Yes, as somebody who worked with Carl in my grad school days I appreciated that article. However, I think the book mostly focuses on the next generation of molecular evolutionists (Ford Doolittle, Bill Martin, etc.). I remember reading Nick Lane's "The Vital Question" a couple of years ago and I was annoyed that Woese got like one sentence and Lane made it seem like Martin had come up with his ideas in a vacuum. I'm glad that it looks like Quammen is at least going to put their ideas in the context of what Woese did.

I was told by an unreliable source that it was W E Balch who pushed Woese to think about them being their own domain - although certainly aprochyphal, that doesn't surprise me given Bill's personality.

Bill himself rather flatly told me something along those lines, though I’ve heard various other accounts / opinions. I don’t doubt anyone. Blurred contributions seem inherent to “a-ha” data interpretation moments on science—(as much as “a-ha moment” is how it really happens)

that may have been my unreliable source.

An entire book the vital question is basically just a pitch for that guy's personal research beliefs. He trashed a lot of good science making variance on claims with your more or less just considered part of the system today