Many love it, a few hate it, but everybody has something to say about Our Molecular Future:

It's great!!!

• Reviewed and recommended in New Scientist April 20, 2002.
• Reviewed and recommended in Foresight Update 51 April 15, 2003.
• Reviewed and recommended in San Francisco's East Bay Express March 26, 2003.
• Reviewed and recommended in Victoria Times Colonist March 16, 2003.
• Reviewed and recommended in Choice - Current Reviews for Academic Libraries January, 2003.
• Reviewed and recommended in The Futurist January-February 2003.
• Reviewed and recommended by Jim Pinto September 27, 2002 and November 25, 2002.
• Reviewed and recommended in Booksviews.com September 2002.
• Reviewed in Science News Books August 31, 2002.
• Reviewed and recommended by Nanotechnology Now Newsletter August 16, 2002 (the newsletter requires a subscription).
• Reviewed and recommended in Future Survey June 2002.

It's awful!!!

• Savannah Morning News August 18, 2002 This review errs by describing today's dirt repellents as tomorrow's technology, and wrongly says that the book makes predictions for thousands of years from now...which it doesn't.
• Publisher's Weekly - see review on the Amazon.com site. Unfortunately, this review contains inaccurate statements about the book's content. Most notably it says the book presents a singular view of the future, when in fact the book focuses on just the opposite: diverging views. Moreover, Amazon.com customers who've read the book disagree with the reviewer and give the book high marks.

Reviews that pan the book share a common denominator: each glosses over the theme: adapting to extreme environmental phenomena, and instead looks disbelievingly on some of the potential technology outcomes.

Intriguing, but weird...

• Reviewed by Remy Chevalier at http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/bookreviews.html or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ETList/message/855.

Attention Librarians:

Here's an excerpt from Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries January 2003:

"Books that speculate on the future of science are frequently disappointing, as writers start with reasonable premises and quickly go into flights of fantasy. This is not the case with Our Molecular Future. Mulhall provides a realistic glimpse into the potentials of various futures.carefully separating science fact from science fiction."

Library Journal May 15, 2002 wrote: "...its subject is certainly timely, and many of the author's ideas are worth debate...this book is recommended for popular science collections in public libraries; general academic libraries may want to purchase."

See also: Note for Reviewers and Media

Bookseller reviews

• 21st Century Eloquence: "... a must-read for every voice recognition user who wants to keep ahead of the curve...The book is a guide to changes that may see voice recognition driving everything from our cars to desktop factories. " (VR Newsletter July 2002)
• Netsurfer Robotics July 15, 2002 - Books 'N' Stuff.

Comparison with other books

• In Blueprint, September 25, 2002 Robert D. Atkinson, vice president of the Progessive Policy Institute compares Our Molecular Future with Francis Fukuyama's Our Posthuman Future.