Product Description

Customer Reviews (5)

You're misunderstanding the purpose of this book
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.

A very blend book
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."

Good advice and refreshingly optimistic.
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 bookis 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 thatfrequently 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.

Collection of partly useful, partly trivial advice
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 ondoing 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 notfor 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.

Excellent Advice to a Young Scientist
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 ... Read more

Product Description
"He's tart, tough-minded, terribly British...an imposing grand master of aphorism, argument and lightning-bolt one-liners."So Newsweek writer wrote of Sir Peter Medawar, the renowned British immunologist."The most accomplished writer of popular-science essays," declared the Philadelphia Inquirer.Now this Nobel Prize-winning scientist and highly acclaimed author of Pluto's Republic, Aristotle to Zoos, and many other books has written a fascinating account of his own life.

The image of man as a cross between Pascal's "thinking reed" and Falstaff's "forked radish," expressed in the title of Sir Peter's autobiography, stems from his humble desire "not to claim for myself as an author any distinction more extravagant than membership of the human race."But it is an exceptional life that unfolds in the pages of this incisive and witty memoir.Sir Peter describes his early years in Rio de Janiero, "the rude and barbaric life of Marlborough," Oxford in 1930s, his illnesses and recovery, and the rewards and frustrations of work in a wide variety of academic institutions around the world.Rich anecdotes abound--his early school days and family life, his musical education, his wife Jean and their family, his frequent visits to America, and much more.A sheer delight to read, this highly personal account illuminates the life of one of the most engaging and impressive men of out time.

About the Author:

Sir Peter Medawar won the 1960 Nobel Prize for Medicine.He is a Fellow of the British Academy and author of several volumes of scientific essays.

The Noble Prizewinner reminisces about his dual career in the worlds of science and letters ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Risible aspects of a life
To begin at the end, Peter Medawar concludes "despite its vicissitudes, my life has by no means been without its risible aspects."

That is how we know him, because that is how he presented himself in a series of books, notably "Pluto's Republic": a vastly intelligent, ironic, sardonic skewerer of silly egos.

Well, that and his Nobel Prize for discovering immunological resistance.

In 1986, at age 71 and slowed by a series of strokes, he composed a brief, episodic "life" that is not, as he says, so much a history of his life as a chance to express opinions about things.

It is his willingness to express opinions -- some original, some oft-thought but seldom expressed -- that keeps all Medawar's popular writings so fresh. And his courage. Not many -- probably not any -- other well-known public figure in England would go public with his remarks about the sadism of the homosexual nurses who plagued him in a rehabilitation hospital after his first stroke. We can take it as read that the sadism was real; Medawar, of all people, would not make it up.

He also has at snobismus, disparagers of the National Health Service (the greatest social innovation in the past 150 years, he says, apparently dating from the revision of the Poor Laws), communism, racism (as the son of Lebanese Maronite, he ran up against it), and many others.

Medawar pulls no punches. He was a great admirer of Karl Popper and judged the later generation of philosophers "mavericks and clowns." A just assessment despite the disrepute that Logical Positivism also enjoys now.

It is thus startling to discover that even Medawar nods. I do not share his enthusiasm for opera, which is neither here nor there; but his distaste for Gilbert is strangely stated. He finds Sullivan's music mediocre but Gilbert's librettos callous in their treatment of old maids. Maybe so, but it is odd for him to say the cruelty came about because of a well-known demographic shortage of marrying men in the middle classes.

Whatever can he mean by that? Yes, there was a shortaage when he started attending G&S productions, but there was no slaughter of men in the 1840s and `50s that would have affected Gilbert's or his audiences' attitudes in the `70s and `80s. Very strange.

It is also a shock to find Medawar, usually so careful and skeptical, falling for the claptrap of Amory and Hunter Lovins. That he would admire such Luddites is particularly perplexing in light of his genial acceptance of scientific progress. The Lovinses are not about either progress or science. Strange bedfellows.

An autobiography both modest and hilarious
It's unfortunate that this book is out of print. Medewar won the 1960 Nobel Prize for his research in tissue transplantation, and later wrote extensively on science and scientific method (see his other books, esp.Pluto's Republic).

This book is autobiographical and, as the authorsuggests, is not so much a life story as a series "of opinions whichmy life can be regarded as a pretext for holding." Well-written,lucid, with many wonderful descriptions of the humor and fun which camewith his life. He looks back on his life with a degree of indulgent joy; assuccessful as it was, it was the journey, not the destination, which heenjoyed.

If you feel that the education system is not geared for you, yetyou hunger for what an education can provide, this book will give you hope.Medewar succeeded despite the education system, rather thanbecause ofit.

This book has some strong opinions in it, with which you may notagree. That's fine. Enjoy it for its clarity and enjoyment of life, despitevarious trials along the way. ... Read more