Customer Reviews

Advice To A Young Scientist (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Series)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Professor Medawar is much aware of following in the footsteps of William Cobbett, (the famous 'Advice to Young Men and (incidentally) to Young Women', written in the early 1800's and still in print), and wishes to avoid being dull and preachy. He is incapable of either, and he here shares his experience of a distinguished career in the biological sciences for the benefit of the aspiring scientist in any research discipline. This book would be useful to anyone entertaining the idea of a science-based career, certainly up to the graduate stage. It is also probably of specific interest to any biologist whether student, teacher, or researcher. This is an original and personal book, by a writer who won a Nobel prize in 1960 for his research in the area of human tissue transplants. He is here both literate and highly practical; the wisdom of a lifetime, normally only acquired slowly by personal life experience, is distilled and decanted with dry humour.

The chapters cover: 'How can I tell if I am cut out to be a scientific research worker?', which contains a revealing and exceedingly quick intelligence test, (and which would probably be of great value as a surprise question in executive job interviews). A psychologist would classify this as a very direct test of 'little g', or the general intelligence factor, and it is refreshingly free of bias due to gender, culture, and educational attainment level.

The chapter 'What shall I do research on?' contains the observations of a typical biologist, very down to earth. Likewise, 'How can I equip myself to be a scientist?', which contains guidance on balancing reading research with hands on activity.

'Aspects of scientific life and manners' is the best chapter: an excellent set of observations on teamwork, respect for colleagues, the scientist's moral requirement of dedication to Truth, how to handle mistakes, giving fair credit for discoveries, and how to keep your friends (by handling the critical scientific habit of mind correctly! Take notes...). The snobismus (a most excellent neologism) divide between pure and applied science, and between technicians and researchers is also noted and handled well.

The professor interestingly distinguishes between four types of experiment. The Baconian or messing around type; the Aristotelian or proving a point type; the Galilean or critical type (the normal type as most think of science today); and the Kantian or thought experiment, much beloved of the other Greeks.

'The Scientific Process' analyses and challenges Kuhn's theory of scientific paradigms and paradigm shifts. And the chapter 'Scientific Meliorism versus Scientific Messianism' concerns the psychology and worldview of scientists, and throws some enjoyable light on his debates with C. S. Lewis, whom he knew well. This latter debate proves (although he would deny it), that although he approaches C. P. Snow's ideal of the man who can bridge the two cultures - of those schooled in the humanities, and those in the sciences - he fails. The disparity in the cultural worldviews is too great. The book is usefully rounded off with an index.

The professor is keenly aware throughout that, as he simply observes, 'scientists are people': practical but fallible, given to snobbery but capable of egregious open-mindedness, technocratic but social optimists at heart. All in all, Medawar is the best of teachers, teaching with his heart and his head: he dispels stereotypes, he advises on handling your emotions, he inspires. This type of book is all too rare.

Michael JR Jose, amarula4@yahoo.co.uk

There have been many "advice books" on how to make it in the scientific profession in the last decade, this due no doubt to the collapse of the academic job market in the United States, which had been able to absorb even foreign applicants up until about the mid 1990s. The practice of science research luckily though has not been confined to the university, but has taken up residence in industry, where it is currently rising steadily.

This book is not one of these but was written in 1979 and endeavors to give advice on just how a young person is to proceed in their goal of becoming a scientist. There is no advice here on how to get a current academic position, but instead the author gives a fairly optimistic overview of what he believes are criteria for leading one's life as a (succesful) scientist. It is quite a refreshing book to read in that it does not express the cynicism that frequently accompanies contemporary discussion of academic life.

The author is not shy about discussing academic life, both its virtues and its vices. For example he describes an individual, which he mistakenly though calls a "scientist", who plagiarized some photographs and paragraphs of text from a fellow worker and presented them in a scientific essay contest. One of the judges was apparently the person from which the material was stolen, but the aversion to scandal of the culprit's institution caused him to find employment elsewhere. Both acts, the plagiarism and the institution's coverup, are despicable of course, and individuals who engage in them cannot be labeled as scientists, that designation reserved only for those who respect and practice honesty in all phases of their lives.

The rewards for doing scientific research are also described very accurately by the author. The "oceanic feeling" that Freud described when making a discovery is described by the author as something that will definitely keep an individual tied to the scientific profession, if there was any doubt before. The roller coaster ride of confidence and depression that can take place when doing scientific research makes this a welcome feeling, one that goes far beyond any peer recognition or financial rewards.

Most refreshing is that the author decides to discuss sexism and racism in the scientific profession, an issue that has been a severe problem in the history of the university, particularly with women. Women are more welcome in the scientific profession now, but there are issues with such things as maternity leave that still need to be ironed out. The author makes it a point to note that in his experience women do not approach scientific research in any way that is distinctive in comparison with men. Any university that makes a conscious effort to hire women because of social or political pressures is doing itself, and the women (and men) it hires, an extreme disservice. The scientific profession, as all others, is an aristocracy of ability, and hiring decisions should always be decided on merit, not favoritism or some diversity quota system. Nothing can be more heartbreaking than to see enormously talented individuals locked out of positions because they did not have the "right connections".

The are numerous other issues that the author discusses, such as the place of recognition and scientific prizes, and social attitudes about scientists. The book will no doubt be of assistance to at least a few young people who have decided to become scientists. If even just one young person does, the book has done its job.

This book is not really giving advice to young scientists, as much as it is a device used to discuss what science really is. Apparently, the author was too subtle about his intention for many readers. It deserves four or five stars like most of Medawar's classic writings.

Could be condensed to about three pages. History of Scientific thought edifying,but not germane to an inner person's workings. It's like attempting to deal with a psychological, spiritual problem by lecturing on the philosophy of thought, or history. Some may like that. It certainly puts things in perspective, and I am the better for it. But does it really deal with my question. Then there is stuff that does deal with the question: Speaking about the intellectual life of being in a lab and doing research. I mean the part about a continual ferment of reexamining the hypothesis on a day to day basis in light of the results, as well as the ideas involved. He makes his point there: that hypothetic-deductive reasoning- as he calls it- happens as a result of the work daily, rather than against the backdrop of what is considered "Ok to be thought in the field, which is Thomas Kuhn's point. In so doing he handily dismisses , The structure of Scientific revolutions, while demonstrating its philosophic worth, as not what really happens in the intellectual life of a scientist. i do buy that.
However, I think his main point is that he says one does not have to be smart to be a scientist. Written in a sparkling highfalutin style, Medawar disproves his own point. He is Olympian. When we climb up there with him, we get the view from the heights. Very valuable. But had he written this in a down to earth style- some of the locutions are so roundabout as to be elegant literary equivalents of symbolic logic- he would make his point more convincing. He says that "imaginative guesswork" comes out of common sense. Again, I agree with him. He makes his point. He says that is what you need to do science. yes, no doubt. But to do it as well as he did, perhaps you have to be as smart as he was.
His point is one can be a journeyman in science, or a technician, as well as a theoretical physicist. So then call your book: So you want to be a journeyman or a mediocre scientist? ( All you need is Common sense. Sing it John Lennon.) He anticipates molecular biology as well. What a great guy to hang out with! But to read, well does he really address the real concerns of a young scientist? Perhaps, in certain places, but only as a platform to launch his brilliant, philosophical pyrotechnics, which I fear are not what the young undergraduate, no matter how smart, needs. And some of what he says is just plain dated, as society has changed. The whole section on women in science while correct, is, shall we say, quaint. And for him, post docs were a new thing. Te effect is more of a graduating class address: hortatory inspiration, but not personal or useful, except in parts. Still, I did love reading it, and one wants to read more of his books.

This book is a collection of advice on different subjects the author finds important for scientists. Some of the advice is helpful. But still the book suffers from several problems: * Its language is often stilted and old-fashioned * Most subjects are only shortly touched (e.g., writing, the scientific process) and a large part of the advice consists of trivialities everybody involved in science certainly knows already. So if you are really interested in in-depth advice on doing science well, you should probably read other, more specialized books (e.g., Krantz: A Primer of Mathematical Writing). Thus the title of the book is rather misleading: The book is not for scientists (not even for young scientists), but it might be the book of choice for people who have to decide whether to go into science, or for people who just want to have a taste of what scientific life is about.

The advices in this book are very blend. This book is far inferior when compared to books like "Advice for a young investigator" or "A PhD is not enough."