This is precisely the kind of "science book" I don't read. I get it that in practice, success in science requires at least as much in the way of "soft skills" as skills more obviously scientific; that's one reason I became an engineer rather than a scientist. (Engineering is a lot less "star system" than science, and doubly so in areas with an undersupply of practitioners. There's room for people who prefer dealing with things to dealing with people.)
But I don't want to be reminded that, to the average person, and to most of those with power to make decisions for others, soft skills matter more than just about anything else, and while they don't explicitly say it, generally in their negative forms, from sycophancy to sociopathy. Show me someone whose success is attributed to "soft skills", and I'll show you someone who got where they are by backstabbing, taking credit for other people's work, and similar methods. There are exceptions, as there are in anything, and it's a happy thing to discover one of those exceptional people.
But I still don't want to read about someone schmoozing, politicking, and probably worse. The science is inherently interesting to me. The politicking merely tends to make me angry.
There's plenty of schmoozing and "star system" stuff going on in the engineering side of the US defense industry. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of how "soft skills" get applied, though! I think what has happened in defense (which I'm picking on because that is where I started almost 40 years ago, but aerospace & medical equipment businesses are somewhat related in structure) is related to related problems in education. At one time, a B.S. in engineering was sufficient for a decent technical career. Even 10+ years ago, an older gentleman from my undergrad school with a B.S. was a task lead for PhDs in a small R&D group. Now, even start-ups are requesting PhDs for entry-level jobs.
I'm from the generation where an irrelevant bachelor's degree was still good enough for computer science, and in a few cases no college at all, but that time is sadly long past. It hasn't gotten quite as bad as aerospace & medical equipment - a master's degree is good enough for an entry-level job.
At the same time "soft skills" and extraversion have also become important. I suspect a common cause - oversupply of candidates, such that the managers pick people they feel good about.
There may also be issues with dumbing down of education (today's BSC knows less than in earlier generation), or even an increase in what level of skill and knowledge is needed (much more prior art, and everything is much more complex).
I started reading American Prometheus about 15 years ago but never finished, largely due to the lack of science. It just wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention.
Rhodes' books on the atom and hydrogen bombs, otoh, are real page turners. At least for me.
And Pais' book on Bohr is worth reading. I liked it even more than "Subtle..."
Following your previous post, I sent off for a copy of Canticle... I remember really liking it when I read it in maybe 7th grade.
I don't think it was unfair. If a biography of a scientist, however political they were, didn't tell a history of their science, I'd be pretty unhappy with them either. To be a bit unfair, not having science on NdGT's biography would probably be fine, but if his contributions show up in a graduate physics course, I think they warrant a mention.
This is precisely the kind of "science book" I don't read. I get it that in practice, success in science requires at least as much in the way of "soft skills" as skills more obviously scientific; that's one reason I became an engineer rather than a scientist. (Engineering is a lot less "star system" than science, and doubly so in areas with an undersupply of practitioners. There's room for people who prefer dealing with things to dealing with people.)
But I don't want to be reminded that, to the average person, and to most of those with power to make decisions for others, soft skills matter more than just about anything else, and while they don't explicitly say it, generally in their negative forms, from sycophancy to sociopathy. Show me someone whose success is attributed to "soft skills", and I'll show you someone who got where they are by backstabbing, taking credit for other people's work, and similar methods. There are exceptions, as there are in anything, and it's a happy thing to discover one of those exceptional people.
But I still don't want to read about someone schmoozing, politicking, and probably worse. The science is inherently interesting to me. The politicking merely tends to make me angry.
There's plenty of schmoozing and "star system" stuff going on in the engineering side of the US defense industry. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of how "soft skills" get applied, though! I think what has happened in defense (which I'm picking on because that is where I started almost 40 years ago, but aerospace & medical equipment businesses are somewhat related in structure) is related to related problems in education. At one time, a B.S. in engineering was sufficient for a decent technical career. Even 10+ years ago, an older gentleman from my undergrad school with a B.S. was a task lead for PhDs in a small R&D group. Now, even start-ups are requesting PhDs for entry-level jobs.
I'm from the generation where an irrelevant bachelor's degree was still good enough for computer science, and in a few cases no college at all, but that time is sadly long past. It hasn't gotten quite as bad as aerospace & medical equipment - a master's degree is good enough for an entry-level job.
At the same time "soft skills" and extraversion have also become important. I suspect a common cause - oversupply of candidates, such that the managers pick people they feel good about.
There may also be issues with dumbing down of education (today's BSC knows less than in earlier generation), or even an increase in what level of skill and knowledge is needed (much more prior art, and everything is much more complex).
I started reading American Prometheus about 15 years ago but never finished, largely due to the lack of science. It just wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention.
Rhodes' books on the atom and hydrogen bombs, otoh, are real page turners. At least for me.
And Pais' book on Bohr is worth reading. I liked it even more than "Subtle..."
Following your previous post, I sent off for a copy of Canticle... I remember really liking it when I read it in maybe 7th grade.
I don't think it was unfair. If a biography of a scientist, however political they were, didn't tell a history of their science, I'd be pretty unhappy with them either. To be a bit unfair, not having science on NdGT's biography would probably be fine, but if his contributions show up in a graduate physics course, I think they warrant a mention.