Proteins are amazing molecules. They spark the chemical reactions that form the basis for life, transmit signals in the body, identify and kill foreign invaders, form the engines that make us move, record visual images. For every task in a living organism, there is a protein designed to carry it out.
Nature's Robots is an authoritative history of protein science, from the earliest research in the nineteenth century to the most recent findings today. Tanford and Reynolds, who themselves made major contributions to the golden age of protein science, have written a remarkably vivid account of this history. The authors begin with the research of Berzelius and Mulder into "albumins," the early name for proteins, and the range all the way up to the findings of James Watson and Francis Crick. It is a fascinating story, involving heroes from the past, working mostly alone or in small groups, usually with little support from formal research grants. They capture the growing excitement among scientists as the mysteries of protein structure and function--the core of all the mysteries of life--are revealed little by little. And they include vivid portraits of scientists at work--two researchers, stranded by fog in a Moscow airport, strike up a conversation that leads to a major discovery; a chemist working in a small lab, with little funding, on a problem no one else would tackle, proves that enzymes are proteins--and wins the Nobel Prize.
Written in clear and accessible prose, Nature's Robots will appeal to anyone interested in the peaks and valleys of scientific research.

The authors have found the most marvellous materials - obscure researchers, long-forgotten debates, the wonder of discoveries as it was felt at the time. Indeed, what makes the book come alive is that discoveries are described in the context that they were made - both in terms of alternatives and the fractious infighting they sometimes engendered. Here, an appreciation of the technical details is an absolute must to truly appreciate the writing.

Historical context is judiciously included. When it is necessary, for instance, to understand how certain labs came into prominence or how ideas criss-crossed the globe. However, historical context is not slavishly used to structure the book. Some discoveries logically engender other discoveries. Too much focus on the historical context would lose the thread of the ideas. There are some of the most delicately rendered biographies, although thankfully, these are only kept at a minimum, a couple of paragraphs or so - after all, most scientists are not that interesting as people.

Finally, the authors have held no punches. In one place, they dismiss the work of a Nobel prize winner after winning the prize as a waste of time.

However, one vital ommision must be said (as noted in the review of this book in Nature). The Nobel-prize winning work of Anfinsen in showing that denatured proteins can refold is reduced to a single footnote. Given the generosity they have shown in other places, this is suprising.

5 of 6 found the following review helpful:


A Sketch Of Protein Research  Mar 11, 2002 By Kevin Spoering
This volume concerns itself with the nature of proteins, from early crystallization and spectroscopy studies to the debate between whether proteins are colloids or macromolecules, and the discovery of the peptide bond. Methods of analysis are discussed in regards to their historical context, and many researchers are given due credit in their various efforts, some counter-productive. Much of the text is given to protein structure and folding and how research has illuminated these areas. There are also chapters on physiological functions and how proteins are synthesized and the discovery of DNA and it's significance, all in historical review.

Current protein research is briefly mentioned, and there are many references cited throughout the volume. This book is primarily targeted to chemists although anyone with an interest in protein science could read it. I personally thought this book was very informative.


It look me a long time to get to this, but that was my loss  Jul 13, 2011 By A. J. Cornish Bowden
I bought this book eight years ago, but I never got around to reading it until now. I don't remember why I didn't read it, but it may have had something to do with the title, which I don't like because I don't think of proteins as robots. That is hardly a good reason, but anyway it was my loss, because it is a fascinating book (if you're interested in proteins) that sheds a great deal of light on the development of our knowledge and understanding of proteins. The authors recognize that the word "robots" won't be to everyone's taste, but they defend its use.

They start with the recognition that proteins exist, and the difficulties that many chemists had in accepting that well defined molecules could be as large as protein molecules are. From there they proceed to the recognition that enzymes are proteins (rather than, say, contaminants of the "real" enzymes), the gradual -- though in its later stages incredibly rapid -- understanding of their chemical and three-dimensional structures, followed by understanding of how these structures are encoded in and translated from genes.

Their treatment is largely what I think is called Whig history: they present the story as an almost continuous progress towards enlightenment. Historians don't like that approach, but I think most scientists do, as they do see their subjects as progressions from ignorance to knowledge and understanding. In this case it results in a far more readable and entertaining account of the history of proteins than what Joseph Fruton provides in "Proteins, Enzymes, Genes", though that can be regarded as a more scholarly book.

In a recent review at Amazon, "Fibonacci" criticizes the authors for their account of the cyclol structure of proteins advociated by Dorothy Wrinch, which leads him (probably not her, but who knows?) to "assume that that the portraits of other scientists in this book are unreliable too". But what makes him think that the portait of Wrinch is unreliable? It agrees with just about everything that has been written in the past half-century about her and her attempts at science. No scientist today thinks that her ideas supplied anything of value, and few thought it at the time, though unfortunately those few included the influential Irving Langmuir, who should have known better: in 1953 he invented the term "pathological science" for what is nowadays called junk science, which he defined as "an area of research that simply will not 'go away'--long after it was given up on as 'false' by the majority of scientists in the field."


Unreliable  Apr 22, 2011 By Fibonacci
I wish I could give this book a higher rating. It is filled with information, clearly explained. But Chapter 10 includes an unconscionable, ill-informed, gratuitously nasty discussion of the mathematician Dorothy Wrinch (1890-1976) that not only denigrates her work but her character too. Why savage Wrinch, instead of dispassionately criticizing her papers? Since I can't imagine why, I must assume that the portraits of other scientists in this book are unreliable too.

See all 7 customer reviews on Amazon.com