Category: Books (Page 3 of 9)

New talks this spring

Happy to report that I will be giving the “Ray Kling Distinguished Lecture in Public Health” at the University of Oklahoma  and the “Chautauqua Lecture” at Eastern Kentucky University this April. I believe that both lectures will be open to the public, which is great. For more info, or to arrange an event at your organization or university, please contact Jodi Solomon Speakers Bureau.

Check out recent and forthcoming live and media events here, too.

Scientists weigh in on "The Fever"

Reviewers in the mainstream media have been really kind to “The Fever,” for which I’m tremendously grateful, as their comments are getting the book out into the world. But I’ve awaited reviews from scientific journals with the most trepidation. Not only because the scientific community is notorious for its harsh judgments–scientists rarely give unreserved approval, especially when called upon to critique–but because I really wanted to get the science of malariology right in the book. And they’d be the ones to know if I had.

The journal Nature is one of the world’s most prestigious science journals and certainly the world’s most cited one. It’s also unusual in being a general-interest weekly. Dr Awa Marie Coll-Seck is the former minister of health of Senegal and the director of the world’s foremost international malaria campaign, Roll Back Malaria. So it was a great honor for Nature to choose, out of the scores of books written about science, to review The Fever, and for Coll-Seck to write the review. Sort of like E.O. Wilson reviewing a popular book on ants. Or Bill Gates reviewing a popular book on technology. And by and large, Coll-Seck seems to have enjoyed it–

“In The Fever, journalist Sonia Shah makes sense of the multifaceted history of this harrowing disease and our response to it….By describing malaria’s role in the rise and fall of peoples, cities and civilizations, the book reveals the massive imprint of this disease on health and life expectancy, politics, commerce and war….The Fever clearly traces the growing understanding of the causes, transmission and prevention of malaria….Shah astutely points out that many of the challenges that stalled past efforts have yet to be overcome….Shah’s ultimate message is spot on: that the fight against malaria is complex. Ending it, as she says, is tough and unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.”

Coll-Seck takes issue with my critique of Roll Back Malaria–the organization she directs–which is understandable. It would not be fitting for her to admit to its well-documented weaknesses. Of course, I stand by my analysis, regardless. What I was most struck by in her review is that she agreed fully with my account of the science and history of malaria. A great relief and validation!

The New Scientist is another general-interest science weekly, although unlike Nature it does not publish peer-reviewed work. They contacted the head of Medecins Sans Frontieres’ malaria program to review The Fever. That he, a frontline malaria warrior, enjoyed the book, without reservation, is especially gratifying.

“Raw, vivid…Shah presents a fascinating history….The Fever is a mine of information, drawing on diverse accounts from medical experts and field workers. This is an important book on the historical lessons we must not forget and the mistakes we are still making today in the battle against what remains a formidable killer.”

Read more reviews, including some complete ones, here.

Fresh Air and the Wall Street Journal

Yesterday I taped an interview with Terry Gross for the NPR show “Fresh Air.” I’m a big fan of Terry’s and it was lovely to speak to her. We talked about the wily parasite Plasmodium, my own love/hate/guilt relationship with mosquitoes and malaria, malaria during WWI and WWII, and how mosquitoes are the original vampires. The interview is expected to broadcast sometime the week of July 19 or thereabouts.

Also, this Saturday, look out for my essay on “The Abracadabra Cure”–my term for anti-malaria quick-fixes, coined for the second-century Roman anti-malarial incantation (yes, it was “Abracadabra”)–in the Wall Street Journal.

Crude and the BP oil spill

The Guardian called for the nationalization of the Western oil industry instead (and mentioned my book Crude in their argument). Check it out, below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/15/obama-bp-nationalise-oil

Obama: stop baying for BP blood. Nationalise oil instead

The US president’s scapegoating of BP is a distraction; the only way to clean up the oil industry is to put it under public control

BP chief executive Tony Hayward
BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, leaves the US interior department in Washington following meetings to discuss the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters

Barack Obama’s crude comparison of the Deepwater spill to 9/11 marks a new low in the political grandstanding over the Gulf of Mexico disaster. While the president might be right to haul BP over the coals for the company’s apparent negligence prior to the explosion, the distancing of the US government from the private sector is a cynical way to exploit the tragedy.

If Obama’s post-spill proclamations are to be believed, the US administration bears no responsibility for the catastrophe, and instead is wholeheartedly committed to environmental protection, developing alternative energies, and all the other buzzwords so beloved by politicians and voters alike. BP can be instantly cast in the role of pantomime villain by opportunistic senators, set up as the fall-guy for a society which – when the going was good – lauded BP and its peers to the heavens for their work.

In that respect, a better comparison would have been to the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns rather than the twin towers, at least in the way that the credit crisis and the Deepwater spill have brought out the worst hypocrisy in those scrambling for political cover after the event. It is no secret that politicians and diplomats have been in the pocket of energy companies almost since the first oil was struck in Pennsylvania in the 1850s, and the murky relationship has continued ever since.

In Sonia Shah’s definitive history of the oil industry, Crude, the base greed and exploitative nature of oil company executives is detailed time and again, and the laissez-faire attitude of the respective governments involved in green-lighting their activities is an ubiquitous trait throughout every stage of the process. Public and private sector prospectors thought nothing of wreaking environmental havoc wherever they sought black gold, more often than not causing massive social upheaval to boot in the countries into which they expanded.

Mass spillages and pollution across the world – in Alaska, Nigeria, Iraq and elsewhere – barely register with consumers in the west, so long as they don’t occur in their backyard. The minute catastrophe occurs closer to home, suddenly everyone and their dog is a green campaigner, an environmental warrior ready to don cape and clutch sword in pursuit of a better future for Mother Earth and all her children. Which is all well and good, for about as long as the spills dominate the headlines and trend on Twitter, but when the crisis is over and the wells are recapped, all reverts to business as usual.

And business as usual means a refusal to bring about serious, societal change. Instead of acknowledging the warnings that have abounded for decades – the declining supply of oil, the increased cost and risk of extracting new sources, the massive environmental dangers of global warming – short-termist politicians and executives hunker down to see out their careers as comfortably as possible. For every unlucky Tony Hayward, there are a hundred other oil company CEOs getting away with murder, safe in the knowledge that big business will forever be protected by big government as long as it remains mutually beneficial to both parties.

The baying for BP blood is a sideshow, a distraction foisted on the American people by an administration desperate to save face over the Deepwater disaster. The near-50% decline in BP shares might provide a bit of feel-good schadenfreude, but is of no long-term benefit to the bulk of society.

If BP is forced to the wall, its assets will be quickly gobbled up by vultures from among its market peers; if BP can’t pay its dividend, pension funds and public authority investments will be hardest hit, adversely affecting the finances of millions. And the tens of thousands of BP employees whose careers currently hang in the balance will become the most undeserving of victims if the company sinks beneath the waves of bankruptcy.

If Obama & Co really want to do the best by both their electorate and the environment, they could do worse than permanently nationalise oil companies as a way of enacting serious positive change in the industry. As has been witnessed throughout private sector history, most investors – and certainly those with the most financial clout – regard profit above all other concerns when it comes to their demands from the companies in which they buy stock. BP and the other energy megaliths will never be forced to take the environment seriously while they continue to be bankrolled by those for whom money talks louder than any number of dying wildfowl and destitute fishermen.

However, such a remedy should not be seen as simply a temporary solution in the vein of the shambolic bailout of UK and US banks. Energy is far too crucial and sensitive an issue to be left in the hands of the private sector, and with the world’s supply of oil steadily declining, the urgency for finding alternative energy sources grows greater with every passing day. An oil industry which ploughs all profits into research and development of green fuels is the ideal model until the world can finally be fully weaned off oil – and such a system can only be fully brought to bear under the auspices of governmental control.

Obama is right to say that the Deepwater spill will “shape how we think about the environment for many years to come”, but he is wrong to imply that the soul-searching and brow-beating should come from the private sector alone. Just as society’s lust for living on borrowed means was the main catalyst for the credit crunch, so too does society’s rapacious appetite for oil bear indirect responsibility for the Deepwater disaster.

Governments have a role to oversee both the financial and oil industries to prevent such crises occurring, and if that means seizing control of the main offenders, then so be it. Action on such a scale would speak far louder than the empty words currently emanating from statesmen’s mouths either side of the Atlantic.

Early reviews from Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews

Both Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews, whose reviews inform the purchases of bookstore buyers, have nice words for The Fever. PW calls the book “fascinating, mordant” and “absorbing,” while Kirkus calls it a “sobering account” with “important lessons.” Excuse me for focusing unduly on the praise. I should add that they both also give typically concise summaries of the book, which should prove useful for interested readers. The full reviews are here (Publishers Weekly) and here (Kirkus).

My op-ed in this weekend's Los Angeles Times–a "death sentence"?

An op-ed I wrote about a forbidden topic–the fact that many rural Africans do not want to sleep under the bednets we donate to them–appeared in this weekend’s Los Angeles Times. A prominent malariologist had this to say about it: “Excellent story – finally someone that dares to speak up. Mind you, your death sentence has been signed in Geneva by publishing this. You’ll be hated by the die-hard believers of nets…”

Perfect. That’s the kind of feedback that makes me feel like I’m doing my job. Check it out on this site, or at LA Times.

Also, in honor of last week’s World Malaria Day, see my article on greener methods of malaria control at Yale e360, and my blog post on the folly of square bednets for round huts at Ms. Magazine.

Early praise for The Fever

Some very much appreciated early praise for The Fever!  Bart Knols had this to say:

“Extremely well-researched, The Fever provides a highly gripping account of one of mankind’s worst diseases…Highly recommended.” –Malariologist Bart Knols, Managing Director, MalariaWorld

Bart runs MalariaWorld, which he has recently turned into a dynamic forum for malaria scientists and others interested in the disease. And he’s blogging about it for TH!NK 3.

And the renowed malaria expert Malcolm Molyneux added this:

“A thrilling detective story spanning centuries, about our erratic pursuit of a villain still at large and still a threat to mankind…Rich in colorful detail and engagingly told…An astonishing array of characters have joined the fray, and you can only be amazed at the deviousness and skill of the arch-enemy.”–Professor Malcolm Molyneux, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, WHO expert panel on malaria

Molyneux, who was also kind enough to review the book for accuracy, is a huge figure in malariology. He led the Garki Project, a seminal study on the possibilities of malaria eradication in Nigeria, in the 1960s and 1970s. And he established an internationally renowned malaria research center in Blantyre, Malawi, in connection with the Wellcome Trust and the University of Malawi. A paper dedicated to his life and science recently appeared in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.

How did the daughter of Indian immigrants, with zero connections, get in touch with these esteemed personages, you wonder? Well, ninety-nine percent of my reporting relies on the kindness of strangers. But in the case of Molyneux I had a helpful connection. My old friend from South End Press, Loie Hayes, is related in some complicated way to Terrie Taylor, who is  probably the world’s top pediatric malaria expert. Through Loie I got in touch with Terrie, who became a major source for The Fever. I shadowed her for about a week in Malawi, which was amazing. And Terrie connected me to Molyneux, who is a senior colleague of hers.

Much gratitude to Knols and Molyneux for their kind words!

A band-aid, not a cure: Obama's offshore drilling plan

People are actually wearing these t-shirts?

People are actually wearing these t-shirts

OK, I don’t like Obama’s proposal to open up vast areas of the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan coast for offshore drilling. There isn’t much oil and gas there–not enough to feed our oil-thirst for more than a few years at best–and many of these areas are already completely despoiled and need to be protected, not ravaged once again. Oil and gas companies will certainly be happy to bid on the new blocks, nevertheless. All the infrastructure to siphon oil and gas out of these tiny little fields is already in place, so their costs will be low despite the paltry return. (They also won’t have to pay for protection as they do in Nigeria and Iraq etc etc.) So long as prices stay high, they’ll be able to make a tidy profit.

But I don’t think it is fair to call Obama’s plan the same as Bush/Cheney/Palin’s. Bush, Cheney and Palin claimed that offshore drilling was sufficient to solve our energy crisis altogether. That’s not what I hear Obama saying about this plan. This is about the government making some money by selling these leases–and we should watch carefully to see where that money goes–to ease the necessary transition away from oil and gas. Very different. Bush saw offshore drilling as a cure, which was dishonest and unfair. For Obama, it’s a band-aid.

Offshore drilling is not going to make oil cheap and it’s not going to allow Americans to continue wantonly burning crude. It isn’t going to liberate us from foreign oil, either. It’s a drop in the bucket. We’ll still need to do all the hard work of transitioning away from hydrocarbons. Obama seems to understand this. And that’s crucial.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Sonia Shah

Site by NormanUp ↑