Summary
Martin Lewis Perl's 2003 interviews with the American Institute of Physics present a scientist's philosophy through the fictionalized advice of a mentor, Dr. Hesselink, who defines the scientific vocation as a "tangle of ver-y obscure emotions, like mysticism, or wanting to write poetry" — not a mere job choice. The central argument is that authentic science requires an inborn disposition, relentless work, and protection from "Success," which corrupts by turning research into a tool for social climbing and institutional control. The book contrasts this pure scientific religion with the "Professional Optimists" and "Philanthropists" — doctors, soldiers, preachers, and statesmen — who have made a "fine mess of hell" by ruling through sentiment rather than skeptical inquiry. A reader takes away a stark distinction between the true scientist, who works and searches without howling about loving everybody, and the camp-followers who treat science as a career ladder. The interviews also dramatize the seduction of cooperative science as a power structure, where a colleague proposes using Perl's work to "control not only McGurk but every institute" for "really efficient research."
Key concepts
- Religion of a scientist — The belief that being a scientist is an inborn, mystical calling akin to writing poetry, not a career choice like being a bond-salesman or physician.
- Professional Optimists — People who rule the world through sentimental philanthropy (doctors, soldiers, preachers, statesmen) and have made a mess of it, contrasted with the skeptical scientist.
- Protection from Success — The mentor's promise to shield Perl from the honors, professorships, and prizes that would corrupt his scientific purity.
- Superstructure of coöperative science — A proposed scheme to control research institutes and university departments nationwide, producing "really efficient research" through centralized power.
- Skeptical attitude toward life — The definition of truth as not a "colored bird to be chased" but a persistent questioning stance, allowing one to enjoy work and know its facts better than the average job-holder.
- Camp-followers — Scientists who are actually secretaries, press-agents, and careerists, not true scientists born with the vocation.
From the book
Title: Interviews with the American Institute of Physics (2003) by Martin Lewis Perl← Arrowsmith ( 1925 ) by Sinclair Lewis Chapter I → related portals : Pulitzers , American literature Winner of the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for the Novel 3617447 Arrowsmith 1925 Sinclair Lewis Layout 2 ARROWSMITH By SINCLAIR LEWIS Author of Main Street, Babbitt, etc. NEW YORK HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY 130 COPYRIGHT, 1925, BY HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY, INC. Copyright, 1924, 1925, by The Designer Publishing Company, Inc. The first edition of Arrowsmith consists of 500 copies on handmade paper, numbered and signed by the author. Second printing [first trade edition], January, 1925 PRINTED IN THE U. S. A. BY THE QUINN & BODEN COMPANY RAHWAY, N. J. To Dr. Paul H. DeKruif I am indebted not only for most of…
Popular questions readers ask
- Given the detailed dedication to Dr. Paul H. DeKruif, how might his specific contributions to the "bacteriological and medical material" and "philosophy as a scientist" profoundly shape the narrative, character development, or overarching message of *Arrowsmith*?
- Chapter I immediately plunges the reader into a scene of intense hardship and loss in the Ohio wilderness. What foundational expectations or potential thematic contrasts does this vivid opening establish for a novel that also emphasizes scientific and medical themes from its dedication?
- Beyond the legal details, what does the comprehensive copyright and public domain information communicate about the lifespan and enduring cultural significance of a literary work like *Arrowsmith*, and how might its public domain status influence its accessibility or reinterpretation today?
- If you were to explain the core essence of *Arrowsmith* to someone based *only* on the dedication, the extensive chapter list, and the opening paragraph of Chapter I, what would you hypothesize to be the central conflict or driving force of the narrative?
- Sinclair Lewis credits Dr. DeKruif not only for factual material but also for "planning of the fable itself" and "realization of the characters." What does this level of acknowledged collaboration suggest about the nature of authorship and the pursuit of authenticity in a novel exploring specialized fields?