Customer Reviews

Winning the Games Scientists Play

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

 

 

This book has one key message: every game has its rules, and scientists should understand the rules of their game and play it both professionally and ethically. Though many scientists may disdain such things, the author argues that the scientific enterprise is not divorced from the messy world of people, and that there are many complexities that scientists must master to have successful careers.

The author discusses a wide range of topics from a highly pragmatic standpoint, including publishing, presenting, attending meetings and conferences, chairing sessions, understanding problems women in science face, coping with bureacracy, and dealing with lawyers, politicians, and the public. I found these sections enlightening, since these are part of "The Things That You Don't Learn in Grad School But Should Anyway."

Although the author occasionally comes off as cynical, his basic message still stands. He has many good insights into how science works, and gives his honest opinion on the elements it takes (beyond a strong research ability) to become a successful and respected scientist.

This is a good book for those scientists who are really, truly hiding under a rock, but will not be helpful for most others. The book can be summed up in a few sentences: Be nice to everyone you meet. Do good work. Don't allow yourself to get walked on. Now you can move on to a book with some practical advice like "Tomorrow's Professor."

This book teaches the written and unwritten rules in the scientific games. How to move up, on and out to where you want and not to be a pawn in someone else's game.

This is a deeply troubling book, both for reasons of content and for its projection of a certain view about the scientific community. Its goal is to advise would-be scientists on a set of actions that will increase their eventual success as professional scientists. The book is merely a collection of opinions with no historical, statistical, or even anecdotal justification. The reader will not find in this book a statistical study or comparison between individuals who follow its advice, and those that don't. Why should readers believe that engaging in the conduct recommended will "win" them respect in the scientific community? Are there objective, rigorous, studies available that show this is the case? Are the rules of the "scientific game", as described in the book, so constraining so as to result in low bandwidth against those who do not follow them? There are no examples given of individuals who have achieved much in science but who have not played these games. Are there no such individuals? Where is the scientific evidence that following such a game-playing path will result in scientific excellence?

I do not know of, nor have I met, anyone who has read this book and consequently decided to follow its advice. In addition, I have not done a scientific study of the sociology of its advice to be able to judge its efficacy. The disgust I felt while reading the book does not disqualify it from being sound advice. Anecdotally speaking though, I have known a few individuals who have followed, with delight, what could be described as the "easy" path to scientific recognition. Their algorithm of conduct is to do the least possible, to follow the path of least resistance, to appear competent regardless of the factual evidence to the contrary, to suppress the creative and to admonish those that express it, and to ridicule the "idealism" of those who do not follow their myopic, pessimistic vision of life. Having indulged themselves in these unproductive games, they seem unable to end them and find the center, the goal of the game. Reaching retirement age, they have lost themselves, tragically, in the labyrinth of anger and cynicism.

The true scientist is a truth seeker, and plays a game of logic and experimentation. Science is a game of total honesty with oneself and others. The true path of science is a highly constrained one to be sure, as it respects only patience with ideas and tools. There are no shortcuts in its path. No amount of advertising can alleviate its requirement for validation with what is real. Syllogisms and experiments only obey the rigorous game of facts....we are all indeed fortunate to have these kinds of games being played by hundreds of thousands of scientists today.