Contrary to the previous two reviewers, I was very happy with this series. Its purpose was to present the development of western science in the context of history. For me, it achieved that target very well. I am familiar with the development of western science, but it was good to have it contextualised with the political, economic and social pressures of Florence, Padua, Amsterdam, Prague and the rest of Europe, as intellectual idols or struggling scientists did their bests to make their voices heard. I cannot agree with stigmata2004's comment on Michael Mosley. I heard him refer to his experience as a trainee doctor a couple of times - in every event it seemed to me to fit well with the narrative. I don't remember him at any time mentioning a PhD qualification, and nothing he said seemed to me to be self-aggrandising in any way. I don't know if he holds an MD (the most likely medical doctorate in the UK unless you're a surgeon, then you don't need it - you can also pretend you're not a Doctor if you got it - and call yourself "Mr" or "Mrs") but in any case, in the UK anyone graduating with an MB/ChB is called "Doctor": you don't need the higher degree.
On the other hand, I strongly agree with stigmata2004's comments on the breadth of science outside the stated target. The mathematicians of the Middle East and India were sorting out fundamental theorems while my ancestors in the UK seem to have been scrabbling in the mud. So, I hope that the BBC manages to get the funds together for a follow-up (or two) covering the development of science in other areas of the globe. As to Central and South America, I confess that I know little of the Inca/Aztec/Olmec/Toltec civilisations, and it would be great to hear of their contributions to science.
Review of The Story of Science
