Scan barcode
Reviews
The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize: Advice for Young Scientists by Peter C. Doherty
msmouse's review against another edition
2.0
I received a copy of this via net galley in exchange for an honest review.
Peter Doherty’s account of his path to the 1996 Nobel Prize is a scattershot. There are little bits of a lot of topics nestled into this work, just about all of them having to do with science or the prize in some way, but trying to identify a single theme was difficult. Doherty’s overall purpose seemed to be encouraging people to go into science, into science research specifically, and—if that’s not a possibility—at least to increase their scientific knowledge so they can vote responsibly.
His lack of organized focus made cyphering out his points harder at time. For instance, he criticized politicians who only care about science when it gets them votes rather than when it’s an issue for the well-being of the community. By having voters who are actually informed by real science instead of rhetoric and emotional pandering politicians would have to actually address problems in a meaningful way. He talks at length about genetically modified organisms and climate change as examples of instances where misinformation and emotion get in the way of science and progress. Doherty was very thorough with these issues, although he did stick to the science aspect and did not really go into the economic reasons people protest GMO. As this is a book on science and not on those matters it was fair to leave it out; however, it’s important to note these are examples of a larger dialogue problem between politicians, scientists, and the public and not a treatise on the issues themselves. It’s easy to get lost in complex issues and sometimes it felt like Doherty did so.
Overall, there is not so much science as to lose a reader. The middle of the book where he discusses the actual discovery that won him the prize is pretty complex. He acknowledges that he is simplifying his work so that a non-specialist could follow him, but it was a bit much for me. It has a couple of—not particularly useful—diagrams, but it could have used a few more. Slogging through the technical part was worth it, however, because he does get back to discussing science and the experience of scientists. I found that really interesting. The average person doesn’t really get much insight into the research science going on around the world in so many fields. I was especially interested in the global aspect of the work. I also found his characterization of science as a creative pursue to be intriguing. That was not my experience of science, but I can see how high-level research science might allow for—or require—some creative thought.
This book was originally published in 2005 and has been reissued with a new introduction by Doherty which reflects on the original book as well as updates a few numbers (e.g. world population). That said some of the references in the book are still a bit dated. For instance, he talks about Nelson Mandela as being alive. It made me wonder how up-to-date the science presented was if the references were old. The last chapter is looking forward to the future of science. The points put forward felt cutting edge, but then I’m not a scientist.
There is not all that much of Doherty’s personal biography in here. He talks about his work and briefly mentions his family and his upbringing, but otherwise there the only bit of himself he seems to have put in are his opinions on a handful of scientific issues and on the relationship between science and industry. Most of these he backs up with evidence, the exception being his stated views on cloning, but he again leaves out the problems associated with letting industry drive science (rather than vice versa). Again, this is a science book not an economic book. However, if he is going to put forward his views on these subjects I think he should put in his reasons/evidence for them as well.
Overall, I got a lot out of this book. It’s one that I had to take my time to process, but it was worth the effort. It’s made me want to go and read more about the history of science. 2.5 Stars.
Peter Doherty’s account of his path to the 1996 Nobel Prize is a scattershot. There are little bits of a lot of topics nestled into this work, just about all of them having to do with science or the prize in some way, but trying to identify a single theme was difficult. Doherty’s overall purpose seemed to be encouraging people to go into science, into science research specifically, and—if that’s not a possibility—at least to increase their scientific knowledge so they can vote responsibly.
His lack of organized focus made cyphering out his points harder at time. For instance, he criticized politicians who only care about science when it gets them votes rather than when it’s an issue for the well-being of the community. By having voters who are actually informed by real science instead of rhetoric and emotional pandering politicians would have to actually address problems in a meaningful way. He talks at length about genetically modified organisms and climate change as examples of instances where misinformation and emotion get in the way of science and progress. Doherty was very thorough with these issues, although he did stick to the science aspect and did not really go into the economic reasons people protest GMO. As this is a book on science and not on those matters it was fair to leave it out; however, it’s important to note these are examples of a larger dialogue problem between politicians, scientists, and the public and not a treatise on the issues themselves. It’s easy to get lost in complex issues and sometimes it felt like Doherty did so.
Overall, there is not so much science as to lose a reader. The middle of the book where he discusses the actual discovery that won him the prize is pretty complex. He acknowledges that he is simplifying his work so that a non-specialist could follow him, but it was a bit much for me. It has a couple of—not particularly useful—diagrams, but it could have used a few more. Slogging through the technical part was worth it, however, because he does get back to discussing science and the experience of scientists. I found that really interesting. The average person doesn’t really get much insight into the research science going on around the world in so many fields. I was especially interested in the global aspect of the work. I also found his characterization of science as a creative pursue to be intriguing. That was not my experience of science, but I can see how high-level research science might allow for—or require—some creative thought.
This book was originally published in 2005 and has been reissued with a new introduction by Doherty which reflects on the original book as well as updates a few numbers (e.g. world population). That said some of the references in the book are still a bit dated. For instance, he talks about Nelson Mandela as being alive. It made me wonder how up-to-date the science presented was if the references were old. The last chapter is looking forward to the future of science. The points put forward felt cutting edge, but then I’m not a scientist.
There is not all that much of Doherty’s personal biography in here. He talks about his work and briefly mentions his family and his upbringing, but otherwise there the only bit of himself he seems to have put in are his opinions on a handful of scientific issues and on the relationship between science and industry. Most of these he backs up with evidence, the exception being his stated views on cloning, but he again leaves out the problems associated with letting industry drive science (rather than vice versa). Again, this is a science book not an economic book. However, if he is going to put forward his views on these subjects I think he should put in his reasons/evidence for them as well.
Overall, I got a lot out of this book. It’s one that I had to take my time to process, but it was worth the effort. It’s made me want to go and read more about the history of science. 2.5 Stars.
More...