First she learns that Ivan Rank, under whose tutelage she once worked, is studying viral responses to the immune system, the same area in which she is working. Rank is an egotist and antifeminist, and not bloody likely to reason that his research and Celeste’s could be complimentary. Second, the university is considering expansion in another location which would make the logistics of communication between Celeste and others in related fields more difficult. But, the most upsetting problem of all is the bizarre death of George Churchill, a respected scientist in her field that could have supported her bid for tenure.

When two other researchers die under strange circumstances, Celeste begins to suspect that all three may have been murdered. Two possible motives occur to her. Perhaps someone in the field wishes to enhance his position by murdering the competition, in which case her life also could be in jeopardy. Or, someone wishes to remove all of Celeste’s supporters and block her from getting tenure.

Since the deaths of all three scientists happened in diverse locations, there is little communication between the law enforcement agencies involved . Also, two of the three deaths could easily be ascribed to unfortunate accidents, denying the credence of her murder theory. Celeste decides that official investigation is not going far enough. She must investigate on her own - especially when she learns that she may be a possible murder suspect.

B.B. Jordan’s Triplet Code presents an interesting look into the life of an academic researcher. The author goes into some detail in describing a potential way a virus could sabotage an immune system. Jordan also describes the struggle of academics to do valid research, obtain grant money while still pursuing that elusive tenure position. This aspect of the book has a realistic feel to it although it is of only tangential importance to the plot.

The plot of the book (and the ultimate solution to the murder) is novel. After having read numerous books relating the adventures of serial murders, novels set in alternating time periods, and police procedurals, it was a pleasant change of pace to read something told from the same point of view throughout the book, and not to have to flip between time frames.

However, there were several statements by the author that bothered me. Admittedly, my scientific background is much less impressive than Celeste’s (and, presumably, the author’s) but Celeste implies that the virus she is studying had a capacity for thought. “She (Celeste) explained her hypothesis that it was strategy on the part of the virus to deal with variation in the human population among MHC molecules.” Saying the virus has formulated a strategy leads me to believe that the virus has thought this one out carefully which I find hard to believe.

One of the murder victims dies from food poisoning - eating a tainted snail. According to the story line, a quick-thinking individual suggests that all the snail shell be collected and analyzed for poison. One snail shell goes missing, which someone posits is the one that contained the poisoned snail. My question - First, how could the murderer identify the correct snail shell? Or, if he had cleverly marked it, why bother? The vehicle for the poison should be obvious to all, and, there was nothing to link him individually to the snails.

Jordan’s writing style contains the penchant for unwarranted generalization. “Scientists seemed attracted to technical sports.” “Children of successful scientists were frequently ne’er-do-wells and, at best, underachievers.” These two observations were made by Celeste based on her circle of friends and associates, which is not a very large sample.

Although the author has crafted a unique plot with a novel ending, there were many irritating inconsistencies and gross generalizations which prevented me from completely enjoying the book. However, these are minor deficiencies in what is a basically logical and diligently constructed plot.

--Andy Plonka