Scientifically Accurate Sci-Fi for High-Schoolers?

Raul654 asks: "A member of my immediate family is a biology teacher at an all-girls high school. For some years, she's been giving her students the option to earn extra credit by reading a science-related book. What scientifically accurate science fiction books would you recommend for high school readers?"

Niven, Pournelle, Barnes - Niven especially

The team of Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and sometimes Stephen Barnes have produced several books/series which intelligently use ecological themes.

"Legacy of Heorot" and "Beowulf's Children" (Niven, Pournelle, Barnes) have as their prime villain (villain being defined as an entity whose aims clash with those of the humans) the grendels, a creature native to the planet a colonizing starship has reached. The colonists very sensibly initially occupy a single island which has relatively little native life on it due to a recent natural catastrophe; trouble arises when they become overconfident of their understanding of the local ecology, failing to realize that grendels act as their own alpha predators. By killing the local grendel they have ensured that *all* the local samlon, which would normally have been predated down to what might have been nuisance levels, will mature into grendels... A nice side issue is that one reason for the human failure to see the problem is that the best ecological experts have suffered "ice on the mind", a form of brain damage caused by expanding ice crystals in the brain during their arteficial hibernation - more grist for a biology class.

"The Mote in God's Eye" and "The Gripping Hand" (Niven, Pournelle) explore a world wherein a quirk of biology curses the intelligent aliens with perpetual population explosion, and the resultant atomic wars, runaway pollution and intense resource deficit only make the Darwinian struggle more acute; by the time humans come into contact with them, the Moties are individually and in small kin-groups amazingly more capable than Homo sapiens, but at the same time they are crippled by an inability to see beyond their local self-interest. The physics of the series allows two principal Just-Accept-It items, an instantaneous-jump Faster-Than-Light drive and a universally-absorbent energy field, but even here there are credible limitations on the technoloy; Alderson drives can only jump between points of equal stellar flux, and Langston Fields eventually must dissipate the energy they absorb. What really makes the series especially suitable for your friend's purposes is that the authors' examination of how deep and subtle the effects of breeding patterns on intelligent creatures, including their effect on ethics, has not been equalled in any other SF series I know of.

"Footfall" (Niven, Pournelle) is another First Contact novel, and despite the slight dating afforded by its Cold War milieu still easily one of the best (I like to think of it as an Alternate History in which the USSR survived longer than it did AND we were visited by aliens). As in the first series, no liberties whatsoever have been taken with physics - no FTL drive, nor any FTK communication. As in the second, the best part of the book is seeing how the biological origins of the aliens (and the humans!) informs their thinking, language, decision making, ethics, and of course how they misunderstand each other. The Traveler Fithp are herd animals, you see, and that has all kinds of consequences; for example, when they accept surrender thay think the whole herd has surrendered. What we call individualists they call rogues, i.e. insane, and they are not at all prepared to deal with a race where rogues approach being the norm; a resistance by a few humans is seen as a betrayal by the whole populace. The misunderstandings span large and small. For example, they *really* believe in law and order, including one of the characteristics they (nominally) share with us - they mate for life! It's really a good read, full of fast-paced action as well as some solid philosohical meat.

It's a little unclear whether you are only looking for SF based on biological themes or more general science is good; in either case Niven is the powerhouse of this team, and his solo work abounds with insight into physics (especially astrophysics) and ecology. The Ringworld series ("Ringworld", "The Ringworld Engineers", "Ringworld Throne" and "Ringworld's Children") are mostly cited for the physics of the Rin

Politics and character in Niven, Pournelle, et al

That is one of the best posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. detailed, useful, well-written.

But...

Much though I respect Niven and his crowd for their engineering, as pedagogical tools, they are crippled by their handling of human beings. Like Heinlein, but to an even greater degree, that whole cluster of writers is reliably anti-democracy, vastly sexist, and contemptuous of any human worldview but their own. Like Crichton, anybody whose philosophy differs from their male-centric techno-libertarian/protofascist (!)* creed is cowardly, probably homosexual (the horror!) and intellectually bankrupt. Women are sex objects or Heinleinesque cartoon superwomen, usually "coincidentally" extremely young and pretty, etc.

Now, as a male techno-libertarian myself, with my own hyper-cute intellectual superwoman of a girlfriend, I find this stuff really annoying.

Yeah, the Mote books are fascinating and engrossing. But did the only human civilization worthy of respect have to be a Czarist, totalitarian, testosterone fantasyland of uniforms and commands and Very Big Guns?

I have recommended their books before, putting them forward as works like The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, where one must live with the bad to get the good, and alienated those who I recommended them to. Personally, I find myself turning to works like mid-period Brunner or Delany or the Alliance/Union/Compact books of C.J. Cherryh. All of those are just as smart, technologically fascinating, but are simply less, well, adolescent than Niven and his crowd.

Do I feel that your recommendations are wrong? No. But best that we note their failings along with their strengths. And I want to note that, oddly enough, in my experience, the farther Niven veers from current and highly specific technology, the more open-minded his characterizations become. So, predicably, Lucifer's Hammer is terrible, from its pro-fission reactor idiocies to the explicit polemics, while Ringworld acknowledges complexity and even encompasses a bit of witty satire.

* I am well aware of the seeming contradiction of my locution, "techno-libertarian/protofascist". Ain't so. Both states, as seen in their books, are variations on "guys like me must be in charge, everyone else is contemptable". The only difference is that when they are writing about far away worlds, they fantasize about the benevolent despotism that "should" be imposed while in writing about near-term Earth, they retreat to truculent rejection of all government or democracy as self-evident tools of the inferior masses "we" are trying to get free of. Neither, may I note, has the sophistication of the considered and explicit libertarianism of works like the Tom Paine Maru books that try to figure out political approaches that respect all people.

That's easy...

Make them Star Wars comics. Extra credit in an exam for explaining the internal mechanics of a lightsaber.

A full scholarship for anyone who builds a working lightsaber.

Science.... fiction

Doesn't the fact that it's science fiction mean that it's not going to be scientifically accurate? Maybe you should look in another category like biological thriller; The Hot Zone is widely regarded to be very accurate.

Re:Science.... fiction

No, Hard-SF takes very few liberties with respect to science, then examines the ramifications of it. It's as close to real science as possible while still allowing a couple semi-scientific ideas for the fiction element. But even then the SF elements aren't magical constructs, like neutronium armor or antimatter fountains or a human-AI sprouting up on a 486. IT can be very realistic and scientifically grounded.

Hard SF

I'd agree, stick with the Hard SF authors. Nice little explanation and list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction [wikipedia.org] One author missing from the list is Michael Flynn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn [wikipedia.org]. His Firestar series might work for the school especially since the protagonist is a woman. Set in contemporary times, no-nonsense science, but with an actual plot. Though maybe not a hard SF author, McMaster-Bujold's early work (especially Mountains of Mourning) might appeal to young women who prefer something more character driven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_McMaster_Bujold [wikipedia.org] Others have mentioned Forward and Dragon's Egg.

Re:Science.... fiction

The science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem said (throughout his life) that if humans suddenly woke up with no literature or memory of what had passed before, the first thing we would start writing would be speculations on what the future holds, which is, in essence, science fiction. Good science fiction should be about what tomorrow will be like, if what's going on today keeps going on in some direction. Some of the most interesting feminist fiction -- Margaret Atwood's "Handmaid's Tale" or Marge Piercy's "He, She, It" or Sheri Tepper's "Grass" -- is science fiction. They call it 'speculative fiction' to avoid being accused of genre writing.

What the article is requesting is a different type of science fiction, in my opinion: fiction that is about science itself. I loved reading George Smith's "Venus Equilateral" (as an example) because it was a technical exploration of a future in which we were living the same way humans currently live: competing, cooperating or fighting, inventing, only in space stations, using an entirely tube-based technology. It was a vision of the future that would make an engineer smile, as people put together increasingly technical workarounds to fix problems they needed to overcome (which always produced new and unforseen problems, that the next set of stories would deal with) all based on vacuum-tube technology. To Smith, and to other writers at the time, particularly Heinlein and Asimov, the future looked like it was all based on increasingly sophisticated vacuum tubes. (Tube-based learning systems show up in Heinlein's "The Door Into Summer", as I recall.)

Actually, while I'm on about it: Asimov cheated, as regards hard science, by waving his hands and making up 'positronics' that drove his robots' brains, but his work wasn't essentially about robotics, it was about how humans dealt with what they had created. Smith and early Heinlein was very much about the extension of then-cutting-edge technology far into the future, and how that affected people.

Anyway. Good fiction should be about what could happen and how that would change people, whether focusing on individuals or the whole race. Science fiction fits into that.

Biology relevant Hard-SF...

Niven and Pournelle's "Mote in God's Eye" and it's sequel "The Gripping Hand" are very very good hard SF books, and the Moties are created by extrapolating what their biology would dictate their society be like, not just making talking plants or goldfish in spacesuits. Quite well done.

"Andromeda Strain". Classic. The original "Jurassic Park". Also very very good. Both quite good biology based books. Sure JP is a little loose with cloning and DNA recombination, but that's the SF part.

Off the top of my ehad, those are some great bio-related hard-SF books.

Re:Biology relevant Hard-SF...

"Andromeda Strain". Classic.

Worst. Book. Ever.

It wouldn't have been so bad if Crichton hadn't managed to (single handedly, I might add) take Deus ex machina to a whole new level. It's so bad that if you look up Deus ex machina in the dictionary, it says "See: Andromeda Strain". (I'm only half joking. Look it up on Wikipedia.)

Crichton has written many other books that are of far more interest. Don't waste your time on AS.

Assuming this is an American high school...

Maybe the King James Version?

Just point out the flaws...

Any decent sci-fi should have at least a basing in science (the sci-): and then 'jazz it up' a bit to appeal to the non-PhD holding reader. For example, I recall using a sci-fi film as an introduction to Genetics and the issue of ethics in science. Our teacher made it clear that it was a work of fiction, but the point was to get us thinking about the topic. I think the tactic worked pretty well. Of course, there is also heaps of 'Popular Science' out there, which is as easy to read as sci-fi and more informative. Personally, I recommend Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, but if you want something more Biology, anything by Jarred Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel, The Third Chimpanzee, etc) is excellent.

SF is about people more than about science

You don't learn Science from an SF book, because you never know (if you're not already educated) what laws the author bent for the sake of the story. If you get hold of a good SF book, it is always about people and their interactions in what-if scenarios, even if the science may be bunk or too far off to be of any value today. The most an SF book can do for science and technology is to spark interest in it. That's not a bad thing at all, however, SF books should be considered an addendum to Ethics or sociology, not science. Considering that, I'd recommend "Never let me go" by Kazuo Isiguro, ISBN 0-571-22414-8

David Brin - MSc Physics, PhD Phil., Hugo, Nebula

David Brin is one of the very rare sci-fi authors out there who actually has the background to deal with hard science and the ability to write compelling characters and plots. He has several award winning books (Hugos, Nebulas, etc.) under his belt, but even his lesser works are good reads. While "Startide Rising" is a classic and an absolute no-brainer, a lesser work like "Glory Season" might hold special interest for an all-girl class. (The book is set on a isolated colony where humans tinkered with biology a little and created a female dominated society, but it's done a bit differently than most other attempts at the same sort of story.)

And Greg Egan

As well as Brin, and I guess Bear, Benford and Forward (some of the better-known "hard SF" authors around), I recommend Australian writer Greg Egan. Heck he even supplies technical notes [netspace.net.au] to his books on his home page.

Though my favourite Egan works tend to be more philosophical than scientific (eg the short story "Learning To Be Me").

Hard Sci-Fi

You're after a genre called Hard Sci-Fi. Perhaps check out Stephen Baxter's stuff for starters?

Red Mars

Red Mars is the first book of a trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson about the settlement and terraforming of Mars. There's some biology there, though I can't vouch for it (not having studied any biology beyond high school); but overall it's just gripping and completely plausible hard sci-fi. There's some stuff in the other two books that might not be appropriate for high-schoolers, depending on your attitude, but I don't recall anything too objectionable in the first one at least.

Check it out. Even if the class doesn't end up using it, if you're a sci-fi fan then it will be time well spent.

Strong female characters - mod parent up

Since this is going to a girls school, Red Mars should get extra points for having so many female characters in the forefront - though I think Red Mars may be a tad long-winded for high school students. (Use this as a yardstick: Have they read Atlas Shrugged? If so, Red Mars is terse by comparison.)

Also, another poster mentioned Cosmos by Carl Sagan. This is an excellent suggestion. Not only is the main character female, but the story is captivating, and the science is impeccable.

Hard SF, or Pop Sci books

Some hard SF:

Greg Egan - Diaspora, Permutation City, Schild's Ladder, or his short story collections such as Axiomatic or Luminous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan [wikipedia.org]
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series
Here's a good source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction [wikipedia.org]
Stephen Baxter & David Brin are also popular authors.

While Egan tends to cover a lot of speculative technology or concepts, novels generally will be more about plot & character rather than science. If this is for a science class, I'd recommend picking up a good pop-sci book. A few that come to mind:

Richard Dawkins: Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Blind Watchmaker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins [wikipedia.org]
Jared Diamond: Guns Germs & Steel - great book combining history, anthropology, biology to explain how humanity diverged into such technologically disparate cultures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs%2C_and_ Steel [wikipedia.org]

For an all girls school...

I would certainly recommend Heinlein, especially some of his later work.

I will fear no evil and stranger in a strange land are definitely worth a read

But thats more about adjusting the moral compass of todays youth to a more enlightened philosophy than it is about the science.

Most science fiction tends to ignore science - insofar as changing it goes - they may extrapolate something into the future, or even define their own entire universe - but once thats done they tend to ignore it and concentrate on the people. If you took out the futuristic settings most sci fi would simply be classed as drama, occssionally romance, or for the likes of Heinlein, porn.

Anything by Arthur C. Clarke

Arthur C. Clarke books are often very true to science. One of my favourites is Rendevouz with Rama [wikipedia.org]. The first in a trilogy about the encounter of enormous spaceships all of a sudden found racing through our solar system.

Also Isaac Asimovs books are nice. Try starting with I, Robot [amazon.com], which has a much better story than the movie they made.

Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov

Rendezvous with Rama, Imperial Earth and The Fountains of Paradise remain some of my favourite Clarke books, and some of my favourite books, period. The current edition of Glidepath, an otherwise-excellent novel, is marred by lousy OCR and incompetent proofreading.

For high-school students, some of Heinlein's juveniles might still fit the bill, even if they were written 50 years ago. Have Space Suit, Will Travel holds up remarkably well, while students can debate Podkayne of Mars. None of these authors were that good at female characters at first, though they got better with time - who can forget Bliss ("Don't I look human?") or Dors, who wasn't what she seemed, or Calindy, who tasted like honey?

I just finished re-reading the Foundation novels. They illustrate a couple of the most important ideas in science fiction: if it's happened before, it will happen again, and consider the consequences. The whole series is about the decline and fall of an empire. A galactic one, this time.

...laura

There are none!

If you want a scientifically accurate book, you know where to find it. If you want a work of fiction, you also know where to find it.

Science fiction is first and foremost fiction. The point of science fiction is to speculate about the future, and that nearly always involves technology that is not invented yet, and might never be invented, such as interstellar travel, fusion energy, real artificial intelligence, lightsabres, human cloning, rampant genetic engineering, force-fields, wormholes, nanotechnology, etc. The only exception to this is if the story is about a society after the fall of civilization (i.e. post-cataclysmic, due to nuclear war, overpopulation, pollution, etc...), and it's mostly about vikings riding Harley-Davidson motorbikes raiding nearby villages for women and booze, or something like that (see also Kevin Costners Waterworld).

Even fiction that is not set in the future, tends to include speculative technologies and methods. Just look at CSI, James Bond, etc... If a book does not contain speculative science, chances are that it will not contain any science at all. It will be about other things, such as people, love, crime, war, or something like that.

If what you are after is something that is scientifically accurate and entertaining, but not necessarily fiction, I would introduce them to Richard Feynman. (I'm sure there are other good authors, e.g. Stephen Hawking has a good reputation, but he talks about stuff so far above our heads that it's hard to gain any understanding from it). (I realize none of these authors excel in biology. So maybe you should ask somebody else for suggestions there...)

In short: just forget about it. You won't find a fiction book that teaches you science, any more than you will find a science book with a good plot. The best you can hope for is a fiction book that inspires you about the possibilities of science, and a science book that is both entertaining and correct.

Hitch Hikers

Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy it will put things in perspective for them "In the beginning the universe was created, This has made a lot of people angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move"

Greg Bear

I'm a big fan of Greg Bear's books, they tend to have interesting stories with a hard-sf basis in fact.

But really, there are a lot of authors listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction [wikipedia.org] that I would recommend.

Ursula K. Le Guin

For an all girls class, you might start with The Left Hand of Darkness [amazon.com].

Well...

For hard sci-fi, I would recommend going with the following authors, who are accessible and pretty detail oriented: Hal Clement, Greg Bear, David Brin, Stephen Baxter...Maybe Joe Haldeman (though I really only recommend Forever War). In addition, Heinlein's juveniles are great reads, heavy in the science. But they were written for serialization the the BSA magazine Boy's Life...a girl might not find them as entertaining.

Far Future stuff

Singularity Sky by Stross - pretty far out, but firm; they allow loophole-based FTL, but explain stuff that's currently being researched rather well.

Orion's Arm stuff -- this is the hardest of hard scifi I've ever seen, but most of it is incredibly far-future.

Snow Crash and The Diamond Age by Stephenson are both pretty firm, but have more tech than science stuff.

Contact, the movie based on a Carl Sagan book, is some fo the most scientific of science fiction; Buckaroo Banzai in the Eighth Dimension is also resoundingly scientific -- especially odd but appropriate for a parody of the genre.