Chilling look at the hidden agendas of academia and employment. It changed the way I read the news. Essential reading. ( )

Oh dear, finally a Ph.D. level physicist from USA lays down in simple terms the modus operandi of how I, my friends, and people like us proceed in this life. What a funny feeling to have such a mirror.

Yes, we are, indeed, professionals. We get the job done, not many questions asked. Except the technical ones that pertain to the job at hand. And why should we ask more? This is how I, my friends, and people like us were educated and trained: there were so many exams and one does not get points for unrelated questions, but only for focused, dedicated work. After all, isn't science and technology 'beyond politics' and 'objective'? An aircraft is safer or not, that has got nothing to do with your political views. A surgery technique is more successful or not whatever political line you subscribe to as a doctor, right? A nuclear bomb is more effective or not independent of your political leanings, isn't it? A drone, an unmanned aerial vehicle is more effective in its operations regardless of its designer's beliefs, isn't it. Isn't it?

Jeff Schmidt's observation and analyses are laser-sharp, cutting right into the core of the issues, and strongly debating that there are indeed some 'issues', and we'd better tackle them. Not that most of us, professionals will do that; after all, it took us so many years of education, training, and investment to be molded into our current shapes, and why should we give up our privileges?

Some parts of the book are super-specific: there are so many pages dedicated to Ph.D. candidates going through the experience of grueling qualification exams, mostly people in physics departments. But I agree with the author, you don't have to be Ph.D. candidate in physics to relate to it, because very similar mechanisms are already in place for so many different tracks that lead to the modern professional life. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to make comparisons and draw conclusions. Ah, and imagine Einstein being forced to sit those qualification exams, getting bored, and ... who knows what'd be next :) Certainly not the type of guy to follow the established rules some would say, a kind of troublemaker.

Apart from that, I think I'll never forget the part where he compares how the funding agencies describe their projects, and how the professors that work on scientific projects for those agencies describe the very same work: The people who are actually in power and decide to give money to this or that professor, they are very blunt and straightforward in describing the problems to be solved, whereas the professors working on those problems describe the same work as if it were directed by their scientific, child-like curiosity, focused on discovering some abstract laws for understanding nature. It becomes so obvious that it hurts.

This is a unique book, maybe the only one of its kind, and I consider it to be valuable not for its recommendation, but for the reflections it leads the reader to. The questions it forced me to ask. No easy answers, because those are some dangerous, disturbing questions, so think twice before pursuing their logical consequences.

Oh, and the next time you see common working-class folk becoming a little skeptic towards the ideas of objective, scientific bureaucrats, those professionals that are highly-trained and claiming that they are progressive, free thinkers, well, I'm sure this book will be among the ones worth remembering and re-reading.

Finally, dear professionals, working for government, or companies, trying to solve 'interesting' problems, you owe yourself to read this book. After all, it's good to be made uncomfortable every once in a while, right? ( )

Read if you're thinking about grad school.