[supernova87a]

Well, it is good advice, but you also have to keep in mind that it has become a lot more competitive since the time that E.O. Wilson became a Harvard professor. He grew up in the age of an expanding faculty, not competing with the entire world for a professorship, and let's just say... a world interested in the lives of ants.

Not to cast any doubt whatsoever on his impressive scholarship and advances for the public good of science at all, but the environment he succeeded in is not the same world that today's young professors face.

You should do all the things he suggests. But don't expect that that alone will lead to greatness without a lot of luck too.

[whatshisface]

Well, it is titled "on becoming a great scientist," not "on playing the academic system for adequate remuneration and a tenure track position." Great scientists are the same kinds of people and they do the same kinds of things, it's just now becoming a great scientist is not a path to feeding a family.

[konjin]

What's the difference between a math phd and a large pizza?

A large pizza feeds a family of four^H^H^H^H two.

I need to make adjustments for pizza inflation too, even though it still beats out the phd. How depressing.

[geoalchimista]

Second this. I read a few chapters of the book and put it down. I was quite disappointed by its irrelevancy to the current state of the academia. Nothing against his time. It's just that the world has changed dramatically.

[mnky9800n]

Did you read a PhD is not enough! I found the level of cynicism in that book to be much more relevant to being a scientist today.

[stanford_labrat]

Really? What made you think that? For example, the first “lesson” is to find a scientific niche early that will be hot in 5-10 years.

This seems like decent enough advice to a young scientist.

[warlog]

My advice is to only buy the winning lottery tickets and to stop wasting it on the losing tickets.

[croissants]

I think his advice is a little more valuable than that. I've seen plenty of grad students who just work on whatever their advisor is interested in and don't think about the future. Periodically re-assessing to figure out what will be important in the near future could be helpful to them.

[javajosh]

First, I love E.O. Wilson. I can pick up and read "Consilience" from almost anywhere and find a gem or two in it. But he is a gentle idealist, a good man who's made good in the world. And his words are at least in part a statement about should be, not just about what is. And I agree with him. Professor and Scientist are ultimately distinct because the former is bound to academia's peculiar and dark rules, and the latter is not.

Startups famously cannot afford to do science, Big Corp. doesn't have an R&D budget, academia is stultifying, so that leaves...Gentleman Hobby Scientists! The kind of people who are a software architect by day and watch 3blue1brown at night, or watches Steve Caroll's "Biggest Ideas in the Universe" series (great, btw). The kind of people who 20% time was made for. The kind of people who kick themselves for not dropping out in 1996 when they had solid funding for an internet startup available, but they wanted to finish their degree.

But yeah, "greatness" is always going to be about luck more than anything. The only consolation is that no matter how great you become, on a long enough timeline you will be forgotten. Heck, go out on the street and ask about "minor" scientists like Lavoisier or Leibniz or Gauss or Bohr or Brahe or, heck, Archimedes. You will get blank stares, or worse, ridiculed! So yeah, "greatness" (which they used to call "immortality", interestingly) is a pretty bad reason to do science, in my opinion. OTOH if you want to push the boundaries of human knowledge, and want to be the first to see it (and also one of the first to appreciate the progress of others), then that sounds good to me.

[ISL]

Agreed that at least some luck (and the avoidance of bad luck) is essential for a modern academic career.

As I recall -- Not quite explicit in Letters from a Young Scientist: He worked really hard and is prolific. For those lucky-enough to hit personal resonance with a field of study, what looks like others to be really hard work is enabled by the joy of great passion.

It is a great book -- definitely worth a read.