initial failure of one of the researchers in the laboratory of Kurt KrdUSS, a fellow cancer researcher and competitor of Cantor's, to replicate Stafford's work as well as an anonymous letter cause Cantor to doubt Jerry's results, SO Cantor devises a second and simpler experimental proof, which he carries out himself. Cantor and Stafford jointly receive the Nobel Prize, and many of the later pages of the book are devoted to the elaborate Stockholm ceremonies. In the end Krauss attempts to blackmail Cantor into nominating him for the Nobel Prize.
The book reads like a veritable "Who's Who" of science. The names of familiar leading researchers, editors, and historians of science, historical and contemporary, appear on almost every page. Djerassi even slyly introduces an oblique reference to himself (p. 167). While telling his story, he deals with many personal and professional issues that researchers encounter in their work, issues neglected in traditional science courses, e.g., choosing a Ph.D. mentor, role models, hiring and tenure policies, laboratory notebooks, grantsmanship, refereemanship, the status of women in science, teacher-student relationships including sexual relations, nominations and awards, patents, competition, priority, jealousy, fraud, replication of experiments, credibility, retraction of published work, seminars, and lectures. Also unobtrusively and skillfully integrated into the story are countless other fascinating esoteric minutiae ranging from antique furniture and Boccherini string quartets to Nobel protocol and European dining habits.
After we each had read the book separately, we exchanged and compared our impressions. As a chemist, one reviewer marveled at the authoritative way in which Djerassi accurately presents a "behind the scenes" view of how science is done and how the scientific community works. He also admired the seemingly effortless manner in which the author dispenses nuggets of wisdom that should be invaluable to budding scientists. As a humanist, the other was disappointed at the picture of the scientific enterprise as predominantly award-oriented rather than as the idealistic search for truth generally perceived by the public. She also thought that the characters, especially the women, lacked depth. As we continued to discuss the book, more and more ambiguities surfaced; in particular, Cantor's final dilemma-whether or not to recommend Krauss-is unresolved. Nevertheless, we both enjoyed the book immensely and could not put it down until we had finished it.
According to Djerassi, "Publications, priorities, the order of the authors, the choice of the journal, the collegiality and the brutal competition, academic tenure, grantsmanship, the Nobel Prize, Schadenfreude ... are soul and baggage of contemporary science. To illustrate them, I had Cantor and Stafford work on a totally fictitious theory of tumorigenesis .... Only by giving myself. .. the assurance that their science is pure fiction could I write about behavior and attitudes surely more common than we like to admit." While Djerassi's novel will be avidly read by chemists, it will also reach a wider audience. In view of the current rampant epidemic of antiscientific attitudes and chemophobia, many scientists may question the wisdom of washing science's dirty linen in public by giving the public an inside view of the darker side of science with Cromwellian warts.
Stephen G. Brush has written an article, "Should the History of Science Be Rated X?" (Science 183 (1974) 1164), subtitled "The way scientists behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for students.