Cantor's Dilemma

As a chemist and an active researcher, I approached Cantor's Dilemma with a different type of trepidation than most readers probably do. I knew I would have no problem understand the lingo and the science (Djerassi himself appears in several of my favourite reference textbooks and is often put forward as the prime example of scientific research driving societal ethics). No, I was worried that the book would disappoint in providing a watered-down or unrealistic representation of research. In some ways the latter is true (more on that below) but the book was thoroughly enjoyable once I recognised this important point: like an episode of the TV show ER, everything that happens in the book COULD theoretically happen, although it's unlikely it would all happen in a 1-hour time slot, or in a mere 300 pages. The plot: the eponymous protagonist "I.C." Cantor dreams up a grand-unified theory behind the mechanism of cancer. He then proceeds to come up with an experiment to prove his theory and sets his top post-doctoral researcher, Stafford, on the project. After the experiment is performed and his thesis seemingly proven, Cantor and Stafford are awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine. That is when the problems start: a fellow cancer researcher, the only one to whom Cantor has divulged the details of his experiment, cannot replicate it. Suspicion clouds the relationship between Cantor and Stafford as the latter's lab book is woefully incomplete and an anonymous tip implied to Cantor that Stafford was falsifying data. Sensing something is amiss, the researcher who cannot replicate the results starts subtly blackmailing Cantor, fishing for a Nobel for himself. Certainly, there are clear-cut cases of academic fraud in the physical sciences: in my field (conducting materials) there have been a few notable cases of falsification of data. This is not limited to American universities - one recent case occurred in Korea, while another was in an American private lab (perpetrated by a Swiss national). As the book points out, these frauds are always exposed (at least, if they are important enough to be influential). Djerassi is too savvy to allow his protagonist to be caught in such a clear-cut case of fraud. This is why the book deserves a full 5 stars - Cantor is almost a classic tragic hero. His personal foibles and flaws inevitably lead him to a no-win scenario: he must succumb to the threats of his colleague or risk exposure and disgrace for something that isn't really his fault (if any data WAS falsified, it was by Stafford the post-doc, not Cantor). The best parts of the book actually take place in Sweden, at the presentation of the Nobel Prizes. Unlike some reviewers seem to think, Djerassi himself has not won this prize (although he has won the Priestley medal, which is the highest American honour for a chemist). However, in these chapters he writes with an authority and skill that isn't as obvious in the rest of the book. Similarly, when his

The book is a rather dry text. Much like its subject, scientists and their research. But it rings true. The reader gets a glimpse as to how scientists act, at the highest levels of cutting edge research. There are amusing views of the jockeying for publication of results in a top level journal. Even if perhaps the results are not fully pinned down or definitive. Perhaps the best audience for this book is undergrads and grads. They are often the footsoldiers in a professor's lab, and can best appreciate some of the maneuverings for research credit that go on. In one passage, there is a sideways reference to the author. Not by name, of course. But as a prominent scientist at Stanford. See if you can find this.

Admittedly, I am not a science-minded person. I approached this novel with caution, expecting it to be overly-technical and boring. Nevertheless, I gave it a chance and found it to be not only intellectual, but highly entertaining. CANTOR'S DILEMMA moves along at a brisk pace, only rarely getting bogged down in technical terminology and scientific analysis. For example, one such passage early on in the book states: "While the radioactive labels were intended to locate the protein in different cell fractions, the C-13 labeled arginine would shed light on the spatial arrangement of this amino acid within the protein molecule through its nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum. Only a cell biologist with a thorough background in chemistry would have come up with such an idea." To which I can only reply "OK...I'll take your word for it..." Indeed, there are numerous instances in the book where the average reader will have to take Djerassi's word for it. However, since Djerassi is a world-renowned scientist himself, I feel pretty comfortable in believing he knows what he's talking about. There is only one shortcoming that really stands out in Djerassi's writing: his portrayal of female characters. The characters themselves are strong and independent women, however, they are relatively flat. They come across as thinly-veiled excuses for Djerassi to discuss a major problem in the scientific world: the lack of women among the upper echelons of the scientific community. In this noble endeavor, Djerassi discusses several solid points about gender inequality, making the hollowness of his female characters, in my opinion, excusable because they serve a higher purpose. In CANTOR'S DILEMMA, Djerassi exhibits a flare for storytelling and shows that he has substantial literary chops to go along with his numerous scientific awards. This work provided a level of intellectual stimulation that I haven't received from a book in a while.

"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.

this book's reputation precedes inself but the actual book outdoes its reputation. wonderful and insightful and frightfully real. scary how the frailty of human nature is sometimes incompatible with the rigorous demands of scientific research. a must read for anyone in science