As discussed in the comments section of BT's shortlist of suggestions for future reads, I've compiled a list containing all the books that, so far, have been suggested and discussed as possible future reads:

http://booklikes.com/apps/reading-lists/799/nonfiction-science-book-club-reading-list

Taking into account all suggestions and comments to date, the most votes so far seem to have gone to Mary Roach's "Gulp" (8 votes), with "Storm in a Teacup" and "The Disappearing Spoon" coming in second (tied at 7 votes each) and Val McDermid's "Forensics" and Rebecca Stott's "Darwin's Ghosts" tied for 3d place (5 votes each).

Note: For vote tabulation, I've added up every time the books were included in the various suggestion lists posted in the past couple of days, plus every endorsement of the books in discussion comments. In the latter instance, I haven't made a distinction between glowing endorsements and simple statements of interest: That sort of thing tends to get messy (is "I'd probably read it" only 3/4 or 2/3 of an endorsement? What level of interest constitutes 1/2 of a vote, what 1/4 of a vote? etc.) ... and obviously, a given person's endorsement of a given book only counts once, even if it's repeated elsewhere, e.g. in the comments section of another suggestion list.

Also, in Roach's case, several people said that they're interested in pretty much every- or anything by her, without specifically mentioning "Gulp": I counted those voices as votes for "Gulp," as it's the only book by Roach that has specifically been suggested.

Now, the above obviously is only an informal tally. Since some of you guys are still busy reading "The Invention of Nature", should people have time to vote for books until the current group read is over, or do we call the dice "cast" here and now? Should we formalize the vote in some fashion (e.g., scratch the informal tally and ask everyone who's interested in participating to name their top 3 or top 5 candidates instead and then only consider those votes?)

In any event, I'd strongly suggest centralizing the voting and related discussion somewhere -- either in the aggregated book list's comments section or in this thread (or in another dedicated thread in this discussion group). Currently, the discussion is spread out over several places (all the posts with book suggestions, plus the thread in this discussion group where several people have suggested books), and it's getting somewhat unwieldy tracking down and counting votes -- not least, because some books are being discussed in several places simultaneously (and endorsed by some of the same people in those different places), so it's a bit of a job to make sure votes are not being double-counted.

Reply to post #2 (show post):
Isn't it? :) My science books TBR has experienced a major tidal wave of book additions in the past couple of days alone ... such a lot of great suggestions by such a lot of different people!

Very nice! Thank you for making the list.

I suggest you put up whatever voting system you intend to use and give people until the end of the month to vote? Then have the next buddy read start beginning September? Just my 2 cents.

Sounds like that would work.

Reply to post #5 (show post):
It would.

Final vote count (if we do it this way) on Aug. 1?

(Footnote: I'll be traveling from July 21 to July 31, but returning home very late that day, so what with unpacking etc., voting statistics and updating the reading list probably will have to wait until later in the day or evening, CET.)

Ok, being on the ass end of the world, I'm late to the party, as usual. ;)

THANK YOU Themis (again) for doing what I've been dreading trying to do - that had to have been a bit of a slog and you have no idea how much I appreciate it.

To repeat what I said in BT's post:

The book club has a voting function, so what I suggest, is that we use these top books to create a voting list from and start a formal vote that way. The voting function is a rolling vote, it's not a begin/end poll, so we can use the three highest voted books to schedule the first three reads and then keep rolling new books onto the voting list for future lists (or take them off if they get no love at all).

I'd like to not start the voting though, until later this week, when we're closer to finishing our current book. I think it would confuse people if we gave the group a facelift while actively reading a book.

^That last sentence is what I wrote in the post, but seeing comments here, if everyone's comfortable with the change happening, I can do it today or tomorrow.

Let me know what you guys think. :)

Also does anyone have any ideas for a group name? I can't think of anything and if I ask MT he'll come up with all sorts of crazy names. :)

Reply to post #7 (show post):
Lame I know but: Science Cats?

Reply to post #7 (show post):
I like plain old "Nonfiction Science Book Club" or "Science Book Club" just fine.

But maybe someone else has a cuter suggestion about the TBR pile for nonfiction growing rapidly as suggested books ... or something geeky or nerdy?

Reply to post #10 (show post):
I also like Peregrinations'notion of not reading books in the same field of study back to back.

Reply to post #10 (show post):
I'm happy to hold off until August 1st; that will keep our current read completely separate from the beginning of the new, improved book club. I think, given that we're trying to choose a first book that most everyone already has or has access to, a 2 week time frame is reasonable; in the future I'd like to aim for 30 days minimum because I know from personal experience if a book has to be hunted down and ordered online, it can take awhile to arrive to the more antipodean locations. :) (12 weeks 1 book took last year, although most of them arrive within 21 days.)

I also like the idea of mixing up the topics; not everyone is going to participate in every read, so mixing it up will give everyone a better chance of seeing a book that appeals to them.

I like Peregrinations' Science for Poets. It has a ring to it and does not take it too seriously.

Also, I really like the ideas of mixing books up, and not starting too soon. We're still reading the current book, and we know that some current readers have joined in a bit later and aren't in a position to breeze through the book at great speed. (Not that anyone ever should need to.)

Reply to post #13 (show post):
Ok - so unless I hear compelling arguments to the contrary, I'll plan on setting up the group to vote on August 1 and we'll run it until the 15th, for a start date of September 1st.

And unless anyone has other group-name suggestions, I'm happy to go with Science for Poets. :)

Reply to post #7 (show post):
Again, happy to do this, and MbD, it actually wasn't too much of a slog -- certainly nothing compared to the reading lists you put together way back when last year for the Hallowe'en Bingo; all the more since thanks to a certain librarian's tireless work, the database actually gave me pretty good editions for most books right at the first try. (And for those where it didn't, as most people had book covers at the top of their suggestion list posts, I could work off the ISBNs of those editions.)

The proposed schedule should work (hopefully).

And I, too, agree on not picking books from the same field of science twice or several times in a row.

As for the group name, I like both "Science for Poets" and "Science Cats" (unless there'd be strenuous opposition from the dog owners around here!). "Science for Poets" would also, in a way, be in the spirit of the Humboldt group read ... my feeling is that both Humboldt brothers had a bit of a poetic strain; they didn't cultivate the acquaintance of Goethe for nothing (who in turn was as much a scientist and a politician as he was a poet and dramatist, as you guys discussed elsewhere). Ah, to have been able to eavesdrop on those conversations!!

Science for Poetical Cats?

(I'm totally kidding - that name sounds like Ginsburg is going to jump up on stage any minute)

Reply to post #17 (show post):
Science for Poet Cats?

(I was kidding about the cat suggestion. It just seems like a lot of us have cats...)