Biocurious

/ a biophysics blog

Required readings

Posted 9 March 2008 by PhilipJ under

Doing science isn’t just about running experiments and analyzing data, even though it can feel that way sometimes. Fortunately (in some cases), we also have to give talks at other universities and conferences, write papers for journals, apply for grants, etc. These tasks require entirely different skills than theory or labwork do, though we get little formal education on these matters. To get these skills, it is a necessity to read books outside of our normal expertise, and it’s often not clear, given how little extra time graduate students usually find they have, which books to invest said time in.

I’ve got my own favourites that have proven valuable, but it’d be great to hear what everyone else has read and found useful too.

First and foremost, effectively displaying data is a must. The most wonderful experimental result in the world can be made incomprehensible by a poorly thought out graph, either because of quantitative issues or overuse of chartjunk. Edward Tufte’s four books have been extremely useful in thinking about how to visualise complex information in an efficient way. You will think twice about how to present your results after reading his books (the first of the four, The Visual Displaying of Quantitative Information being the most immediately relevant), and they help with scientific figures as well. There are also pointers on more effective use of PowerPoint and similar programs.

Stylistic guidelines for writing abound, but the short and sweet (and inexpensive!) Strunk & White is as good as they get, and I’ve never felt the need to read any others. It’s short enough that rereading it periodically isn’t difficult, and considering how poor we are at writing, everyone should get a copy.

Finally, outside of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I’ve read precious little philosophy of science. I’m of two minds as to the importance of the philosophy of science to the actual day to day work we do, but I’m sure there are interesting ideas I’ve missed out all the same.

Now over to you: what are your must-reads outside of science?

  Comment [5]

Avoid Boring People

Posted 17 October 2007 by PhilipJ under &

James Watson has written another memoir, this time entitled Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, which this Times article says “contains an inflammatory epilogue with eye-popping theories that will, undoubtedly, leave ethicists choking with disbelief”. I’m less excited about his thoughts on the intelligence of people from Africa or how to get a date, and more excited by his insight into how to be a successful scientist. That being said, the article does contain a lot on Watson’s day to day life, and I enjoyed reading all of it.

This section outlines something we all know, but don’t necessarily emphasize enough:

For Watson, the ability to socialise is a key skill, one he believes can help propel you far beyond your peers. “Gossip is a fact of life also among scientists. And if you are out of the loop of what’s new, you are working with one hand tied behind your back.”

Socialising is certainly an important aspect of any successful career in science (and out, for that matter), but it isn’t always easy to do at huge meetings like the March Meeting of the APS, where there are literally thousands of people in attendance. The smaller conferences I’ve attended (with 50-100 people) have been a great way to meet others, in my own field and out. Part of it is the (usually) more relaxed atmosphere, where it doesn’t matter if sessions run a little late, and everyone isn’t as rushed, often leading to longer time for questions after talks, which I’ve found are the best way to start talking to someone—everyone likes it when you’re interested in their science! On the opposite side, the audience is necessarily quite a bit smaller. Does anyone have any advice on how to make the most out of your conference trips, particularly the large national conferences where almost everyone (boring and interesting alike) can be found?

Update — for another take on the book itself, see this week’s Nature review by Huntington F. Willard, here (subscription required).

  Comment [1]

Briefly Consider the Universe

Posted 4 April 2007 by Andre under

I’ve been meaning to write a review of Carl Sagan’s recently released Gifford Lectures, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, but I just haven’t gotten around to it. Briefly: it’s not as polished as his other books, being a lecture transcript, but it still has some nice ideas and is worth reading. I spent a lot of the time while I was reading it wishing he was still alive to take part in the ongoing highly publicized discussions of religion. Sagan was uncompromising in his atheism and argued persuasively, but he was also a diplomat. He invites the audience to marvel at the grandeur of the universe that science has revealed to us, but wonders why it’s not more evident in our Holy books.

...a general problem with much of Western theology in my view is that the God portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not of a galaxy, much less of a universe.

I think Sagan would have appreciated this simple illustration:

(Via onegoodmove)

  Comment [3]

Bottom 10 science books

Posted 21 November 2006 by PhilipJ under

To accompany the recent listing of the 25 top science books, John Horgan at his Discover blog lists the ten worst science books:

These books aren’t merely awful, of course, but harmful. Most have been bestsellers, or had some sort of significant impact, which often means—paradoxically—that they are rhetorical masterpieces.

Two of my least favourites that he included, and both on the top of the unordered list no less:

I’m particularly happy that Horgan called Drexler out, and all the reason you need is to follow a few threads in sci.nanotech. I haven’t kept track of the newsgroup recently, but a couple of years ago when I did it was filled with crazies touting molecular manufacturing was the saviour for all the world’s ills. As to why The Tao of Physics is on the list, well, one need not look any further than What the bleep?.

Click here to see the rest of the list. As always, add your own least favourites in the comments.

  Comment

Top 25 science books

Posted 19 November 2006 by PhilipJ under

Discover is running a list of the top 25 science books of all time, and there are few surprises.

Darwin is well represented, taking the top two spots for The Voyage of the Beagle and The Origin of Species, though I would have probably switched the ordering. And perhaps placed them after the third place Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Newton. Nitpicking the order notwithstanding, these are all deserving of being here.

Also present, and without surprise, are Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, Einstein with Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Watson’s The Double Helix, Schroedinger for What is life?, and Micrographia by Hooke.

Somewhat surprisingly, however, is Feynman’s The Feynman Lectures on Physics. The other books above are all manuscripts on science, but none are quite so textbookian as Feynman’s own lectures, which he felt were a failure anyway. Though that style of book has come to dominate the introductory undergraduate physics scene, and while it is fairly readable, I’m still hesitant to call it one of the best science books of all time. Some of his other lectures-turned-books are far more succint and enjoyable a read. (for example, QED.)

Read the rest of the list here, and feel free to add your own favourite text in the comments!

  Comment [6]