The language of conflict and resolution Book

Henig's factual errors in background material makes me doubt the historic accuracy of the book. She covers Mendel's life but dwells on his failures as much as his achievements. In the later period after his death and in the scientific debate she focuses on the historic revisionism far more than the science of the period unless it was to show the disagreeable nature of ill funded animal work in crowded settings.

Henig develops the idea that Mendel was so test phobic he failed to get his teaching certificate, twice. That he became so corpulent he couldn't walk up hills or stairs. She uses so many petty descriptions in reference to his size it feels like an agenda on her part. Yet photos available in other books show him to be fairly typical in build. She constantly harps on his lack of genius or his genius was only in orderly counting. This is more than damming with faint praise it is dedicated denigration of Mendel.

She uses the sensational to make the book lively when she mentions Mendel's later adherents & detractors became so abusive it was rumored Weldon's heart failure was murder.

She wrote " . . . Galileo Galileo, an Italian mathematics professor and devout Catholic, faced excommunication for defending those same ideas (i.e., Copernicanism). Official doctrine had changed by then . . . but Galileo . . . refused to renounce his radical ideas . . .

Galileo was not 'devout' with his mistress and his 3 illegitimate children.
The Popes argument was with Galileo's insistence that the Church change -its- interpretation of Scripture to conform to Galileo's reinterpretations, which he had based on Copernicanism. The issue was Galileo's Scriptural re-interpretation, not his astronomy.
Galileo did renounce his radical doctrinal ideas. He was forced to keep to his villa outside Florence and not travel after wards. The threat of excommunication and torture are common exaggerations Henig should never have used.

She goes on to say "But natural scientists, if they are intellectually honest, often find themselves taking heretical positions on matters of creation and procreation, positions that challenge the very underpinnings of the Catholic Church."
That is blatantly false as science does not deal in matters of faith or doctrine only in that which has testable evidence. It is also false in terms of Mendel who was a monk who studied the natural world as was common in that era. This world view typical then would have been of great interest to explore and explain especially in view of the current fundamental versus scientific conflict.

Henig has an sociopolitical bias I do not agree with.