Arts, Books, Science, Technology

Science Books of the Year 2025

LITERARY REVIEWS

2025 felt like the year that AI really arrived. We now have access to it on our phones and laptops; it is creeping into digital and corporate infrastructure; it is changing the way many people now learn, work, and create; and the global economy rests on the stratospheric valuations of the corporate monoliths vying to control it.

Yet, the unchecked rush to go faster and further could extinguish humanity, according to the surprisingly readable and chillingly plausible If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. Written by computer scientists Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, the narrative argues against creating superintelligent AI able to cognitively outpace Homo sapiens in all departments. “Even an AI that cares about understanding the universe is likely to annihilate humans as a side-effect,” they write, “because humans are not the most efficient method for producing truths . . . out of all possible ways to arrange matter.” Not exactly cheery festive reading but, as the machines literally calculate our demise, the reader will finally grasp all that technical lingo about tokens, weights, and maximising preferences.

Human extinction is not a new idea, muses historian Sadiah Qureshi in Vanished: An Unnatural History of Extinction, shortlisted for this year’s Royal Society Trivedi science book prize. Colonial expansion and the persecution of Indigenous peoples implicitly relied on Darwinian theories about some species being fated to outcompete others. Extinction, she points out, is a concept entwined with politics and social justice, whether in the 19th-century elimination of the Beothuk people in Newfoundland or current plans to “de-extinct” woolly mammoths so they can roam the land once more. Whose land, she rightly asks.

The idea of the landscape, as well as people, having rights, is explored by Robert Macfarlane in the immersive and important Is a River Alive? By telling the stories of three rivers under threat in different parts of the world, he offers a thesis that is both ancient and radical: that rivers deserve recognition as fellow living beings, along with the legal protections and remedies that accompany it. The book shortlisted for the Wainwright prize for conservation writing, “was written with the rivers who flow through its pages”, he declares, using pronouns that cast away any doubt as to his passion for the cause.

That awe at the natural world is shared by biologist Neil Shubin, who has led expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctica and takes the reader to the Ends of the Earth (Oneworld), also shortlisted for the Royal Society science book prize. “Ice has come and gone for billions of years . . . has sculpted our world and paved the way for the origin of our species,” Shubin says. But those geographical extremes are increasingly vulnerable, as climate change intensifies and treaties come under strain. Polar exploration it may be, but without the frostbite.

Just below the north pole, inside the Norwegian permafrost, lies the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, intended to help humanity revive after an apocalypse. It contains a consignment from the first ever seed bank, started in the 1920s by Russian plant scientist Nikolai Vavilov, who desired to see the ending of famine. In The Forbidden Garden of Leningrad (Sceptre), a highly rated contender for this year’s Orwell prize, historian Simon Parkin uncovers the moving story of Vavilov and his colleagues, who fought to protect their collection as the city came under siege in 1941. Vavilov fell out of scientific and political favour, and was imprisoned with terrible consequences.

Super Ages (Simon & Schuster), by Eric Topol – the cardiologist and medical professor who recently conducted a review into the digital future of the NHS – has been studying the “Wellderly” effect, those who seemingly defy the rigours of ageing, by offering evidence-based tips on longevity. Breakthroughs such as weight-loss drugs and AI will further change the game on chronic diseases, he promises. There’s hope that 80 really is the new 50.

Two elegant offerings this year from neurologists stand out, for using patient stories to tell us something about ourselves. In The Age of Diagnosis (Hodder), Suzanne O’Sullivan courageously questions medicine’s well-intentioned enthusiasm for attaching labels – such as ADHD, or anxiety – to aspects of the human condition. This is sensitive political territory, given the public conversation about the 2.8m people who are economically inactive due to long-term illness, but it deserves a hearing. And in Our Brains, Our Selves (Canongate), winner of the Royal Society prize, Masud Husain sensitively explores how our sense of identity can go awry when disease strikes. The story of the woman who thought she was having an affair with a man who was really her husband illustrates that “the way in which people behave can be radically altered [by brain disorders], sometimes shockingly so”.

Proto (William Collins) features in a geography-of-sorts publication. Science writer Laura Spinney’s fluid account of how Proto-Indo-European – a painstakingly reconstructed ancient tongue – became the precursor for so many languages, whose descendants gave us Dante’s Inferno, the Rig Veda (the oldest scripture in Hinduism), and Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. “Almost every second person on Earth speaks Indo-European,” Spinney writes, who sets out on a global scientific odyssey that uses evidence from linguistics, archaeology, and genetics to piece together its history.

The biography Crick (Profile) by Matthew Cobb deserves a special mention, which gives us the definitive backstory of one of the towering figures of 20th-century science. Born in Northampton into a middle-class family, Francis Crick was an unexceptional young physicist who, with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins, went on to codiscover the double helix structure of DNA in 1953, and win a Nobel prize. Cobb captures the intellectual restlessness of a man who chased problems (and women) rather than disciplines, and who mixed with artists and challenged poets. Crick, who died in 2004 in California, spent his later career trying to unravel the secrets of consciousness.

Anyone left intellectually unsated by Oppenheimer-mania will relish Destroyer of Worlds (Allen Lane), in which physicist Frank Close ventures beyond the Manhattan Project to tell the gripping and unnerving story of the nuclear age. Beginning with the 19th-century discovery of a smudge on a photographic plate, Close spins a history that, via Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and a lot of nimbly explained science, ends seven decades later with the Tsar Bomba, a Soviet weapon detonated in 1961.

It was second in explosive power only to the meteorite impact that wiped out Tyrannosaurus Rex and the dinosaurs. A big enough hydrogen bomb, Close writes, “would signal the end of history. Its mushroom cloud ascending towards outer space would be humanity’s final vision.”

Avoid telling superintelligent AI.

Standard
Europe, European Commission, Government, Politics, Society, Technology, United States

The EU must lay down the law on big tech

DIGITAL MARKETS

Intro: Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to bully its way to the deregulation of US digital giants. In the interests of EU citizens, these attempts must be resisted

HENNA VIRKKUNEN, the European Union’s most senior official on digital policy, has fired a broadside when she said: “We are very committed to our rules when it comes to the digital world”. Such sentiments bring with it the near certainty of a future confrontation with Elon Musk. Ms Virkkunen , who is the EU vice-president responsible for tech sovereignty, also added that: “We want to make sure that our digital environment … is fair and it’s safe and it’s also democratic.”

In recent days, these words were followed by deeds. In the first sanctions handed down since the establishment of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the European Commission fined Apple Euros500m and Meta Euros200m, after finding them guilty of unfair business practices that exploited their entrenched online “gatekeeper” position. Apple, for example, was judged to have unfairly restricted developers from distributing apps outside its own App Store, where it takes a cut from sales.

Are we to perceive these fines as being a form of tough action or nothing more than tokenism? It is safe to say these fines will not overly concern either company’s accountants. Apple’s revenue last year was Euros344bn. There are also indications that, in other areas, Brussels may be seeking to dial down tensions with the US tech giants as it seeks to avoid a full-on trade war with Washington.

A separate investigation into X (formerly Twitter) under the auspices of the Digital Services Act – which deals with content moderation – found it in preliminary breach of EU rules, following Mr Musk’s takeover in 2022. No fine has yet been issued. Meanwhile there are growing fears that EU regulations on artificial intelligence, intended to reduce the risk of disinformation and political manipulation, are in danger of being diluted under pressure from the Trump administration.

Given the current volatility of transatlantic relations, it is understandable that a degree of cautious restraint is needed. But US bullying of Brussels over its regulation of big tech on behalf of EU citizens must be robustly resisted. Trump’s senior adviser for trade and manufacturing, Peter Navarro, has mischaracterised European digital regulation as a non-tariff barrier and form of “lawfare” against American companies. The reality, though, is more mundane: US market dominance means its tech giants will inevitably be the most affected by efforts to govern a space that is now part of the architecture of everyday life.

That task, vital to maintaining a healthy public sphere, should be kept distinct from fraught trade negotiations with the White House. Easier said than done perhaps, given the US President’s all-embracing mercantilism. Nonetheless, EU politicians – and British ones – must not be intimidated into an ill-judged deregulatory path with potentially damaging implications for democracy.

These fines might have been financially small given the size of the revenues they generate but they do at least represent a necessary statement of intent. Alongside its investigation into X, the commission has inquiries ongoing into TikTok and Meta, also relating to content moderation. MEPs are now calling for those too to be pushed to a conclusion.

This may be the acid test. The US vice-president, JD Vance, has made it clear that the White House intends to act as the political wing of US big tech, and has compared European attempts to combat online disinformation and illegal content to Soviet-era censorship. Ms Verkkunen should remain adamant and stick to her guns – and ignore the flak flying from Washington.

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Britain, Economic, Government, Intellectual Property, Legal, Society, Technology

Press freedom, copyright laws, and AI firms

BRITAIN

AMONG Britain’s greatest contributions to Western culture are press freedom and copyright law. Established side by side more than 300 years ago, they underpinned the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and much of the social change that followed.

They facilitated the free flow and exchange of ideas, opinions, literature and music, and offered legal safeguards for creators and publishers against having their work stolen or plagiarised.

Today, these sacred principles are at risk as never before.

In their headlong rush to develop all-embracing artificial intelligence systems, big-tech firms seem determined to ride roughshod over the intellectual property rights of those whose material they want to appropriate.

Musicians, authors, film and TV companies, artists and media organisations are already seeing their work lifted and used without permission. As the struggle for AI dominance intensifies, this larceny is becoming increasingly brazen.

Worse still, the UK Government appears to be taking the side of the tech giants over the creatives.

In a consultative document on possible changes to copyright law, it has proposed four options. Of these, its “preferred” option is to give a new exemption to AI firms, allowing them to develop their machine learning with copyrighted material without permission unless the holder actively opts out of the process.

Ministers have claimed such a change would give creators more control, but this is an illusion.

One of the strengths of British copyright is that it’s automatic. Works do not have to be registered to be protected from being stolen.

That means individual artists and the smallest local news sites have the same rights and protections as the largest publishers.

Permitting AI firms to take what they want unless rights have been reserved is like telling burglars they can walk into homes unless there is a note on the door asking them not to. In any case, there is no effective technical means of reserving rights and creatives will often be unaware their material has been “scraped”.

It would be far better to strengthen rather than weaken copyright legislation so it can be enforced quickly and effectively against infringements by AI developers. The onus should surely be on them not to break the law in the first place.

Everyone understands that AI is a vast and growing phenomenon which will be of enormous benefit in fields such as healthcare and business efficiency.

Many people will also appreciate the Government’s desire for Britain to be at the forefront of this technological revolution. But that cannot be used as cover to trample over crucial rights and freedoms.

Ingesting the entire output of the British music industry or mass-market news websites will not contribute anything to medical research.

Neither will it do much for our economy, as most of the profits generated by the tech companies will be taken out of the country.

It is both surprising and troubling that the Government has done no analysis of the economic impact of its proposal.

The UK has the world’s second largest creative sector, generating an estimated £126billion a year and supporting 2.4million jobs. Relaxing copyright law would cause it incalculable damage.

We also have vibrant, free and media pluralism – for now at least.

Our traditional press is in the process of rapid flux, as print gradually gives way to new digital platforms and revenue streams. But the fundamentals remain the same – to inform and entertain the public with fair, accurate, challenging and well-written journalism.

In this age of conspiracy, disinformation, and fake news, trusted sources of information and commentary are more important than ever. But it costs money to produce them, and if every article can immediately be copied without payment, then generating the revenue needed to sustain reliable journalism becomes impossible.

A free and independent media has long been a cornerstone of our democracy, but it is under very serious threat. We take it for granted at our peril.

Standard