What do you think?
Rate this book
The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize
Peter Doherty recounts his unlikely path to becoming a Nobel Laureate, revealing how his nonconformist upbringing, sense of being an outsider, and search for a different perspective have shaped his life and work. Beginning with his humble origins in Australia, Doherty shares his early interests and describes his award-winning, influential work with Rolf Zinkernagel on T-cells and the nature of immune defense. In prose that is amusing and astute, Doherty offers a rare insider's look at the realities of being a research scientist. He lucidly explains his own scientific work and the selection, funding, and organization of research projects; the major problems science hopes to solve; and the rewards of a career in scientific research. For Doherty, science plays an important role in improving the world, and he argues that scientists need to do a better job of making their work more accessible to the public. He concludes with tips on how to win a Nobel Prize, including advice on being persistent, generous, and culturally aware.
Hardcover
First published June 1, 2006
29 people are currently reading
323 people want to read
About the author
Peter C. Doherty
14 books16 followersPeter Charles Doherty is an Australian veterinary surgeon, immunologist, Nobel laureate and researcher in the field of medicine.
He received the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 1995, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine jointly with Rolf M. Zinkernagel in 1996 and was named Australian of the Year in 1997. In the Australia Day Honours of 1997, he was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his work with Zinkernagel (Zinkernagel was named an honorary Companion). He is also a National Trust Australian Living Treasure.
Doherty's research focuses on the immune system and his Nobel work described how the body's immune cells protect against viruses. He and Rolf Zinkernagel, the co-recipient of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, discovered how T cells recognize their target antigens in combination with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) proteins.
Doherty was born in Brisbane, Queensland, where he attended Indooroopilly State High School. He received his bachelor's degree in veterinary science in 1962 and his master's degree in veterinary science in 1966 from the University of Queensland. After obtaining his PhD in 1970 from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, he returned to Australia to perform his Nobel Prize-winning research at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in Canberra.
Doherty currently spends three months of the year conducting research at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, where he is a faculty member at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center through the College of Medicine. For the other 9 months of the year he works in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne, Victoria. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1987.
John Monash Science School has a house named after him.
He received the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research in 1995, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine jointly with Rolf M. Zinkernagel in 1996 and was named Australian of the Year in 1997. In the Australia Day Honours of 1997, he was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his work with Zinkernagel (Zinkernagel was named an honorary Companion). He is also a National Trust Australian Living Treasure.
Doherty's research focuses on the immune system and his Nobel work described how the body's immune cells protect against viruses. He and Rolf Zinkernagel, the co-recipient of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, discovered how T cells recognize their target antigens in combination with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) proteins.
Doherty was born in Brisbane, Queensland, where he attended Indooroopilly State High School. He received his bachelor's degree in veterinary science in 1962 and his master's degree in veterinary science in 1966 from the University of Queensland. After obtaining his PhD in 1970 from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, he returned to Australia to perform his Nobel Prize-winning research at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in Canberra.
Doherty currently spends three months of the year conducting research at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, where he is a faculty member at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center through the College of Medicine. For the other 9 months of the year he works in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne, Victoria. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1987.
John Monash Science School has a house named after him.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
June 15, 2010
Peter Doherty shared the 1996 Nobel Prize for Medicine with Rudolf Zinkernagel for their discovery in the 1970s of 'the nature of cellular immune defence'.
Doherty qualified originally as a vet, and then moved into research science. He splits his time between Australia and the States, leading research programmes at the University of Melbourne and St Jude's Children's Hospital.
Somewhere inside this 250 page book there's a really good 100 page essay. Pretty much every page had me reaching for my red pen, as cliche piled up on cliche and basic references were over explained ("family rivalries ... we recognise from the Mantagus and Capulets of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet"; "To borrow from St John's gospel, I would say that science is a 'big church' with 'many mansions'; it accommodates all sorts of people raised in many different belief systems").
Doherty wrote the book, I think, as part of his sense of obligation to use the platform that winning a Nobel Prize gives one to speak strongly for the need for society (and politicians) to support science, but also for scientists to be considerate of society - the chapter about science and religion is interesting, with its caution that the science community needs to beware of becoming reactionary in their own behaviour when faced with opposition from religious groups.
Where Doherty is particularly interesting is in his writing about the business of being a science researcher - of how careers are developed, of how a research team is set up and operates, of the crucial nature of publishing one's findings in the right place at the right time, of how political and financial support help build centres of excellence, and of the dangers of being sucked into committees, administration and speaking tours.
Doherty writes well about the experience and effects of being awarded a Nobel Prize. Has also obviously turned his scientific bent for data onto Nobel Prize winners, with various analyses of nationality, religious or cultural affiliations, etc.
Where the book is particularly weak is in Doherty's explanation of his own work. Immunology is an intrinsically interesting topic (well, I think so, anyway) and his chapter about the history of research and practice in this area is solid but not by any means better than ones I'e read elsewhere, and his description of his own work is not by any means an ah-hah! moment for the reader.
What Doherty does supply is an excellent bibliography. Reading this book put me on to James Gleick's bio of Feynman, James Watson's simultaneously wonderful and infuriating 'The Double Helix' and a terrific book about the 1918-19 flu epidemic by John M Barry that I plan to re-read as soon as I get some breathing space.
Doherty qualified originally as a vet, and then moved into research science. He splits his time between Australia and the States, leading research programmes at the University of Melbourne and St Jude's Children's Hospital.
Somewhere inside this 250 page book there's a really good 100 page essay. Pretty much every page had me reaching for my red pen, as cliche piled up on cliche and basic references were over explained ("family rivalries ... we recognise from the Mantagus and Capulets of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet"; "To borrow from St John's gospel, I would say that science is a 'big church' with 'many mansions'; it accommodates all sorts of people raised in many different belief systems").
Doherty wrote the book, I think, as part of his sense of obligation to use the platform that winning a Nobel Prize gives one to speak strongly for the need for society (and politicians) to support science, but also for scientists to be considerate of society - the chapter about science and religion is interesting, with its caution that the science community needs to beware of becoming reactionary in their own behaviour when faced with opposition from religious groups.
Where Doherty is particularly interesting is in his writing about the business of being a science researcher - of how careers are developed, of how a research team is set up and operates, of the crucial nature of publishing one's findings in the right place at the right time, of how political and financial support help build centres of excellence, and of the dangers of being sucked into committees, administration and speaking tours.
Doherty writes well about the experience and effects of being awarded a Nobel Prize. Has also obviously turned his scientific bent for data onto Nobel Prize winners, with various analyses of nationality, religious or cultural affiliations, etc.
Where the book is particularly weak is in Doherty's explanation of his own work. Immunology is an intrinsically interesting topic (well, I think so, anyway) and his chapter about the history of research and practice in this area is solid but not by any means better than ones I'e read elsewhere, and his description of his own work is not by any means an ah-hah! moment for the reader.
What Doherty does supply is an excellent bibliography. Reading this book put me on to James Gleick's bio of Feynman, James Watson's simultaneously wonderful and infuriating 'The Double Helix' and a terrific book about the 1918-19 flu epidemic by John M Barry that I plan to re-read as soon as I get some breathing space.
December 24, 2016
"Stockholm in December: darkness falls early like a frozen curtain, the short days are dimmed by snow-fall, and even weather-hardened Swedes grimace in the winds that cut across Strommen, the waterway straddled by the city. I grew up in a hot, humid, place where the sun shone pitilessly and I was always getting burnt. As a consequence, I’m energised by cold, bleak, misty weather. Perhaps it’s a heritage that goes back to ancestors who dug in dank Irish peat bogs, herded hill sheep in a Lancashire winter, or lived by a canal in Essex, but cold damp Stockholm in December suits me just fine. There is a freshness to the air, a sense of possibility."
No ***. This is how to book starts. This is how you or your child will become a Nobel Prize winner in a few easy steps.
Chapter two goes further away from the stated goal and dives into what OTHERS should do to make the guy look better. Of course, he has no practical experience, but that does not stop him from having an expert oppinion.
Chapter three dives right in the subject. It starts with graduate, maybe even postgraduate student. So time is not an issue here. And the life and experiences before are useless. Good. Children should play more. But, wait! It takes a lot of brown nosing to become a postgraduate. And it gets worse, a lot worse, as the country written on the passport cover is poorer.
"The types of science that are recognised by Nobel Prizes deal with universals that recognise no national or international boundaries. Both the contributions to human knowledge and the resulting technologies are potentially available to all. But the practice of science, its funding and the regard in which it is held differs from one society to another. These differences can influence the careers of individuals and the fate of nations, and can also have profound effects on humanity as a whole, and the survival of our species."
Well, the guy can't really tell propaganda from reality. But he is an expert. And he is able to write. So who cares?
No ***. This is how to book starts. This is how you or your child will become a Nobel Prize winner in a few easy steps.
Chapter two goes further away from the stated goal and dives into what OTHERS should do to make the guy look better. Of course, he has no practical experience, but that does not stop him from having an expert oppinion.
Chapter three dives right in the subject. It starts with graduate, maybe even postgraduate student. So time is not an issue here. And the life and experiences before are useless. Good. Children should play more. But, wait! It takes a lot of brown nosing to become a postgraduate. And it gets worse, a lot worse, as the country written on the passport cover is poorer.
"The types of science that are recognised by Nobel Prizes deal with universals that recognise no national or international boundaries. Both the contributions to human knowledge and the resulting technologies are potentially available to all. But the practice of science, its funding and the regard in which it is held differs from one society to another. These differences can influence the careers of individuals and the fate of nations, and can also have profound effects on humanity as a whole, and the survival of our species."
Well, the guy can't really tell propaganda from reality. But he is an expert. And he is able to write. So who cares?
November 17, 2025
And "The Most Disappointing Book of the Year Award" goes to... this book.
This book could have more appropriately been titled "Random thoughts of Peter Doherty, who by the way happens to be a Nobel laureate, that you'd not read unless you have nothing else to do, and you're a big fan of Doherty and consider him to be your hero (the same way you'd still listen to meh-quality music only because it was made by your favourite band)". A long title indeed but at least more faithful than the original misleading title.
The book is more of scattered general thoughts on Science (specifically immunology) than Nobel prize. The only thing Nobel about it is that it was written by a winner of a Nobel Prize. All in all, it wasn't worth my time. It's definitely not low quality to deserve one star, but it was all around the place, difficult to enjoy, and had things that are either uninteresting for me, or already known since I was a scientist myself as a PhD fellow.
Of course I wasn't expecting a how-to tutorial on getting a Nobel Prize, as if such a thing exists, but at least expected it to revolve around that idea with ideas in the spirit of what it takes to become a Nobel Laureate.
Instead, it is a book that seems to have been produced by the publisher calling the author and saying "Hey, you know, you're a Nobel Prize winner and we can sell many books by marketing the book as such. Just jot down a compilation of WHATEVER comes to your mind, your experience winning the prize, a crash course on immunology, science and religion, fraud in science, your values, collaboration, future prospects in science, ... and then we'll make a book out of that with a misleading title and make you (and us) rich, baby!"
-----
Here's my brief summary of the chapters:
Chapter 1, The Swedish Effect, is the personal story of the Nobel Prize experience with some commentary, and it was not worth the time for me.
Chapter 2 includes some history and thoughts on spreading science. It touches on science versus religion, reasons why people might oppose scientific results, genetic modifications, and scientific expeditions.
Chapter 3, The Scientific Life, talks about the life of scientists, including postgraduates and postdocs. It covers the scientific method, ethics of doing experiments and reporting results, leading research programs, and fraud. The last part on early influences was a nice read. It details the socioeconomic situation of winners over twenty years, their education, and their upbringing. It shows that there is no single path to a Nobel Prize.
Chapter 4 on immunology was not very interesting for me. It quickly became dense with immunology language, even though the author mentioned he would try to avoid that. At some point, that becomes inevitable. I skimmed through most of the chapter and only read the parts that were commentary on the science.
Chapter 6 discusses how the United States is the most attractive country for research. It covers the Australian research landscape, research funding, science-based entrepreneurship in Australia, funding culture in different countries, values of science, public versus private research ventures, and international research collaboration.
Chapter 7, Science versus Religion:
With all due respect to the author, winning a Nobel Prize does not make someone qualified to tackle the issue of science versus religion. Everyone can have their own thoughts and perspective, but not everyone should write chapters about them. This chapter was a clearly simplistic account of the issue.
It starts well but suddenly shifts to personal details about his upbringing and family history with religion. It then discusses his military training as a teenager, which again makes this book feel more like an autobiography than a focused discussion.
The chapter develops into a discussion of science versus Christianity. I expected an analytical enquiry, but instead it focuses narrowly on evolution, not as an example but as the main concept. It then talks about religion in the United States, Europe, and Australia. After that, it provides a poor account of Islam and a brief mention of Buddhism. The chapter ends with statistics on religious beliefs in the scientific community and some paragraphs arguing for collaboration and agreement between scientists and religious people (really?). This chapter was a clearly simplistic account of the issue.
Chapter 8 is relatively interesting but quickly becomes full of scientific jargon that skimming becomes the default (and the right) way to read it.
Chapter 9 was not superb, but it was definitely better than the previous ones. It is about how to win a Nobel Prize. Of course, there is no tutorial, but it includes some general ideas that are nice, though in no way novel.
-----
All in all, the book is rather a compilation of disconnected, scattered, interesting-every-15th-sentence kind of ideas. Perhaps the author could have written a way better book if he focused on one theme and explored it deeply. Rather it is on so many topics, but in a negative sense, that makes it hard to categorize this book as to what kind of content it has, and definitely hard to enjoy.
This book could have more appropriately been titled "Random thoughts of Peter Doherty, who by the way happens to be a Nobel laureate, that you'd not read unless you have nothing else to do, and you're a big fan of Doherty and consider him to be your hero (the same way you'd still listen to meh-quality music only because it was made by your favourite band)". A long title indeed but at least more faithful than the original misleading title.
The book is more of scattered general thoughts on Science (specifically immunology) than Nobel prize. The only thing Nobel about it is that it was written by a winner of a Nobel Prize. All in all, it wasn't worth my time. It's definitely not low quality to deserve one star, but it was all around the place, difficult to enjoy, and had things that are either uninteresting for me, or already known since I was a scientist myself as a PhD fellow.
Of course I wasn't expecting a how-to tutorial on getting a Nobel Prize, as if such a thing exists, but at least expected it to revolve around that idea with ideas in the spirit of what it takes to become a Nobel Laureate.
Instead, it is a book that seems to have been produced by the publisher calling the author and saying "Hey, you know, you're a Nobel Prize winner and we can sell many books by marketing the book as such. Just jot down a compilation of WHATEVER comes to your mind, your experience winning the prize, a crash course on immunology, science and religion, fraud in science, your values, collaboration, future prospects in science, ... and then we'll make a book out of that with a misleading title and make you (and us) rich, baby!"
-----
Here's my brief summary of the chapters:
Chapter 1, The Swedish Effect, is the personal story of the Nobel Prize experience with some commentary, and it was not worth the time for me.
Chapter 2 includes some history and thoughts on spreading science. It touches on science versus religion, reasons why people might oppose scientific results, genetic modifications, and scientific expeditions.
Chapter 3, The Scientific Life, talks about the life of scientists, including postgraduates and postdocs. It covers the scientific method, ethics of doing experiments and reporting results, leading research programs, and fraud. The last part on early influences was a nice read. It details the socioeconomic situation of winners over twenty years, their education, and their upbringing. It shows that there is no single path to a Nobel Prize.
Chapter 4 on immunology was not very interesting for me. It quickly became dense with immunology language, even though the author mentioned he would try to avoid that. At some point, that becomes inevitable. I skimmed through most of the chapter and only read the parts that were commentary on the science.
Chapter 6 discusses how the United States is the most attractive country for research. It covers the Australian research landscape, research funding, science-based entrepreneurship in Australia, funding culture in different countries, values of science, public versus private research ventures, and international research collaboration.
Chapter 7, Science versus Religion:
With all due respect to the author, winning a Nobel Prize does not make someone qualified to tackle the issue of science versus religion. Everyone can have their own thoughts and perspective, but not everyone should write chapters about them. This chapter was a clearly simplistic account of the issue.
It starts well but suddenly shifts to personal details about his upbringing and family history with religion. It then discusses his military training as a teenager, which again makes this book feel more like an autobiography than a focused discussion.
The chapter develops into a discussion of science versus Christianity. I expected an analytical enquiry, but instead it focuses narrowly on evolution, not as an example but as the main concept. It then talks about religion in the United States, Europe, and Australia. After that, it provides a poor account of Islam and a brief mention of Buddhism. The chapter ends with statistics on religious beliefs in the scientific community and some paragraphs arguing for collaboration and agreement between scientists and religious people (really?). This chapter was a clearly simplistic account of the issue.
Chapter 8 is relatively interesting but quickly becomes full of scientific jargon that skimming becomes the default (and the right) way to read it.
Chapter 9 was not superb, but it was definitely better than the previous ones. It is about how to win a Nobel Prize. Of course, there is no tutorial, but it includes some general ideas that are nice, though in no way novel.
-----
All in all, the book is rather a compilation of disconnected, scattered, interesting-every-15th-sentence kind of ideas. Perhaps the author could have written a way better book if he focused on one theme and explored it deeply. Rather it is on so many topics, but in a negative sense, that makes it hard to categorize this book as to what kind of content it has, and definitely hard to enjoy.
July 20, 2010
Not one of the best books on science, considering I've read a lot of them. Doherty skips around a lot and really spends too much time on some of the subjects here. As a scientist, I didn't really find it all that useful. I guess it would be better for people who were entering graduate school or for college science majors who want to get a deeper understanding of what life in academic research looks like.
All in all, I think there are better books out there. The bar for this sort of thing is set very, very high. I think Doherty especially suffers in the comparison. I wish he'd given more personal anecdotes, more background on what made him want to be a scientist and how he got there. That's what I typically look for.
I'd sum it up this way: A book by a scientist written by a scientist in a typical scientist style. If you are a scientist, especially an immunologist, you'll probably like it better than a general audience would.
All in all, I think there are better books out there. The bar for this sort of thing is set very, very high. I think Doherty especially suffers in the comparison. I wish he'd given more personal anecdotes, more background on what made him want to be a scientist and how he got there. That's what I typically look for.
I'd sum it up this way: A book by a scientist written by a scientist in a typical scientist style. If you are a scientist, especially an immunologist, you'll probably like it better than a general audience would.
December 23, 2013
i saw peter doherty talk earlier this year and it was one of the worst talks i've been to. every one of his slides was cluttered with more text than i've seen outside a "how not to use powerpoint" example and most slides contained at least one typo or grammatical error. he would flip through a bunch of them way too fast and then stop on one until he'd talked about everything on it and multiple subsequent slides. plus he spent the whole time jingling his keys in his pocket. i'm sure he's a much better and more organised speaker at other times, and some of the problems were probably due to the fact that it was meant to be for a general audience. i was hoping the book would be better, but i was still dissatisfied by his non sequiturs and lapses into conversational style.
July 16, 2017
Good day all well i faiht this book is a good start god bless correct go in peace.
September 26, 2014
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.
October 17, 2014
In a lecture in Hong Kong University, the Nobel winner for Physiology and Medicine 2008, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi said "To win the Nobel Prize, one must not WANT a Nobel Prize."
I believed her. And by chance a fellow course-mate gifted me this book and now I am jinxed. :)
This book in itself is not an "idiot's guide" (pun intended) to win the Nobel Prize. It is a book about thoughts on how fundamental science impact the world, the need for science to inform policies, and overall, serves as a motivational tool for young, naïve scientists still grappling with the reality that while we play at work with our experiments and able to day-dream ideas all day; it does not pay the bill. It also serves as a reminder that no matter how hard one works, there still needs to be a little element of luck involved and even if success, riches, and glory doesn't happen- if we love what we do, then it is (still) okay.
I love how the author treated this book as a semi-autobiography. In a way it is different than Watson's The Double Helix, which focussed solely on his Nobel-winning discovery (I love that book too and Jim Watson is another personal hero of mine, with the exception of his, Crick's and Wilkin's initial treatment to Rosalind Franklin... which was clarified in the book and how Rosalind ended up working for Watson in her later years). I personally enjoyed Doherty's almost comic way of narrating his experience at the Nobel ceremony and his jest about Australians in general; "Minor criminality is embedded in the Australian experience" on testing their assay on different mouse strains without explicit permission from the lab head (Only the Ozzies! Another example is Barry Marshall and his ingestion of H.pylori to prove a point...); and I love the whole "rags-to-riches" story - about dreaming big despite coming from a small town and chasing one's dreams one step at a time. Doherty did not dream of the Nobel prize, all he was obsessed with was understanding the immunopathology of infection.
There's a bigger motivational life-story and overall discussion about life within this book. I think that many will benefit from reading it, not just scientists.
I believed her. And by chance a fellow course-mate gifted me this book and now I am jinxed. :)
This book in itself is not an "idiot's guide" (pun intended) to win the Nobel Prize. It is a book about thoughts on how fundamental science impact the world, the need for science to inform policies, and overall, serves as a motivational tool for young, naïve scientists still grappling with the reality that while we play at work with our experiments and able to day-dream ideas all day; it does not pay the bill. It also serves as a reminder that no matter how hard one works, there still needs to be a little element of luck involved and even if success, riches, and glory doesn't happen- if we love what we do, then it is (still) okay.
I love how the author treated this book as a semi-autobiography. In a way it is different than Watson's The Double Helix, which focussed solely on his Nobel-winning discovery (I love that book too and Jim Watson is another personal hero of mine, with the exception of his, Crick's and Wilkin's initial treatment to Rosalind Franklin... which was clarified in the book and how Rosalind ended up working for Watson in her later years). I personally enjoyed Doherty's almost comic way of narrating his experience at the Nobel ceremony and his jest about Australians in general; "Minor criminality is embedded in the Australian experience" on testing their assay on different mouse strains without explicit permission from the lab head (Only the Ozzies! Another example is Barry Marshall and his ingestion of H.pylori to prove a point...); and I love the whole "rags-to-riches" story - about dreaming big despite coming from a small town and chasing one's dreams one step at a time. Doherty did not dream of the Nobel prize, all he was obsessed with was understanding the immunopathology of infection.
There's a bigger motivational life-story and overall discussion about life within this book. I think that many will benefit from reading it, not just scientists.
December 25, 2013
Review of ‘The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize: A Life in Science’ by Peter Doherty.
CITATION: Doherty, P. (2007). The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize: A Life in Science. Melbourne: Miegunyah Press.
REVIEWER: Dr W. P. Palmer
Peter Doherty was awarded the Nobel prize for physiology and medicine jointly with a Swiss colleague, Rolf Zinkernagel, for their work on ‘the nature of the cellular immune defence’ in 1996.
The title should be taken with a ‘pinch of salt’ as no one could plan a career so as to win a Nobel Prize. Doherty’s 282 page book is not always serious, providing several humorous anecdotes and quotes “It helps to have a sense of humour and, when you are talking the talk and walking the walk, to look down as well as up” which is to avoid stepping in the metaphorical ‘deep doo-doo’. The book is informative, proving mainly interesting reading, though I did find it dull in parts; it is sincere throughout and as Doherty becomes less involved in practical day to day research, he gives a lot of time to helping the image of science in Australia.
His chapter 7- Through different prisms: science and religion- touches on evolution and ‘creationism’ and abortion issues and will not be appreciated by all, though he generally keeps to a middle of the road scientific viewpoint.
It is a book worthwhile reading.
BILL PALMER
CITATION: Doherty, P. (2007). The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize: A Life in Science. Melbourne: Miegunyah Press.
REVIEWER: Dr W. P. Palmer
Peter Doherty was awarded the Nobel prize for physiology and medicine jointly with a Swiss colleague, Rolf Zinkernagel, for their work on ‘the nature of the cellular immune defence’ in 1996.
The title should be taken with a ‘pinch of salt’ as no one could plan a career so as to win a Nobel Prize. Doherty’s 282 page book is not always serious, providing several humorous anecdotes and quotes “It helps to have a sense of humour and, when you are talking the talk and walking the walk, to look down as well as up” which is to avoid stepping in the metaphorical ‘deep doo-doo’. The book is informative, proving mainly interesting reading, though I did find it dull in parts; it is sincere throughout and as Doherty becomes less involved in practical day to day research, he gives a lot of time to helping the image of science in Australia.
His chapter 7- Through different prisms: science and religion- touches on evolution and ‘creationism’ and abortion issues and will not be appreciated by all, though he generally keeps to a middle of the road scientific viewpoint.
It is a book worthwhile reading.
BILL PALMER
April 12, 2009
A pretty good book overall. Not great, but good.
Most of it is rather scientific so if you're not into science I'm afraid you might find 60-70% of the book boring. Even if you are interested in science though, without basic knowledge of science especially immunology, you might have a little trouble trying to understand a great deal of what he's trying to say.
However, if you do have an interest in science and some basic knowledge of it, especially if immunology thrills you, you may very well enjoy this book. To the very least, you will not hate it.
Just as a note, it isn't an autobiographical book like I thought it was, though it does contain snippets of his life and he did write a fair amount on his Nobel Prize winning research.
Most of it is rather scientific so if you're not into science I'm afraid you might find 60-70% of the book boring. Even if you are interested in science though, without basic knowledge of science especially immunology, you might have a little trouble trying to understand a great deal of what he's trying to say.
However, if you do have an interest in science and some basic knowledge of it, especially if immunology thrills you, you may very well enjoy this book. To the very least, you will not hate it.
Just as a note, it isn't an autobiographical book like I thought it was, though it does contain snippets of his life and he did write a fair amount on his Nobel Prize winning research.
December 31, 2014
Although at times there were moments when it felt like the editor had said, 'just email me some speeches' the book came together as a coherent and interesting whole. I liked his ability to communicate complex ideas of immunology effectively and he was quite diplomatic about science, religion, and politics while still remaining interesting.
Read
September 14, 2007Poorly written. Painful to read.
January 22, 2012
Had some great gems in it. I would recommend it to someone who wants a high-level perspective of building a successful career in science.
March 2, 2013
Great account of an Australian scientist's journal to winning the Nobel Prize. Also gives insight to the scientific community and what the future holds for science and humanity.
Want to read
July 30, 2014295
Read
July 14, 2015I skipped chapter four because it got into really technical immunology stuff, but I really loved his views on the duties of a scientist and how science goes with politics and religion.
June 7, 2010
a sleeper. save for a few comments, the rest i could've learned from an essay.
December 11, 2011
I am currently reading this but good so far
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews