Cantor's Dilemma

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, and not all that fictional
Review: "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.

Rating:
Summary: Cantor Shmantor
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: That's what happening!
Review: It reveals the bones of human and tells us the reality

Rating:
Summary: Finally - an academic novel about science! But the plot...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Finally - an academic novel about science! But the plot...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: a over simplification of reality
Review: 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.