance charges than particle physics is. To me, at any rate.

Funny coincidence, then, that what's coming up next in the Inkwell has to do with biology and biotech! It would be great to have you join in with us on that conversation, too.

That's us. What's next for you, Ann? [Read entire topic]