Customer Reviews

Cantor's Dilemma

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

 

 

It's just not fair. Academic novels - for all their delights - seem never to be set in science departments. From Lodge (Changing Places, Small World) to DeLillo (White Noise) to Russo (Straight Man), the hero or antihero is inevitably a professor of English Literature or some closely allied field within the liberal arts. (Some might point out that Jane Smiley's Moo is an exception; I would counter that it is also a disappointly weak novel.)

Of course, the temptation is always to dramatize (or satirize) that which one knows best, and with English faculty more prone to writing novels than are scientists, the scarcity of novels about physics, chemisty, or biology should come as little surprise. But finally, a scientist - Carl Djarassi - has entered the fray with a fine series of academic novels focused upon the natural science encampment of the Ivory Tower. Indeed, Djarassi's literary skills (while less likely to win him a second Nobel prize than his scientific ones) are of substantial merit.

The first of this series - Cantor's Dilemma - is not an academic satire, a la Lodge; instead, it is often praised as an exploration of the very serious ethical issues that arise when the stakes get high in the world of science. Indeed, the book does delve into this territory, and does so adeptly. And despite the serious subject matter, Cantor's dilemma is a fun read, and the pages fly by. The book's true strength, however, is overlooked in many reviews: Djarassi manages to present a penetrating look at the complex academic and personal relationships between two very driven men at very different stages in their careers. The strongest aspect of Cantor's Dilemma is its exploration of the complex blend of politicking, emotion, ambition, and collaboration, and friendship that together compose the interactions between a young postdoctoral fellow and his internationally-renowned mentor.

So why only three stars? Ultimately, the book disappoints. In his ending, Djarassi has chosen to abandon any pretense of realism, and to do so without any valid purpose. Neither irony nor necessity lie beneath Djarassi's plot direction; I can only conjecture that he allowed his novel to unfold as it does in order to provide some kind of grand and exciting narrative. A sad mistake; the drama here is truly all in the details.

"The Double Helix", James Watson's classic account of the elucidation of the structure of DNA, is often cited as an excellent description of how science is really conducted. However, this work of fiction supplants it. Djerassi describes many of the calculations, both professional and interpersonal, that go into the making and reporting of a scientific discovery. He covers everything, from the prestige accorded to anything from Harvard, to the assignment of referees to examine submitted papers.

Professor Isidore Cantor, a researcher with his own large laboratory, has an "aha" moment, where he suddenly understands the mechanism behind a type of cancer. He presents the idea at a conference and everyone immediately realizes that if it can be confirmed, it is Nobel Prize material. Cantor assigns the experimental verification to Jeremiah Stafford, a postdoc that he considers his best experimentalist. With the assignment comes a great deal of pressure, as the experiment must be completed in a few months. Stafford succeeds, but under the strain, he does not completely document the lab work. This creates a problem when another lab cannot duplicate the work and the process that leads to them sharing a Nobel Prize for the work has already begun.

Cantor and Stafford then try to duplicate the experiment and all appears to go well. However, an anonymous tipster informs Cantor that Stafford re-entered the lab at a late hour, which leads Cantor to believe that Stafford is altering the experiment. This prospect terrifies Cantor so much that he devises a second experiment that he carries out in his own private lab, where no one else is allowed to enter under any circumstances. That experiment succeeds, although there is a rift between them, as Cantor is not completely sure that Stafford did not massage his experiments and data to create the desired results. Hence the title of the book, where Cantor has a difficult time deciding how to handle his doubts regarding his junior colleague.

It is difficult for someone who is not in the competitive area of science to understand Cantor's fear. Having to retract a published experiment is one of the greatest public humiliations that a scientist can endure. If scientists were polled, I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority would readily endure a severe public flogging rather than have to admit professional failure. The shadowy and often unstated worlds of recommendations, reciprocal praise and assistance; competition to be first, the proper ways to criticize the work of a colleague and even the "proper" way to have a sexual relationship with a student much younger than you are all covered. I consider this to be the best book on how science is really done that has ever been published. I spent two years as part of a physics research group and I can state from personal experience that the descriptions of how group competition takes place are right on.

this book's reputation precedes inself but the actual book outdoes its reputation. wonderful and insightful and frightfully real. scary how the frailty of human nature is sometimes incompatible with the rigorous demands of scientific research. a must read for anyone in science

Admittedly, I am not a science-minded person. I approached this novel with caution, expecting it to be overly-technical and boring. Nevertheless, I gave it a chance and found it to be not only intellectual, but highly entertaining.

CANTOR'S DILEMMA moves along at a brisk pace, only rarely getting bogged down in technical terminology and scientific analysis. For example, one such passage early on in the book states: "While the radioactive labels were intended to locate the protein in different cell fractions, the C-13 labeled arginine would shed light on the spatial arrangement of this amino acid within the protein molecule through its nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum. Only a cell biologist with a thorough background in chemistry would have come up with such an idea." To which I can only reply "OK...I'll take your word for it..." Indeed, there are numerous instances in the book where the average reader will have to take Djerassi's word for it. However, since Djerassi is a world-renowned scientist himself, I feel pretty comfortable in believing he knows what he's talking about.

There is only one shortcoming that really stands out in Djerassi's writing: his portrayal of female characters. The characters themselves are strong and independent women, however, they are relatively flat. They come across as thinly-veiled excuses for Djerassi to discuss a major problem in the scientific world: the lack of women among the upper echelons of the scientific community. In this noble endeavor, Djerassi discusses several solid points about gender inequality, making the hollowness of his female characters, in my opinion, excusable because they serve a higher purpose.

In CANTOR'S DILEMMA, Djerassi exhibits a flare for storytelling and shows that he has substantial literary chops to go along with his numerous scientific awards. This work provided a level of intellectual stimulation that I haven't received from a book in a while.

I was at the talk of a certain Nobel Prize winner once and he said, half jokingly, that all science is motivated by hatred and envy. This certainly doesn't discount that and is fun to read for what it's worth.

I would however like to vent on the two main female characters. They're insultingly the most one-dimensional characters I've read in years. Granted, anyone who reads this book is looking for science anecdotes not general storytelling but I do have my limits

I don't doubt Djerassi has the science in this novel right (it's his own field after all). And I'm sure his description of the fraught relationships between junior and senior scientists, of the politics and intrigues that characterize academic science, etc., are spot on. All of the material in CD pertaining to the above might have made for an interesting article on the sociology of western science. To this reader's disappointment, Djerassi chose, instead, to weave these details into a totally contrived narrative, itself not nearly as annoying as the cardboard characters he peopled it with. Other reviewers have noted what short shrift Djerassi gave the female characters in CD. Too true. The male characters in CD don't fare much better. The dialogue in CD is lousy; the story unbelievable (is there any chance the young scientist in this story would, in real life, have earned a Nobel for the work he did [it's not like he even designed the experiment, let alone advance the hypothesis; he simply carried out an experiment of his mentor's design]?; is there any chance of anyone receiving a Nobel the very same year as accomplishing the work for which they earned it? [I'm on shakier ground here; perhaps this has happened in the history of the prize] -- neither, especially the first, strikes me as likely). And if I had to read through one more juvenile sex scene, not to mention that beautiful young coed X threw herself at senior scientist Y, or that beautiful accomplished older woman W threw herself at senior scientist Z, I would have needed a crowbar to pry my eyeballs forward in my head. So much of CD read like the author's own private fantasy. A weak story very lamely told. 2 stars for the interesting insights to which I referred above.

As a chemist and an active researcher, I approached Cantor's Dilemma with a different type of trepidation than most readers probably do. I knew I would have no problem understand the lingo and the science (Djerassi himself appears in several of my favourite reference textbooks and is often put forward as the prime example of scientific research driving societal ethics). No, I was worried that the book would disappoint in providing a watered-down or unrealistic representation of research. In some ways the latter is true (more on that below) but the book was thoroughly enjoyable once I recognised this important point: like an episode of the TV show ER, everything that happens in the book COULD theoretically happen, although it's unlikely it would all happen in a 1-hour time slot, or in a mere 300 pages.

The plot: the eponymous protagonist "I.C." Cantor dreams up a grand-unified theory behind the mechanism of cancer. He then proceeds to come up with an experiment to prove his theory and sets his top post-doctoral researcher, Stafford, on the project. After the experiment is performed and his thesis seemingly proven, Cantor and Stafford are awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine. That is when the problems start: a fellow cancer researcher, the only one to whom Cantor has divulged the details of his experiment, cannot replicate it. Suspicion clouds the relationship between Cantor and Stafford as the latter's lab book is woefully incomplete and an anonymous tip implied to Cantor that Stafford was falsifying data. Sensing something is amiss, the researcher who cannot replicate the results starts subtly blackmailing Cantor, fishing for a Nobel for himself.

Certainly, there are clear-cut cases of academic fraud in the physical sciences: in my field (conducting materials) there have been a few notable cases of falsification of data. This is not limited to American universities - one recent case occurred in Korea, while another was in an American private lab (perpetrated by a Swiss national). As the book points out, these frauds are always exposed (at least, if they are important enough to be influential). Djerassi is too savvy to allow his protagonist to be caught in such a clear-cut case of fraud. This is why the book deserves a full 5 stars - Cantor is almost a classic tragic hero. His personal foibles and flaws inevitably lead him to a no-win scenario: he must succumb to the threats of his colleague or risk exposure and disgrace for something that isn't really his fault (if any data WAS falsified, it was by Stafford the post-doc, not Cantor).

The best parts of the book actually take place in Sweden, at the presentation of the Nobel Prizes. Unlike some reviewers seem to think, Djerassi himself has not won this prize (although he has won the Priestley medal, which is the highest American honour for a chemist). However, in these chapters he writes with an authority and skill that isn't as obvious in the rest of the book. Similarly, when his characters are involved in the everyday stuff - students asking career advice, for example, the characters are fully representative of the average professor at any academic institution from Harvard to the smallest liberal-arts college.

Quite aside from the main plot is the general presentation of the life of academics presented in the book. I was bemused by the extra-curricular shenanigans that fill much of the book and the fact that all the profs are "renaissance men". A university professor is just as likely to listen to Guns `n' Roses as Beethoven or BB King (I have CDs by all these people). Just as "Animal House" represents the fraternity lifestyle in a bizarre counter-universe sort of way, so too does "Cantor's Dilemma" represent a surreal superposition of modern-day research and the kind of hippy counter-culture that Djerassi himself helped usher into being with his discovery of oral contraception. Written in the mid-80s (published in 1989), Djerassi does not seem to have grasped the importance of the tectonic shift in academia away from liberalism to consumerism that was occurring at the time (students no longer attend university to learn per se, they go to get a degree that will allow them to get a good job). For example, when a professor beds a student from his first-year class, he only seems concerned with allaying her fear that she might become pregnant: "Don't worry, I've been fixed". Instead, the late `80s was dominated by AIDS and a few high-profile date-rape cases. To see professors so cavalierly disregarding current sexual mores is quaint, to put it mildly - if such a thing came to the notice of the upper administration of my university, the professor in question would quickly find himself escorted from campus by security and his office reassigned to a new faculty member by the time he got his pink slip. But again, for all its foibles, the book was extremely entertaining and I will likely be recommending it to my chemistry and academic friends for years to come.

The main character fails to be the shallowest I've ever encountered only by virtue of his contrast to the female love interest, a fembot with interest in three (and only three) things: working out, research and screwing male scientists. Seriously, it's the worst book I've ever read, and I've read "Racing in the Rain." Awful.

Kudos for Dr. Djerassi for sharing with us his knowledge about the inner works of science in an entertaining way. Anyone interested in a career in hardcore science in the U.S. should read this book.

This little book (Cantor's dilemma) came to my attention ironically not because of its well celebrated English version, but because of the new Chinese translation, which bore a new name (The prisoner of the Nobel Prize). Anyway, I spent a whole evening enthusiastically (at the beginning) perusing it (the English version), but was left with more or less joy.

Many people in Amazon.com have praised this little book presumably without any reservation. I would also first congratulate the author's great effort to write a novel on scientific ethics, and in particular for the psychoanalysis of scientists. However, in terms of literature and science, I would say this book is not worth much attentions.

The plot in this novel is too simple. A serious professor had a brilliant idea (which is flawed based on biology, by the way), two worked experiments (probably), and the Nobel prize, but suffered by unverified experiments due to suspicious manipulations of his postdoc. It surprised me that he won the prize within a year. This oversimplified the reality. If the professor didn't publish his experiment details and furthermore the experiments couldn't be replicated in other labs (officially), it is impossible to get the Nobel prize, let alone within a year. It would be better that the professor didn't get the Nobel prize and was constantly suffered from unverified experiments, rumors of data fabrication, and science politics. The deft handling of these crisis is more interesting for future academic seekers.

One of the key components in this book is about research ethics. We have heard many rumors about research ethics. This book talked about a similar situation occurred in the Noble Laurel David Baltimore's lab, in which a postdoc was involved some manipulations of data. I like the author's way of presentation: hinted but never gave a definite answer whether the postdoc did something wrong with the experiment or not.

In terms of science ethics, I would like recommend people reviewing one of the most horrible studies in modern history: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. This study was initiated by the United States Public Health Service, together with the Tuskegee Institute in 1932. The study recruited 399 black men diagnosed with syphilis in Macon County, Alabama to determine the effects of untreated syphilis. The study would last until 1970, way after the discovery of penicillin in 1943, which is the most effective drug to treat syphilis. Unfortunately, these black men, with the highest education at 7th grade, were only treated by aspirin and an iron supplement. It was till mass media caught this horror that halted this experiments. By then, many had died of complications of syphilis.

Although the book spent quite some length talking about trust, responsibility, authorship , lab rules, and in particular the peer pressure and jealousy, advisor seeking, tenure system, and gender discrimination, the author barely scratched the surface of publishing process, grant application and management, and other important research activities. It is possible that the author thought his intended readers are most likely undergraduates or beginning graduates. However, beginning graduates are eager to know how these research activities are like so that they can decide whether they want to seek academic jobs or not. Most time advisors are reluctant to talk about these issues with new graduate students.

The author also devoted some pages on sex, especially on teacher-student type of sex. I am not sure why he blended sex in this book but it did add some vintages in it. The depicting of female scholars in this novel is too optimistic. That a fresh female chemistry PhD can get an assistant professorship in Harvard, Cal tech, and Wisconsin is amazing, if not shocking.

In terms of writing skills, the author seemed to have adopted a film making style. However, sometimes background events cut into flow of story too abruptly. Furthermore, the author lacked the ability to write juicy words when he was describing romantic events. His view of sex and romance was also old fashioned.

I think the ending is the worst part of this novel. As we all know, academic people are good at insinuating things. A famous professor will never write a blunt insulting letter to another professor. I guess the author tried to give solutions to all problems left in the novel instead of giving some hints. This reflects his lack of confidence to his readers, which are at least college students ( I doubt a not prepared high school student can understand many concepts discussed in his book).

In summary, if you don't know much about scientists, this book will give you a good kick start. If you are a graduate student who talk with your advisors very often, this book may be too simple to you. If you are a seasoned researcher, it is probably wiser to use your time on other amusements.