I finally submitted the final version at the start of July, and finally have the time to post again! After aiming carefully to meet my December deadline, it took four months to get a detailed set of comments back from my editors on the manuscript. Ingrid’s suggestions were detailed though, and made me think a bit more carefully about who I am writing the book for, and what they might want to read. Painful as ever was her suggestion to remove much more material from the book, which should find it’s way into this website. I had written some fictional chapters which interleaved all the data and discussions, but she thought this didn’t sit well enough in the book, so out they go.

One of the things I have learned over the years is to take editor’s comments very seriously – they are supposed to know better than me what works and doesn’t, and they stand back better. So I have incorporated most of the structural changes and some of the other comments. It was less painful than you might imagine because I was given a final deadline of the 1st July, and had an exceptionally busy worklife at this time to combine, so a few weekends were spent devoted to moving and editing and rewriting. I just hope my trust is rewarded. Perhaps it is slightly sad that the more experimental ideas have got thrown out, but maybe I can try them another time, and likely I have lots of material to write essay pieces (I already started on this).

I also had to add more of the illustrations, some being my own sketches which will be redrawn, and some from a variety of other places. It’s hard to know what helps a reader, avoiding too dense data while providing enough to intrigue. Also I decided to add some photos of different science locations to bring the comparisons I am making home. I have spent some of the last few days thinking about what might make a good cover – a subject all on its own. Striking is good, but who knows what has subliminal influence, and where: online? in a bookstore? as a present? In particular to find a single icon for “science” seems to come back to several tropes: the atom with circling electrons is a metaphor also for nuclear danger, while the test tube frothing, DNA twirling, an old-fashioned microscope are all harking back. I want some sense of looking in from the outside so have suggested a whole range of possibilities. We’ll see what emerges.

In that final submission moment, I gulp a breath again trying to imagine what I will be picked up on. Almost everything I guess, if people want to take issue with my messages. I have read a number of recent articles which have bits of my thinking, which sounds like the whole is right for the time. But in the end statistics can be tortured in many ways. I gave a talk a few months ago to one of my research centres about some of the key ideas from the book, and was rewarded with various howls. This was interesting but I was a bit taken aback. It was not supposed to generate as much emotion, so is perhaps a sign of things to come. In particular the idea to reduce the number of scientists started a big fight from the younger researchers. I can imagine that it seems like pulling up the drawbridges from someone already established, and stopping the young generation from flourishing. Or (like Brexit) cutting off the connectivity between different societies by battening down the hatches, a version of protectionism in the world of science. I will be considering the best way to present in future!