While informative, I think it was mentioned in the book that Doudna was the one who asked him to write it about her, so I think it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I thought isaacson did a pretty good job in trying to make it objective, but it does read a bit like PR at times which is kind of unfortunate for a topic on science. I guess it's been the same way for other historical discoveries as well, especially given the economic stakes involved. I find self promotion a bit debasing but it seems to be important of society like it or not.
That's a generous way of putting it. Just the first chapter nearly had me putting the book down as it read like a press release written on behalf of the scientist. It gets less painful and I understand that authors choose to write books about subjects that interest them but it feels like there's a definite difference in objectivity from his previous works.
this is the first book by isaacson that i read and i doubt i'd like to read any other. the bias in the narration, while duly acknowledged, forces him to paint other people (aka other side) so monstrously—at times—that it's impossible to take his criticisms seriously. that said i liked quite a few people aside from doudna (for example i think emmanuelle charpentier is badass and quite rightly the sort of hero we need—working with elegance and loads of fun).
It’s very unfortunate to read such a statement - Isaacson’s “The Innovators” is an amazing book that never lost its objectivity throughout my readings.
The chapters on Watson are super interesting. If Isaacson had written the book primarily about Watson, it likely would've been at the same level of Steve Jobs.
