Chrichton is entertainment media, not science and facts. In fact, it's often the opposite of science. I enjoy his fictions as much as the next guy.
Crichton's fiction is often heavily researched and factually foot-noted, and his science credentials-Harvard MD-are not shoddy.
I don't wish to start a flame war, but Martin is right. Chrichton wrote fiction. A Harvard MD certainly makes him qualified to write about
medical topics. It does not automatically mean he knows anyting about any other area of science. Regarding his footnotes, several of the prominent scientists he cited have publicly stated that Chrichton totally misunderstood their work and/or took them grossly out of context.
Enjoy his books as science fiction. Do not presume that they have any significance beyond that.
Previous Topic
Index
