Title: Rothwell, N. Who wants to be a scientist? Choosing science as a career
Abstract: According to the publisher’s jacket note, ‘If you are considering a career in research . . . this book should offer some advice’. I find no reason to argue with this claim. Nancy Rothwell has provided a thorough treatment of the stages and progression of a career in late 20th century science, which qualifies well for inclusion in the burgeoning ‘self‐help’ genre. She has clearly brought a treasury of personal experience, acute observation and relayed‐wisdom to her task, and has provided clear guidance and a comprehensive set of recommendations for the aspiring scientist or the researcher in mid‐career. Her words are set within the context of a detailed and realistic picture of contemporary institutions and practice. Advice is not limited to navigation of the career path and personal advancement: a chapter entitled ‘Responsibilities’ deals with the demands of the career‐role in relation to the sustenance of infrastructure and the scientific community; the complexities of intellectual property ownership and protection are given an airing; the requirements of ethical practice are highlighted; and advice is offered on dealing with the pressures and paranoia of the ‘publish or perish’ doctrine.
The book is well written and notably easy to read. However, the style, though benign, is intensely prescriptive. Advice is delivered with crisp Pauline authority and seems driven by an awesome respect for convention and precedent. Prescription is taken to the extreme at times. In a startling verisimilitude of micro‐management, we are enjoined to check in advance the visiting speaker’s dietary needs in order to avoid a misplaced ham sandwich! The section on time management would compare well with an aircraft safety systems service manual. Nevertheless, I’m sure there are many who will find Professor Rothwell’s directness and attention to detail refreshing.
As one in the throes of exit from a research career in natural science, I found little in the prescription that I would regard as misleading or suspect, or even, upon reflection, controversial. Further reflection led me to deep concerns about the legacy of my own generation of scientists. We were the custodians of the transition from the system of baronial control and prioritization to the bureaucratic/quasi‐democratically prioritized system of today. Are we the architects of the grey orthodoxy portrayed in this volume? If so, I am sad to have left such a thin palette.
Despite my respect for the formal value and realism of the insights and instruction provided (I will certainly recommend the book to our local MRes students), I have to ask myself whether more inspirational value might be gleaned by reading the biographies of scientists who dared to splash colour outside the lines.