Take a photo of a barcode or cover
11 reviews for:
Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor
Brian Keating
3.52 AVERAGE
11 reviews for:
Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor
Brian Keating
3.52 AVERAGE
A highly enjoyable read on the history and behind-the-scenes of the Nobel Prize, one man quest to win it, and the conflicts within the field of physics.
Everyone I know working with the BICEP project hates this guy. And his writing is a bit self-indulgent. But, overall, the book weaves an explanation of complex cosmology into an interesting narrative and it kept me interested over the two days I read it. I am glad to know a bit more about the history of BICEP and I don't know of another resource that provides it.
This book was all over the place - I still don’t know what he was trying to write - a text for beginners in astronomy? A text of the history of astronomy? An autobiography? A tell-all of why he deserves the Nobel prize? A critique of the Nobel prize’s rules? A means to show off how many clever sub-titles he can come up with? And there’s a bit of religion, philosophy & even poetry thrown in.
There is certainly a lot of astronomical knowledge imparted - my favourite part was probably learning a little bit about some of the forgotten female astronomers.
Many of his gripes about the prize sound like a child learning that life is unfair. P. 221 ‘If the nobel Prize is a true meritocracy..’. Well, it’s not, is it? It’s a set of arbitrary rules made by a guy who died long ago & subjectively applied by a committee today.
It seems that his problems with this prize are also actually just symptoms of bigger, broader problems - why is the Nobel prize so sought after - the money, the prestige, the jobs, the grants the ability to run long term projects on your research interests forever after? Perhaps it is actually the scientific research system that is broken - why are so many good scientists forced to compete for such a small pool of funding? Why is the mode of demonstrating accomplishment ‘publish or perish’? Why are these projects in such fierce competition, when they would probably make much more progress, more efficiently and economically, if they collaborated -at least sometimes. Why isn’t there more funding for science? What models would support greater scientific research & advances? These are more interesting questions, I think. He does just barely touch on a few of these ideas, towards the end, and I particularly like how a collaboration forms between former competitors near the end - but it took the suggestion of their big potential bankroller to do it...
You end up almost feeling sorry for him - not for not winning a Nobel Prize (which he clearly was desperate for), but for being so obsessed with it. He seems baffled by other scientists who don’t appear fazed when they are passed over or missed out. I know it’s a big deal, and some of these scientific fields can be incredibly intense. But despite being someone who looks at the immensity of the universe for a living, he seems to miss the big picture - that prizes, even this big, are the icing, not the cake.
There is certainly a lot of astronomical knowledge imparted - my favourite part was probably learning a little bit about some of the forgotten female astronomers.
Many of his gripes about the prize sound like a child learning that life is unfair. P. 221 ‘If the nobel Prize is a true meritocracy..’. Well, it’s not, is it? It’s a set of arbitrary rules made by a guy who died long ago & subjectively applied by a committee today.
It seems that his problems with this prize are also actually just symptoms of bigger, broader problems - why is the Nobel prize so sought after - the money, the prestige, the jobs, the grants the ability to run long term projects on your research interests forever after? Perhaps it is actually the scientific research system that is broken - why are so many good scientists forced to compete for such a small pool of funding? Why is the mode of demonstrating accomplishment ‘publish or perish’? Why are these projects in such fierce competition, when they would probably make much more progress, more efficiently and economically, if they collaborated -at least sometimes. Why isn’t there more funding for science? What models would support greater scientific research & advances? These are more interesting questions, I think. He does just barely touch on a few of these ideas, towards the end, and I particularly like how a collaboration forms between former competitors near the end - but it took the suggestion of their big potential bankroller to do it...
You end up almost feeling sorry for him - not for not winning a Nobel Prize (which he clearly was desperate for), but for being so obsessed with it. He seems baffled by other scientists who don’t appear fazed when they are passed over or missed out. I know it’s a big deal, and some of these scientific fields can be incredibly intense. But despite being someone who looks at the immensity of the universe for a living, he seems to miss the big picture - that prizes, even this big, are the icing, not the cake.
The book has three distinct parts: personal memoir, history of astronomical discovery, and reflections on the Nobel Prize and the structure of scientific research. The organization of the book was poor, since these three parts interrupted each other, despite their lack of synergy. Frankly, the three parts are so loosely connected that they should have been put into three separate books. The memoir part was largely uninteresting. The astronomical history was interesting, at least, and reasonably accessible to the scientifically literate layperson. It skipped some important parts, though. The Nobel part was also interesting, but a bit long-winded – it could easily have been condensed into a long article.
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
My opinion of this book went back and forth a bit. Early on, I was very much into the Keating's writing and the story he was telling. However, when I got to the first of a few chapters where he offers his prescription for fixing the way the Nobel committee allocates its prizes, I started to smell sour grapes and my interest waned a bit. I kept with it and I'm very glad I did because Keating brings it all together in the latter third of the book. The level of technical detail is just about right for a popular science book. I would have preferred just a bit more, but I usually do with these sorts of books. The attempts to provide strands of connective tissue by way of autobiography are strained at times, but it's Keating's book and he clearly is a key player. When all is written and done, "Losing the Nobel Prize" is a compelling reflection about one of cosmology's most important recent episodes regarding the cosmic microwave background radiation and gravitational waves written by a key contributor still in the prime of his scientific career.
In many ways, "Losing the Nobel Prize" is a fine complement to the another book I recently read by Adam Becker called "What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics". Becker takes a longer, historical and somewhat philosophical perspective in his personality-driven accounting of about 100 years of quantum physics. Keating's focus is squarely on the last 25 years of cosmology and he offers a more practical and systemic consideration of how modern science is done and recognized.
In many ways, "Losing the Nobel Prize" is a fine complement to the another book I recently read by Adam Becker called "What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics". Becker takes a longer, historical and somewhat philosophical perspective in his personality-driven accounting of about 100 years of quantum physics. Keating's focus is squarely on the last 25 years of cosmology and he offers a more practical and systemic consideration of how modern science is done and recognized.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
This was a wonderful book, a vivid, personable, and accessible description of the scientific process, and a thought-provoking critique of the Nobel. I really appreciate the author's explanations of scientific concepts (one of the reasons I read it was to improve my own writing about astronomy for the public!) and the multiple story threads that are woven together into a portrait of not only the author and his quest for the prize, but also of modern astronomy and the scientific landscape.
Really, I was feeling the emotion by the end of it, which means this is more than just any old nonfiction book of facts. Great book!
Really, I was feeling the emotion by the end of it, which means this is more than just any old nonfiction book of facts. Great book!
I feel like this book was conceived out of the author's bitterness but the outcome was an interesting memoir intertwined with a historical account of how science, at least one corner, was shaped by the hard work of brilliant minds and some happy coincidences. I like this so much because I can relate to how ambitious the author was and how painful it is to just "settle". Regarding his critiques towards the Nobel Prize, I think they were valid. Granting that this came from a person who is obviously still caught up in his feelings, it kind of loses its touch on me.
It's such a human thing to be so competitive. The invincibility we feel out of a winning streak can make us so disillusioned. What if the Nobel Prize was organized and decided this way, would that even change the result? Would he win? I also have my own "what ifs" and I've learned that being grateful for the current state of my life can be sometimes numbing.
It's such a human thing to be so competitive. The invincibility we feel out of a winning streak can make us so disillusioned. What if the Nobel Prize was organized and decided this way, would that even change the result? Would he win? I also have my own "what ifs" and I've learned that being grateful for the current state of my life can be sometimes numbing.