I don’t know about you, but I think today’s dramatic unmasking of scientist Brooke Magnanti as the mysterious call-girl Belle de Jour, blogger and titillating tell-all author, has just done wonders for the reputation of scientists. What could be more humanizing than the oldest profession?
Dr Magnanti, who in the Sunday Times’ glamour shots bears more than a passing resemblance to Paris Hilton, is reported in the paper’s exclusive to be “a respected specialist in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology in a hospital research group in Bristol”. To make a long story short, she was broke after writing her thesis and decided that becoming a £300 per hour London call girl was a good a way as any to ease the pain.
There has been a bit of predictable tut-tutting about today’s revelation– but I wasn’t really that surprised. First of all, I have first-hand experience with how broke and destitute a graduate student can become. And second, science is a profession populated by human beings, and Magnanti’s decision seems like a perfectly human one. Maybe it’s just my liberal arts education, or my four-year stint in Amsterdam, but I can’t see anything morally incorrect about the good doctor’s money-making scheme, provided it was carried out, as she claims, without her or anyone else being exploited.
I was also gratified to find out that Belle de Jour was the genuine article – many journalists having decided that only a man could have written something so smutty. Good on her. But my main reaction on hearing the news was excitement: surely this unveiling would help to shatter the tedious stereotypes suffered by our entire profession. It may be a sad indictment of our times, but this one instance of raciness might do more than a hundred well-meaning “public engagement” exercises to show people that researchers are just as good – or bad – as anyone else.
I saw this on the front page of the Sunday Times today (I hasten to add I wasn’t going to buy the rag—although a couple of quid seemed almost worth it for this story alone) and my first reaction was an unqualified
yes!
That one of the most infamous blogging phenomena of our time happens to be a research scientist engendered an inordinate amount of excitement. The only downside is that I’m still slightly worried this is a publicity stunt by the Wellcome… but if it is, it’s a ruddy brilliant one.
Extended interview here on TimesOnline.
I too was delighted to see this, slightly scared to think it could be a cunning plan by Wellcome! Be interested to see how this is covered by the red tops…
surely this unveiling would help to shatter the tedious stereotypes suffered by our entire profession
A phrase prefixed with the word ‘surely’ always makes me look out for special pleading. This will be a flash in the pan. What the rest of the world will say, at best – especially the metropolitan literati, who will find that this phenomenon was a – gasp – scientist – is that she’s obviously a bit of a looker, and therefore untypical of (their) picture of a scientist as a geeky lab-coated male who goes to Star Trek conventions at weekends.
I saw this yesterday and wanted to blog about it, but have no time until later, so I knew someone else on NN would get to it before me.
I too was glad to find out she was a scientist. Whenever scientists are in the news, it’s always about their (scientific) work. Scientists in reality are people who live next door to you and wait for the bus with you or who play on your volleyball team. They can be anywhere. And the more examples of “Oh, hey, this person we’re somewhat familiar with is a scientist” – the better. Because these examples add up, and eventually they will not be written off as exceptions to the stereotype.
And earlier yesterday I was reading a “would you rather” poll in Toronto Life magazine, that asked “Would you rather work as a prostitute for a week or at GapKids for the rest of your life?”. I must say, that’s a tough one! (Folding tiny sweaters forever? Ugh. Sex with strangers? Also ugh.) The public had answered it 47% vs 53% respectively, so it sounds like many people wouldn’t morally object to making some money quickly if they needed to.
I completely agree with you, Eva. Every little bit chips away at the edifice.
Henry, you’ve obviously not been to the sort of the public engagement events I had in mind when I suggested the Belle outing could be more effective. (And stop calling me Shirley.)
many journalists having decided that only a man could have written something so smutty
huh? really? gosh….. I must be off in my head?! There is something males would do since women get off by looking at naked bodies… wait a minute… how was it now again?! 😉
In regards to the other news… I guess I might be more of a conservative one, or social-liberal or what have you. I am not too thrilled about the wonderful selling sex for money but sure, it “helps” with the notion that scientists are “boring” maybe. The only thing in my head at the moment though is “£300 an HOUR? Are you freaking kidding me?! Instead of being a poor grad student, hell….” but I guess it is only certain people who can charge that much… Or would the “almost PhD help”? (or all “full PhD really earned from a real university and not an internet-based-on” help with the charging too?)
Henry, you’ve obviously not been to the sort of the public engagement events I had in mind
Oh, Shirley, believe me, I have. They only reinforce my view that PUS is very often a complete waste of time.
I’m laughing at Åsa’s business model. Problem is that it would possibly only attract the sort of clientele who wouldn’t go to a prostitute anyway, although… I can just imagine our hostess saying something like “Have you considered Darwin?” at opportune moments. It’s been done.
Ha ha. Yes, possibly not the credentials most punters would have in mind.
Asa, when Belle de Jour came out here, there was almost nonstop speculation about “his” identity, which I thought was amazingly offensive. I wonder if Brooke Magnanti finally just got tired of an entire gender taking credit for her magnum opus. But actually, the real reason she came out could have been that, as most authors know, books don’t earn anywhere near as much money as the peripheral activities that go with them, namely speaking engagements. She’ll
surelymake a packet now, no question.books don’t earn anywhere near as much money as the peripheral activities that go with them, namely speaking engagements
In the interview she said she was mildly irked that she couldn’t go to her own book launch.
That would indeed be no fun at all, to have all of the slog of writing a book but few of the perks.
Tried on the Tube today to look over shoulders and see what preposterous headlines the red tops had given the story, but everyone seemed to be reading about serious stuff, like Copenhagen.
I think this is probably the best analysis I’ve seen yet.
Ha ha ha. That’s very clever. And it’s always nice to learn a new bit of cockney rhyming slang.
Today’s general reaction to the news from my lab: shock and uneasiness. Ah, well.
maybe they’re worried about getting found out?
I think they view prostitution as morally reprehensible and see her act as that of a victim who had no choice, not one of someone deliberately taking charge of her life.
i wonder if this counts as ‘impact’ in the REF…
laugh @Branwen!
Isn’t anyone going to suggest graduate students shouldn’t be that broke and destitute!
I’m afraid I think Henry is probably right – people will dismiss it as an exception to the rule of thoroughly geeky scientists.
That’s already been suggested in the press, Samantha. Although I have to say that PhD students in the UK earn more than some entry-level professional staff (science publishing springs to mind) when you take into account that the earnings are tax free.
Spoekn from the heart,
ShirleyJenny.Well, it’s all relative. At least science PhDs are better off than their counterparts in the Humanities where (so I gather) the pay can be a lot worse. Our students here seem to live just fine on the stipends – and still have plenty left over for an alarming amount of beer. To be fair, though, from the sketchy press reports it sounds as if Dr Magnanti had actually not completed on time and was writing her viva without support. This does occasionally happen in the biomedical sciences but most lab supervisors will at least try to stump up a short-term post-doctoral salary to see them through. She might have been unlucky in this regard.
Back in the day (i.e. the 80s) such writing up was often done as a “DHSS scholar” (Dept of Health and Social Security, aka The Dole). Certainly how I wrote up my PhD post-end-of-studentship. I am pretty sure it still happens, with students maybe getting a bit of pin money from demonstrating and tutoring. Or I suspect quite a few not-completed-but-writing students still head back to the parental home with their laptop. Free room and meals.
I reckon only very rich labs would be able to rustle up a short term postdoc salary – and most who did would want the person working in the lab in exchange rather than sitting writing their thesis. In general, though, labs in hospital departments often tend to have access to more “slush money” than in the non-clinical / Univ bioscience departments. At least, that is the urban legend.
“it sounds as if Dr Magnanti had actually not completed on time and was writing her viva without support.”
That’s what I gathered from it. She would have been 28 in the fall of ’03, and most UK PhD students are done before that (grr). Plus, she said she only just moved to London, so she might have misbudgeted what she thought she could live on compared to what it actually costs there.
My PhD supervisor didn’t financial support students writing up after the end of their grants – he said it just encouraged people to take longer because it removed the pressure to get it written quickly.
i wonder if this counts as ‘impact’ in the REF…
Heh. “Social and Economic Impact”, or perhaps “Education and Outreach”, in the report I’m writing now. Sadly, we have no such line items to report.
We recently had a supported peri-viva student, but he was finishing up data for a paper, not his viva. In that case it was in the lab head’s best interests to finance 6 more months – with some projects it’s virtually impossible to finish mopping up without the originator’s help.
If we’re worried about desperate students, I think it’s safe to say that the time-honored way of easing the transition between PhD and post-doc, in addition to kipping at one’s parents, is just to get a normal job. I know a number of students who’ve gone for bar work, temping or whatever. I have no doubt that prostitution was not Dr Mangnanti’s sole and last resort – she must have fancied it at a certain level, or at least fancied the extravagant salary.
I wasn’t impressed with this news on a personal level, as it seems to me to go right against any feminist ethic.
I appreciate I am probably the oldest person in a long way commenting in this post- but I spent years and years of my life being very, very poor as an undergraduate, D Phil student and postdoc. I earned enough money to pay the rent and scrape together the odd cheese sandwich by many means – serving in shops, marking school exams, assisting at undergrad practicals, stuffing leaflets in envelopes and through letterboxes, etc. The idea of supplementing an income via prostitution never occurred and if it had, I would have put that very last on a list of things I would have contemplated. I can’t feel good about any woman feeling that she has to sell her body, or feeling that she wants to. Call me old fashioned.
Maybe times have changed and there are no longer ways to earn money via one’s brains or doing legal but menial work. But I somehow doubt it.
For me, the idea of someone being a prostitute is not at all glamorous and I’m sorry if “science” becomes “cool” as a result. Probably this makes me very old-fashioned indeed.
Not so much ‘cool’ as ‘human’. I know what you mean, but I know some feminists who think that they have a right to all choices, not just savory ones. It’s a tricky issue.
Yes, it may well have been – almost certainly was – by far the most money for the least hours, but it is hardly the only option. And one finds it difficult to believe that it comes without any attached emotional cost, regardless of the choice/empowerment agenda that we get told so much about. But what would I know, I’m a bloke, and an ageing misery to boot.
it is hardly the only option.
For some it is. But I suspect for the good Dr it wasn’t, which means it was a choice, and one she seems to have done quite well out of. That is feminism, isn’t it?
Yes indeed, Austin. A cynical person might also wonder if she did it for the experience and notoriety it would lend her writing – as ‘research’. It’s a pretty cunning plan if so – and successful too.
Branwen Hide wrote:
I think the precise tage that springs to mind is
“…public engagement…”
I am struggling, struggling to resist the temptation to make a dreadul pun about Belle de Jour’s calamitous misunderstanding of that phrase…
Hmm
I have first-hand experience with how broke and destitute a graduate student can become
Me too, to the point where selling access to my veins for clinical trials seemed like a good way to make some cash when I had to struggle through the final year of PhD after my scholarship ran out (after 3 years). I’ll save the story about the haematoma the length of my arm after the muppet running the trial missed a cannulation and infused ~50ml of saline into the muscle around my elbow.
So, I’ll refrain from making any moral or ethical judgements on this one, except to say I should have asked for more money.
I’m laughing at Åsa’s business model.
Richard: I had a business model? 😉
there was almost nonstop speculation about “his” identity, which I thought was amazingly offensive. ..–.. But actually, the real reason she came out could have been that, as most authors know, books don’t earn anywhere near as much money as the peripheral activities that go with them, namely speaking engagements.
Jenny: yes, I thought it sounded a bit too much to be true…. of course, reality is always stranger than fiction. I guess it would lead to more money with the “tell us about the transition” and then I also saw that she had planned two more books so…..
Stephen, we are all pleased by your restraint. 🙂
Darren, I too helped supplement my meager grad student stipend by being a subject of medical research. I never went for anything invasive, and rather enjoyed talking with the scientists about their research goals and experimental set-up. But the big money was in drugs – trialling meds for big pharma. I never did this because of all the horror stories my colleagues put out about being bombed out on some terrible brew for three days, too muzzy to work in the lab. Some things just aren’t worth the cash.
I never did this because of all the horror stories my colleagues put out about being bombed out on some terrible brew for three days
You’ve tried the LMB coffee then?
A friend of mine sold his sperm. Not available for female PhD students, though.
Actually, that reminds me: one of the female PhDs in my department sold her eggs! They can fetch several thousand dollars, as I recall.
Selling eggs is an awful process, procedurally. You’re pumped full of drugs and have to have what amounts to surgery. Sperm, though, are … ahem … easier..
I seem to remember some trouble in a particularly infamous stem cell lab in Korea where the technicians and students were “donating” their eggs for expts.
When I was an undergraduate summer intern at the NIH, one of the PIs used to prey on the fresh recruits’ blood for his gene-mapping studies. We all loved it because, although we weren’t paid, he’d gift every donor with an 8×10 glossy karyotype of our own chromosomes. I still have it in a frame in my flat.
That particular scientist is quite famous and I’ve still got the scribbled thank you post-it note on the back of the photo.
So, some of the current knowledge about gene mapping comes in part from your DNA? That’s pretty cool.
I’ve only ever been the subject of psychological and social studies. (The social studies one was something about brain drain for the Dutch government, about what students do after they leave Holland to study abroad, and they sent all participants the full report after it was done. I think I recognized myself in one of the quotes, but it had been so long ago at that point that I wasn’t even sure.)
Jenny
Looks like you could make your own, in the lab! Now there’s a little money-spinning idea for a desperate PhD student…
Eva, the post-it note actually says:
“Thank you. I mapped a gene on your (perfectly normal) chromosomes.”
I always thought that sounded so very poetic – something about the parentheses.
Can I ask for a second opinion?
Are you FISHing for something?
Nice link Asa. Some years ago a colleague of mine had the same idea, and we went as far as thinking about costings and talking to the business/IP people… then it turned out some other company was already doing it. Not sure if it’s the same one.
Ah well. Another dream for quick riches down the drain. And I’m too old, fat and frumpy to be a gigolo.
Guess I’ll have to stick with the day job.
PS I meant to write “old, fat and grumpy”, but the mistype works too…
There are a number of companies doing the gel band art thing. I blogged about one of them once on my sci/art blog, and since then I’ve got all their competitors e-mailing me about their business. Gah.
And a guy I knew did manage to do it himself in his lab for some people for a fraction of the price. I forgot the details, but you need to have access to particular restriction enzymes for it to work – the ones they use for human DNA and forensics and stuff. You can’t just add EcoRI, apparently.
And Jenny, that note sounds awesome. It’s nice to know you have perfectly normal chromosomes (unlike Richard, who has one of those weird mutant “Y” things… =P)
Eva wrote (re DNA gel band art):
Yes, assume they analyse hypervariable loci w. different number (heritable) of tandem repeats, just like the DNA fingerprinting people do.
I’m sure loads of people here know tons more about that stuff than me (since I know nothing-ish), so I’ll stop there.
I think our idea was to hand-pseudocolour different bands in Photoshop, or to go into partnership with our mates in the local digital art community to offer different bespoke “styles” of presenting the DNA picture. The company Asa linked to does do colour mixes, I see.
I was thinking their prices were cheap, but I see that once you get up to, say, 4 people on the picture (like 2 parents + 2 kids) it is getting to be a bit pricey, comparable to the “name artist” contemporary art my mother used to sell in a small gallery.
Wonder if they’ve ever accidentally discovered, er, anomalies of attributed parenthood when people send the DNA in? They’d have to get the people sending in the samples to sign a well-lawyered consent form, methinks…
I’d choose frumpy over grumpy anytime, duckie.
At least above yonder spam is on-topic. (Good for a giggle before we smite it.)
I think DNA bands are ugly and the way forward would be beautifully stained cells from the customer – say cheek cells. One wouldn’t have to get them to divide in culture – just a nice smear and fix. Cells are so inherently lovely and would look much better enlarged and framed on someone’s wall.
Austin, there are all sorts of ethical things inherent in using people’s samples. When I used to work in the retrovirus field, I knew some people who canvassed their colleagues for ‘negative control blood’. I always thought this was incredibly stupid – what would they do if it turned out not to be negative?
@Jennifer: like, with a beta-tubulin or E-cadherin stain? I’d go for that.
In the genetics unit I work in, it’s considered bad form to hit up your colleagues for “control” blood, but that was certainly not the case elsewhere I’ve been – and I’ve gotten out of it by not being the right ethnic group for the control.
I know someone who worked at McDonald’s full time while finishing up the last year of her Ph.D. and writing it up. She’s – no surprise – now very gainfully employed by a biomedical supplier as a salesperson. Myself, I just collected unemployment for six months and mooched off my husband. Not everyone is so lucky.
I may be biased, but I think phalloidin (actin), tubulin and DAPI (DNA) is a classic combo that makes any cell look beautiful.
One of my friends does MRI scans for his research and is always looking for control human brains! (Live ones, attached to bodies, that is.) That’s pretty hard to trump. It’s three hours of one’s time, but he does give people their scans to keep as an incentive.
heck yes: I do miss my mouse 10T1/2s with their beautiful cytoskeletons.
I have a full set of chest MRIs if anyone’s interested.
You mean like these ones ? The institute I used to work at had annual imaging competition, and would then sell the images in calendars and as “artwork” for fundraising. One of mine went for $10k apparently (would rather have had that in my pocket at the time).
We actually tried to use the cell staining idea (ie take a cheek swab, stain and photograph) as a form of engaging school students in research. The idea was that each student could take home a picture of their own cells. We had to give up on the idea thanks to a particularly overzealous official in the local Education Dept who was worried we were actually trying to gather genetic material on the sly for evil means. No amount of fact could convince her otherwise.
That is so sad! I mean, honestly. Sounds like the same type of committee who tried to outlaw the throwing of conkers here in Britain.
Of course, wrenches back on-topic, there is always the possibility that the whole thing is fabrication. Clearly Belle du Jour is excellent at writing, whether it’s fiction or not.
I would also venture to say that now the first blush of popularity is off the book, and it was headed firmly for the $4.99 discount table at the front of the store, it was a perfect time for this little piece of press manipulation.
Less “rah rah rah scientists are sexy people too” than “rah rah rah look at me, look at me!” I think.
Richard, I suspect that ‘Magnanti B’ has been one of the most popular PubMed searches of the last week.
(Three papers, by the way)
Me-_yow_.
But seriously, Wintle, you might be right. I’m not sure speaking engagements and press exclusives pay as well as £300/hr, but if she’s very lucky they might let her eat spiders on I’m A Celebrity next year.
Well, honestly… “here’s a book based on my blog” is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a terribly good endorsement that it might be true to life, is it?
And yes, I think that’s about right for future prospects. The problem with this kind of book and accompanying exposé is that there’s not really much opportunity for a sequel.
She’s got the PhD now. The experiment was successful. WHy does she need a sequel?
Well, at the risk of sounding catty, I think Richard Wintle has just provided a possible rationale.
And therein, I think, lies the downside for Magnanti B. I think most people would concede that (as her current employers have formally stated) this history has nothing to do with her ability as a scientist. But that will not stop people drawing inferences about her character based on what she did then, and what she has done now. And the inferences may not all be that favourable.
If that sounds a bit harsh, it it worth remembering that there are other jobs, typically professional ones, where revealing a history like this would almost certainly be seen as raising serious questions about the person’s suitability to practice – I’m thinking things like medicine and law.
Yeah – sad but true, Austin. I occasionally get odd reactions from certain members of the scientific community because I happen to write novels on the side. It’s not seen to be as deviant as prostitution, but there is the implication perhaps that I’m not as serious as I could be, if lab work is not the be-all and end-all of the sum total of my thought processes. Perhaps a passé like Magnanti’s would not be as detrimental in science as in law, but I’m not convinced it’s completely neutral either.
She’s got the PhD now. The experiment was successful. WHy does she need a sequel?
Hm, good point I suppose.
I’m surprised that we haven’t started hearing the usual institutional grumbling about “appropriate professional conduct” that Austin refers to – she works for a children’s hospital research institute, right? But she said in that interview that “they” have been supportive, so who knows?
“They” might be hoping to bask in some reflected glory, as their institute is pretty obscure but now its name is appearing in all the papers. No such thing as bad publicity?
Austin> it does feel like something “anyone could have thought of”, doesn’t it? 😉 I had some thoughts about silly stuff like that when I did lots of cloning but then I realised that at least in Sweden the market would be very limited 🙂
On the other subject, I thought I read that two more books were planned? And then I guess it would be a “good thing” to be open with who you are?
Richard G> 3? I thought it said she was a paid researcher at a cancer institute? (I might be wrong here but 3 publications will get you there in UK? Or maybe I misunderstood something?)
I don’t think she’s a lab head, but more like a research associate. So she wouldn’t need more papers than whatever got her through PhD/postdoc.
Asa – the British media call anyone who works in science a “scientist” or “researcher”, including first-yr PhD students… which is fine, as obviously they are scientists, though junior / trainee ones. But it is sometimes a little confusing – compare, for instance, with medicine where anyone below tbe rank of consultant is formally a “junior” doctor – even though the doctor in question might be 40 yrs old and have many years experience, just not at the most senior level.
Anyway, for scientists obviously the only way to really tell is to count the years post-PhD – so 4 or 5 in Brooke Magnanti’s case. The story in the Times actually implied fairly clearly that she is a postdoctoral (contract) researcher on a grant or other time-limited appointment:
Austin> thanks for explaining it a bit more. I guess it makes sort of sense with researcher/scientist – not as much “hirerchy” in the name calling?
I guess I read it more as “being on a grant” rather than “being on a grant and being post doc”. Huh, I wonder why I did that… maybe I was just tired?
I mentioned this story to my postdoc and she wondered if I was making a career suggestion. Sigh.
snort
_Anyway, for scientists obviously the only way to really tell is to count the years post-PhD _
Not in my case. You have to watch out for those career breaks.
Actually, the British press is quite happy to call people ‘scientists’ who only have an undergraduate science degree – particularly those who present science on TV. To be fair, they tend to call themselves that in the first place, and the press doesn’t know any better I guess. It’s one of my pet peeves, people calling themselves ‘scientists’ who’ve never done a day of actual experimental research. You’ve got to suffer to sing the blues.
I think I remember somewhere a semantic distinction between “scientist” and “researcher”.
Jennifer, your definition of a scientist corresponds to mine of a researcher. Someone who actually attempts to rigorously test a formulated hypothesis, using scientific tools.
However, I think that other people can be scientists. We’re all born curious, and it’s easy enough to train people to think scientifically (or, alas, not scientifically). So I have no problems with the terms “undergraduate scientist” or “citizen scientist”. (What they do might be another matter, as some may attest.) I spent “a great summer at the Jackson Laboratory” as an apprentice scientist as an undergraduate. There were also local high school students. We were all scientists. Young, and still learning, but scientists nonetheless.
Darn, there was supposed to be a link between those quotation marks.
Also, consistent with my definition, you were still a scientist even when you weren’t in the lab, Jennifer. Once-and-future…
Yep, fair points Jennifer and Heather. I guess the years post-PhD gives you a maximum no of years of progression. (Or non-progression – twenty-two years post PhD I have the same job title as when I started with my present employer in 1987. I sometimes wonder if this is a record).
My personal view has tended to be to regard a science PhD as a “researcher’s union card” – i.e. as a kind of entry point licence to the profession of research – and that someone should be taken to be a fully-trained researcher (or near) when their peers consider them expert enough to send them journal articles or grant proposals to review.
Talking of people with undergrad science degrees who would sometimes describe themselves as “scientists”, let us not forget our former British Prime Minister Margaret Hilda Thatcher, nee Roberts. Of course, she did also work for a couple of years in applied research and published one paper.
I see half a book proposal taking shape for an opus about scientists more famous for something they did other than science. Provisional title:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, Heather. I think if people aren’t doing research, they aren’t scientists. They can be curious, interested in science, eager to know how everything works – but that’s something else. On the other hand I don’t think you need to have a PhD to be a scientist – I did quality research that appeared in someone else’s paper as an undergraduate, and amateur scientists are doing great research around the world. But an undergrad who’s just taking courses? Nope, they’re not – yet – scientists.
That would be like allowing students in art history courses to be called ‘artists’, or in English Lit classes to be called ‘writers’.
I think most English Lit classes are full of people who think they are “writers”, probably. 😉
Sensitive point, Jenny?
Well. I was just thinking how an artist, say, would feel if they’d been grinding away at their craft for maybe a decade or so, showing at exhibitions, having lots of ups and downs, and then switched on the telly and seen a glossy 20-something presenter calling himself an ‘artist’ (because he’d taken a few art appreciation courses at uni and that entitles him to be called one, surely) — and being fawned over by the press as such. That’s exactly how I feel as a scientist with some of these journalists who call themselves ‘scientists’ but haven’t done a single experiment their entire life. Maybe it is a sore point but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for experience to be allowed to wear the colors of our guild, so to speak.
Oh, and I should point out: I didn’t call myself a ‘novelist’ until I got a book deal. 🙂
Hahahaha. Austin, you just made me splurt coffee onto my keyboard.
Novelist, writer… that’s more what I was aiming at… 😉
[in John Cleese voice]
I… am an EX-SCIENTIST!!!!!
Or how about:
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
Yes. Though twelve steps is rather a lengthy recovery process for a scientist in these time-poor days.
An enterprising biotech company would no doubt market an expensive kit to do it in two or three.
“I see half a book proposal taking shape for an opus about scientists more famous for something they did other than science.”
In all seriousness, I’ve thought about that, but with music in particular. Borodin and Brian May are both more famous for the music they did than for science. (Although in particular fields of Chemistry some people will actually know Borodin for his day job.)
There are also a couple of actors who studied science but never pursued it (Natalie Portman is in PubMed with a neuroscience paper (under her real name), and Ashton Kutcher studied biochemical engineering.)
I collect these stories =)
Very good point about being/calling oneself a novelist… so, how about a scientist who conducts successful experiments in back-of-the-fridge kitchen mycology?
🙂
Eva, it’s probably about time for you to crack down and put out a book anyhow.
Thanks Eva. I knew about Brian May (didn’t he finally get his PhD a couple of yrs back when he submitted his Thesis after a trifling 30 yr delay?) but not the others.
Another ex-science rock star is Hugh Cornwell, former singer/guitarist of the Stranglers (BSc Biochem Bristol and worked in a research lab in Lund).
And another actor with a science B/G is Lisa Kudrow from Friends – BS (Biology) from Vassar, father and brother both doctors, worked in father’s clinic and is co-author on a paper.
I’ve turned up a few more on the internet too.
Finally, getting back to Bell / Brooke, there is another brief interview in New Scientist.
Now I like the Straglers even more Austin. You need to write that book Eva, I reckon it would fly
“golden brown, texture like sun”… what a beautiful lyric from an amazing (and underrated) song.
BTW, people with naught musical talent or training have been calling themselves “musicians” for ages.
I have this already, and am seriously procrastinating on it. Books are scary.
Re. “Golden Brown” – to take another subject recently in the UK news, there have probably been enough songs about illegal drugs to fill a whole bookshelf of books…
Apparently, it’s about heroin and also a girl – “both provided me with pleasurable times” according to Cornwell
What about books on illicit drugs leading to scientific breakthroughs… have you read Kary Mullis’ book “Dancing Maked in the Mindfield?”
Anyway, thanks for giving an entertaining lunchtime (first actual lunchbreak in weeks)… I just got lost in a YouTube wormhole* and ended up finding a full length HQ recording of Radiohead at Glastonbury 🙂
*wormhole = Stranglers -> Massive Attack -> Cocteau Twins -> Verve -> Radiohead
…None of which really has anything to do with the topic of this thread.
sorry, someone may have OD’d on the VitD drops this morning (or liquid sunshine as I like to call it)
I’ll go back to my wormhole now
There’s definitely a hefty list to be compiled of “well-known scientists who have written or talked about having taken LSD”. And see here.
This off-topic diversion is a lot more interesting than the original topic!
Eva, I reckon you’ve got to write that book.
Science: sex and drugs and rock and roll.
\o/
I think it’s one of those Internet Laws that no discussion of science and drugs is ever complete without a mention of the legendary Alexander (Sasha) Shulgin. The Wiki page lists quite a few of his publications, including a good many in Nature.
Clive James tackled Belle de Jour in BBC R4’s Point of View this morning… I only caught the end of it.
Are we still speaking to him after his lukewarm (no pun intended) climate change denialist diatribe?
James got it badly wrong on climate change but he’s a smart guy and often worth listening to. That said, I haven’t yet had time to replay his piece from this morning!
@ Eva: How about an edited collection (with you as the editor) of chapters written by Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Lisa Kudrow, Brian May, Hugh Cornwell and others on their brief excursions into science. It will get you some real royalties.
… Although, I am editing a book now – it is just as much work as writing one.
Bart… now that is an idea! Maybe even interviews rather than individually authored chapters?
Eva, you should include Prof Bunsen Honeydew and his assistant Beaker on your list of “scientists who rock”. See around 2:00 -2:30 in this 😉
@Darren & Eva: I’d be happy to interview Natalie Portman for you Eva 😉
On a more serious note, Nature may make this happen. It would be worth the trouble. I’m in, obviously leaving primary credit with Eva, who had the initial idea…
I just remembered I did a blog post elsewhere (images are lost due to a blog move) about kid actors who became scientists, and I totally forgot about the kid from The Shining who became a college professor! He doesn’t want to be interviewed about that, though. People have tried already.
But I’ve laid more groundwork for science/music than science acting. Only still not enough. I need to get into some kind of daily rhythm and then I’ll have proper weekends again and can work on fun things.
I’m in too… if you want/need any help.
and it all started here…I want an invite to the launch party!
Just keep the years 2035 to 2049 free. I estimate it will be done around then.
@ Eva: I reckon that with Maxine’s help, you can speed that up a bit, so all the celebs will in fact still be celebs.
Too bad this post slowly died out – I would have loved to work on that book 😉 Eva, your new job surely provides ample opportunity…