Rating: 
Summary: A lot of matrix but does have a few gems
Review: The jist of this book is that our behaviour are maybe half determined by our genes, that environment (nurture) influences which genes are expressed and how.
Mr. Ridley gives very occasional (too seldom) references to specific proteins that act on specific DNA sequences on specific genes on specific chromasomes that are correlated to specific behaviours or diseases. But these are far too diluted by the Old English School Style of writing, namely discursive with literary quotes, references, parallels, attempts at irony, humour... Alas, this pandering to the mass audience comprise more than half the book.
But, to be fair, I wanted a text book and Ridley is primarily a journalist. And I have to be grateful to someone who triggered my thinking about Human Endogenous Retro Virus (HERV) -- a really fascinating avenue of genomics and evolution.
Another 40 or so percent of this book is standard research survey: "so and so et al.'s study, 'Such and Such,' would indicate blah blah blah..."
But the remaining less than 10% of content is worth mining for.
Rating: 
Summary: Readable science writing
Review: There has been a knowledge explosion in the biological sciences. So much has been discovered so quickly that it is hard to see how it all ties together. Matt Ridley manages to make sense of it. He has a storyteller's skill, throwing in just enough biographical details to bring the scientists to life, but not so much that it gets in the way of the science. He clearly knows his subject from both a scientific and a historical perspective. He does not over-simplify nor does he fall back on using jargon.The thesis he puts forward, that nature and nurture are intextricably interwoven is undoubted. I believe he stops short of making the argument even more strongly. From a human standpoint, we can differentiate between "nature" and "nurture" but from the standpoint of the germ cell nature and nurture blend together. Is mitochondrial DNA nature or is it nurture? Surely we overstate the importance of the genetic "code" in the DNA. It can only be expressed because of all the other cellular components. So the distinction between code and non-code, and the individual and its environment is a lot blurrier than we suppose. Matt Ridley has penned some of the best books on evolutionary science ever written. Nature via Nurture is at least as good, perhaps better than the best of his others, Genome and The Red Queen.
Rating: 
Summary: It's in the genes, just not in the way we thought.
Review: There is a review from Richard Dawkins on the back of this book; it starts with, "I would never have expected a book about 'nature or nurture' to be even miidly interesting let alone a real page-turner." In a way, I was sort of with Dawkins on this one. I'm not sure how much gene/environment polarization there is within the science community. Still, I got the book for two reasons. First, I've read Ridley (Origins of Virture, Genome) before. Second, and as Ridley points out in his book, even if there is a lack of gene/environment extremism in science, the laity is still quite polarized when they should not be. Ridley starts by envisiioning photograph of the twelve great men Ridley feels have influenced study on human behavior. They are Charles Darwin (evolution), Francis Galton (first heritability theories), William James (instincts as a part of psychology), DeVries and Mendel (shared discovery of genes), Ivan Pavlov (conditioning theorist), John Watson (behaviorism), Emile Kraeplin (personality as history), Freud (psychoanalysis), Emile Durkheim (founder of sociology), Franz Boaz (studied relations of cultures to one-another), Jean Piaget (studied how children learn) and Konrad Lorenz (discovered the phenomenon of 'imprinting' in instincts). Each chapter loosely starts with discussion of one of these thinkers. Basically, Ridley thinks that within all of these thinkers, there is something like a correct answer. Of course, each thinker got as much wrong as they did right so through tasty anecdotes, statistics and modern research results, Ridley shows us what he thinks each got right and wrong. The only problem I had with this book is that the chapters hop from one to another idea without adequately tying them together. Even the last chapter "a budget of paradoxical morals" extrapolates conclusions that didn't quite seem to represent what I'd read in the book. Each chapter by itself was interesting, but taken as a whole, the book is muddled. Still, not bad for Matt Ridley.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting read and compelling arguments
Review: This book addresses the dichotomy between the thesis of nature and the antithesis of nurture by presenting convincing but not overwhelming arguments for their synthesis as the right approach. The author presents evidence which link traits to a biological basis, yet which show variation due to environmental influence. But it remains unclear if a meaningful nature/nurture delineation can be inferred anymore, which would still be helpful. The prose and presentation is lucid. Not very heavy on the technical details. Recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: C'mon now...
Review: You can be reasonably sure that any "scientist" who readily endorses Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist is inappropriately abusing his position to promote his political agenda.
| 
