Even if, as a child, you never developed an obsession with dinosaurs, and even if, as an adult, you escaped the hype of Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park popcorn flicks, there is still a chance these monsters might intrigue you. One man who has the ability to spark a long dormant or undiscovered interest in extinct beasts is Robert Bakker, a dinosaur expert based in Wyoming (and past advisor on Spielberg's films). He's one of six scientists interviewed by Paul Hoffman on the abridged audiotape version of the PBS series Great Minds of Science.

It's clear why the producers chose to feature Bakker, an adjunct curator at the Tate Museum of Casper College in Wyoming, in the lead-off interview. His knowledge of dinosaurs and his ability to explain their evolution, habits, and appearance without ever seeming put-upon, bored, or superior to his audience is a good reason for the choice. But it is his enthusiasm for his lifelong interest that makes his interview worth hearing. Even those who disagree with his often controversial assertions - dinosaurs were warm-blooded, their extinction is unrelated to things falling out of the sky, they are with us today in the guise of birds (perhaps your budgie does have T. rex genes) - are just as likely to be entertained as they are to shake their heads in disagreement.

Despite popular belief, dinosaurs were not wiped out by a giant meteor strike, according to Bakker. He believes they died as a result of too much mingling, mingling made possible by formation of land bridges between previously isolated regions. With migration, he notes, come new germs. The "serial killer" of the dinosaurs, Bakker contends, was the microbe, not the meteor.

What disparities in the fossil record led him to that unpopular conclusion? If, he asks, a blast from the sky was great enough to wipe out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, why didn't it wipe out all the frogs, organisms that are having a rough time today? The fossil record, Bakker asserts, doesn't indicate any great frog die-off. The problem with his critics, he says, is that they "are not frog-savvy."

Bakker recounts the time he approached Luis Alvarez, a leading proponent of the meteorite-smote-the-dinosaur theory. Bakker said "'Luis, according to your theory, there would be a lot of acid rain and the world be chilled all over - including the tropics - suddenly.' He said, 'Of course.' 'That would kill a lot of frogs, Luis.' He thought about it, and thought about it and thought about. He said, 'Young man, I'm giving you the stars and you are talking about frogs!' and he got up and left. He didn't want to think about frogs or snails. The trouble is, people don't think about what doesn't go extinct. . . ."

Besides Bakker, two other interviewees will particularly interest biologists: Robert Gallo, director of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, and physiologist Jared Diamond, a man who has set himself "the modest task of trying to explain the broad pattern of human history, on all the continents, for the last 13,000 years." Others featured on the tapes are pioneering oceanographer Sylvia Earle, astronomer Sallie Baliunas, and artificial intelligence expert Marvin Minsky.

Some listeners may wish the program included interviews with scientists who disagree with views expressed by Bakker, Gallo, Diamond, and others. But this series was meant to provide profiles of individual scientists, not pros and cons of scientific controversies. For that, one can watch programs such as the PBS series Nova. It will be enough if these tapes sensitize listeners to controversies outside their individual fields of study.

Gallo, for instance, is allowed to review his classic studies of cancer viruses and recount his view of the history of early AIDS research. In response to a question about accusations that competition delayed the discovery of the virus, he responds, "It is almost absurd. Of course - and nothing is perfect - but to talk about 'slowed'? Competition almost always accelerates research."

Interviewer Hoffman doesn't push Gallo on the controversy surrounding his competition with French scientists to take credit for discovering HIV. In his introduction to the Gallo interview he offers a summary instead: "In 1984, Gallo and a French team at the Pasteur Institute in Paris independently announced that AIDS was caused by HIV. Gallo was subsequently embroiled in a bitter controversy over whether his team or the French team had made the discovery first. Patent royalties were at stake and charges of theft and fraud were tossed in, too. After years of investigation and innuendo, Dr. Gallo was ultimately vindicated." It is unlikely that Gallo would have been willing to rehash those years, and Hoffman gives him a chance to remind nonvirologists that he has other, better memories of research and his accomplishments.

Hoffman obviously respects the people he has chosen to profile. And he has the qualifications to interview them. Formerly president and editor in chief of Discover magazine, he is now the publisher of Encyclopaedia Britannica. He has written 10 books including Archimedes' Revenge: The Joys and Perils of Mathematics, How Many Zen Buddhists Does it Take to Screw in a Light Bulb?, and The Man Who Loved Only Numbers, a biography of the brilliant and eccentric mathematician Paul Erdös.

Hoffman asks the scientists how and when they first became interested in their scientific specialties. He then he goes on to explore the highlights and meaning of their work. His questions are relevant and timely. His purpose is to allow his subjects to showcase their enthusiasm and accomplishments. He doesn't challenge them. That is not unusual in science journalism. The first priority is to explain the science, a task which is often challenging enough. Clearly, he and his producers have thoughtfully researched the backgrounds and interests of the subjects.

Hoffman does an excellent job of keeping many of the interviews moving along without in any way highlighting himself, a characteristic that subtracts from the skills of many "celebrity" interviewers, especially in the entertainment/news industry (it hurts to insert that "/," but it has wedged itself between those words too tightly to be removed now.) Hoffman's questions do sometimes seem to jump quickly to a new topic. That might be the result of editing these abridged interviews, or it might be evidence of Hoffman's ability to keep things moving. In either case, it contributes positively to the end result.

In just a few cases - for instance, Sylvia Earle - the subjects may be too retiring or even too shy to generate excitement in those who are not familiar with their work. But even in these interviews, it is possible to appreciate their accomplishments. If you commute or can find enough leisure time to put on some headphones, it is worth listening to the stories of these men and women of science.