Angier, Natalie. "Nice Guys Don't Win Nobel Prizes," review of Science As a Process by David
L. Hull (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988). New York Times Book Review, 6
November 1988, pp. 14-16.
Here is a book written by a philosopher of science at Northwestern, which appears to share some
of my notions on fraud in science. Note the similarity in this quotation: "‘Some of the behavior
that appears to be the most improper actually facilitates the manifest goals of science... As it
turns out, the least productive scientists tend to behave the most admirably, while those who
make the greatest contribution just as frequently behave the most deplorably." (p. 14) That
certainly sounds like the major thrust of this bibliography, but then, apparently, the author takes
The author adopts a "biological model" of science as an institution and a Darwinian view of the
individual in competition with his fellows for survival. Shades of sociobiology: Hull would have
it that the survival of the fittest justifies the selfish and devious behavior of the successful.
How's this for Spencerian thought? "Science is so organized that self-interest promotes the
greatest good." (p. 16)