I realize I'm in the minority in the reviews I've read. Perhaps it's just me at the moment. Smolin's certainly no [link|http://www.amazon.com/One-Two-Three-Infinity-Speculations/dp/0486256642|Gamow] though (do note, however, that Gamow's 60 year old book is wrong about some things).

The problems with Berkeley Physics are just symptoms of larger problems (problems that are far more severe at less-famous institutions): It comes down to 3 things, IMO: 1) Funding. 2) Leadership. 3) Employment opportunities for graduates. Without those 3 things, US physics, and US science in general, will continue to decline from the peaks of the 1930s-1960s. Dumping tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into Berkeley will improve things for the few people who work there (and that's important), but it won't help increase the number or quality of science graduates much by itself. Students these days aren't stupid. If they're willing to take on ~ $100k in debt to go to school there, they know they have to go into a field that will give them enough income to pay those loans off. A Post-Doc or Assistant Prof or Lecturer or high-school teacher salary (maybe $25k-$50k per year) isn't going to do it if they want to have a home and the rest of the American Dream. PhDs from schools outside the US aren't nearly as expensive, so there's no market pressure to raise salaries here. Smolin addresses #2 a little (the Group Think aspects) and he's right there. Without Leadership that sees the big picture and the necessity of looking at all aspects of physics, not just the latest hot topic (high temperature superconductors, or string theory, light from silicon, or ...), then there's still the danger of a technological breakout by others, or of simply unnecessarily delaying progress for decades (which can cost millions of people money and lives).

Waving a magic wand and forgiving college debt sounds like a quick solution to the cost of college, but we know from the 1970s-1980s that without standards and thought about desired outcomes we end up with beautician-school diploma mills that rake in millions and don't improve things for their graduates. (That is, suddenly turning out hundreds more PhD theorists or particle physicists isn't going to do the job market for them too much good.)

All three things need to be fixed. Probably the most difficult is increasing the demand for science graduates and raising salaries on a sustainable basis. Decades of commitment are needed. Without doing that, investments in science will be hard to justify (though I personally believe they're desperately needed).

</soapbox off>

Cheers,
Scott.