There are very few books or films that capture the ups and downs of doing scientific research. Allegra Goodman’s book “Intuition” actually does a pretty good job of capturing the motivations, competition, camaraderie and ethical decisions faced by researchers during their day-to-day jobs.The book seems to be modeled off of an infamous case of scientific misconduct that occurred during the time I was in graduate school. In the story, an average post-doctoral researcher at a mildly prestigious laboratory begins to doubt the remarkable results that a fellow post-doc has achieved. Her judgment is somewhat clouded though because the researcher with the great data is her on-again-off-again (now off-again) boyfriend. Is she just jealous of his success while her own project languishes?The book’s only weakness to me is that it is populated with more stereotypes than what I would call good characters – the quiet Chinese guy, the severe and exacting woman lab head, the fun Indian guy, the prodigy-that-hasn’t-reached-their-potential, the disaffected lab tech. Its like these folks walked off the casting line of an tv show that was looking for “scientists”.Nonetheless, Goodman does a good job of putting the reader in that “what would you do?” situation. Is this fraud? Is it crappy record-keeping? Is it trying to “spin” mediocre results into something more so that you can get a) a high-profile paper, b) more funding, c) acclaim, d) a great job, or (God-forbid) e) a political agenda.Research is hard. Most experiments and lines of inquiry fail. When you embark on a career in research, you better get used to that (it does make the successes that much sweeter, perhaps). And I’ve heard of people that are willing to run an experiment 10 times to get the result they wanted twice. The other eight times? Well, maybe those get chalked up to experimental error. And the heart of it is that there is a drive to get the results you WANT because of a) through e) – not necessarily the results dictated by the biology, chemistry, and physics of the natural world.Science is supposed to be about data and hypotheses, but James Watson probably said it best during his acceptance speech for being co-awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962 for the landmark discovery of the structure of DNA, "...remember that science does not stand by itself, but is the creation of very human people."
My only guess as to why the New Yorker called Goodman a "writer of uncommon clarity" is because she repeats the same phrases again and again until you have no excuse not to notice them. One reference to the action in this novel taking place at Harvard would have been enough, but Goodman gives us dozens of reminders within the first few pages alone that, yes, this is Harvard and, yes, she has done her research and knows about the kids in the pit and the chess players outside of Au Bon Pain and the Harvard Coop and, oh my gosh, could we be on the Harvard campus at this very moment? My pulse is meant to quicken. But As much as I love Cambridge and always will, Goodman had the uncanny ability to make me cringe at every set-piece she added to remind us of Harvard. Cringe at what I loved: that is talent. The subject is so easily appealing, an ethical issue at a science lab, at the heart of academia: what to do? I know what I did. But let's read on to see how her characters came to realize the inherent complications of their situation. No, no luck. The writing is simply too uncommonly redundant and insulting to our intelligence, with characters darting to and fro like worker bees. This book is not a literary moral thriller, but a light yet "serious" read for teens exhausted from overachieving, who can't get enough of everything Harvard. Gimme gimme gimme, and Goodman does. Ah, but I'm not 15 anymore. * * * * * Um, don't mind what I wrote in 2006 (below); I ended up loving this book. Here's a recent article on a line of Duke cancer research that seemed too good to be true:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/hea...
Do You like book Intuition (2007)?
Intuition, by Allegra Goodman deals with a controversy over an experimental cancer treatment developed at a Boston lab. The Philpott lab is struggling to get funding when Cliff, one of the postdocs, appears to have made an amazing discovery. As the story progresses, Cliff's findings are thrown into doubt by his fellow researcher and ex-girlfriend Robin. When she cannot replicate his results, Robin accuses Cliff of manipulating the data. Her initial questioning grows until it becomes a national debate on scientific ethics. Were his results exaggerated or manipulated? Did the lab rush to publish them to ensure funding? Are Robin's accusations based on science or resentment? Goodman tells the story from several different perspectives, so that every time you think you know what really happened, you end up questioning it all again. The characters are all vividly drawn, from charming Cliff, insecure Robin, Sandy the bombastic fund-raiser, and Marian the tightly controlled empirical scientist. The pace was slow, as the controversy at the lab keeps growing, but I was so involved in the story and characters that I had to follow them to the end. Goodman's earlier novel Kaaterskill Falls was another great character study, but I think this is her best work to date.
—Megan
I like Allegra Goodman's clear and compelling story-telling, which was in full force here in taking her readers into the world of a cancer research lab. The conflict appears when a researcher who is on the cusp of being fired suddenly delivers very positive findings in an experiment that promises a cure to cancer. Were the findings real or faked? The lab supervisors are certain they are real and will lead to more funding, while a competing lab assistant has an "intuition" that they are faked. At stake in the end is the whole future of scientific research in America. The characters all seemed interesting people and have well developed motivations and lives in the story. What makes it a good, but not great book? The story never rises above the context of science in society to a more universal exploration of humanity.
—Alan
I would give the first half of this book 4 stars, and the last half 2 stars, averaging to 3 stars.In the beginning, I found the story compelling and the plot interesting. It is not for the fainthearted, though, or for animal lovers. I am no lover of rodents, but even I had difficulties reading about the experiments on the tiny mice that were given cancer and other ailments and then "sacrificed" at the end. (I do believe that animal research is necessary for scientific advances, but I had never read such intricate details about such research before.)Many of the characters were interesting, but others seemed superfluous. Goodman was compared (on my copy of the book) to Jane Austen. Another reviewer compared this book, not in a flattering way, to Chris Bohjalian and Jodi Picoult (who in fact I enjoy a great deal!).Goodman is no doubt a talented writer, and she knows her way around a story. But where the distinctions with Austen, Bohjalian, and Picoult fall apart is her ability to continue to engage the reader and bring the story home. The conclusion of the book seemed to drag on and on and on...to the point where I found myself scanning the pages to get to the end.That was a disappointing way to end what I felt at the beginning was going to be a highly satisfactory novel.
—Marie
