Can anyone name three great scientists of the modern age? Those who have become household names and have changed the way we think? Stephen Hawking is probably the last scientist that comes to mind – and he made his famous discoveries on gamma radiation of black holes in 1974.
Where have all the giants gone? Ever since Copernicus, science has always had heroes. Those who transformed the way we look at the world and advanced our scientific understanding. Names like Louis Pasteur, Kelvin, Einstein, and Faraday. And more recently in the 20th century, we had the giants of quantum mechanics – Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, Feynman, Chandrasekhar and many others.
But ask someone to name a few scientists in the past 40 years, and you come up with a blank. No one, not even a single person springs to mind no matter what the field. Talk about economics? John Nash achieved fame way back in 1950 with his “Nash Equilibriums.” Astrophysics? Stephen Hawkings in 1974. Edwin Hubble died in 1953. Particle physics or relativity? Though our knowledge has advanced quite a bit, there are no distinctive names that spring to mind in recent times. Computer science? Jon Von Neumann died in 1957. Alan Turing in 1954.
Where have all the great scientists gone??
Looks like whenever I read about scientific research, I only hear about funding. It’s all about money. Bigger particle accelerators. Bigger grants. Bigger teams. Where have all the bold individuals gone? It seems as if nothing is possible in science these days unless you have the backing of a governmental organization with lots of money or a corporation who wants to profit off the research. Who do we look up to? Who do our young scientists hold up as a role model in recent times and say “I want to be like him or her”?
Many different lists have been made of the greatest scientists in history. And not one of them contains an entry after 1950. Most stop at Stephen Hawking, if not earlier. There can be only two reasons for this.
- We understand the universe so well that only those with huge resources can find out something new
- The scientific environment isn’t conducive to these maverick geniuses
If the first point is the reason, then there’s not much we can do. But science is full of examples where people thought they knew everything. In 1900 Lord Kelvin is famously supposed to have claimed “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement”. Have we finally reached that stage, or are we as wrong as he was? I don’t know.
But if the first point is false, then the second must be true. Perhaps it’s no longer enough to be a genius. Maybe you also have to be a politician. Perhaps you need to have “people skills” and learn to work with others and pull the right strings. But most geniuses hate authority. They rebel. They work alone. And they’re mostly not very social. There’s a latin quotation which goes:
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit – “There has never been any great genius without an element of madness”
If this is true, does our system allow these slightly reclusive geniuses to flourish? Or has science become so institutionalized by the government and corporations that there’s simply no place for them anymore? I don’t have the answers. I only know that the days of the great scientists may be dead. And I hope with all my heart that many years later someone glancing at this article laughs and says “Look how wrong he was!”
Scientists are there…There are great many more scientists today than there were, say, 80 years ago, so discoveries tend to be collaborative rather than individual…As a result, individuals don't stand out so much…
The other thing is that these days, knowledge and research are treated as means for achieving economic objectives rather than as ends in themselves…Researchers usually get funds from the government or corporations and these funds come with strings attached…If a researcher is unable to get funds, he can't work…Governments and universities today have no interest in supporting intellectuals seeking the truth (medieval concept)…
In reply to Sraboney
I guess you're right about economic goals…
Perhaps the days of creating breakthroughs in your garage are gone now. Most of the greats did their work without needing a lot of money. Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur, Einstein etc…Maybe now you need funds to do great work
Don't cloning, cell phones, plastic surgery, computers, contact lenses, organ transplant, dental implants, digital cameras, improved cancer treatment, CFL bulbs etc count?
In reply to Indian Homemaker
I'm concerned about the people involved. Can you associate any names with these procedures? Unless you're really involved with the field, I don't think you would be able to.
:)
Spoon feed knowledge has made the majority incapable of thinking out of the box and thus become scientists..
As far as I know,most people do research work,just for the sake for getting PHd degree and thus and enhanced pay..Nobody is interested in invention or discovery..The attitude is “Others will discover,I ave no time,Let me live my life to the full” ..Well,this is how i have sensed it among researchers in my university,needn’t be true for a larger mass…
In reply to Nimmy
I think you have a point about people just wanting to do research to get a better pay. But even in the old times, these sort of people were there. It's just that just one or two people were different. Now it seems that even those one or two are gone…
There seems a vacuum for people that used to invent without thinking of paybacks. Today even small safety pins are patented. Anyways Bhagwad, In my recent years at ICFAI and thereafter I have seen an ICONOCLAST and believe that he can make a lot of difference if he withdraw his madness:
"Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit – “There has never been any great genius without an element of madness”
My dear friend I am talking about you, you may not be a scientist or a researcher but we all had lots of hope with you. You have been breaker of myth and old ideas all these years. What we all want is that you bring some change to our (humans) lives. I want you to think over it, "How can I do that?" Please exclude your writing blog/article from this…
In reply to Sajid
I'm flattered that you think I can change the world :) . But I know my limitations, and this isn't something I'm cut out for. My destiny is to just be an observer of stuff that happens. I try and participate and change whatever I can using avenues like my blog and by personal example, but I don't do more than that.
Maybe I'll wake up one day and feel the urge, but not yet :D
In reply to bhagwad
No one has ever won with you in arguments during college days, how can I expect to win, now, when you are more mature then before…:)
Sraboney is right to some extent, the research projects these days are more collaborative than they used to be. Main reason for that being is that most of the obvious, easy things have been invented/discovered and to invent anything complex requires more than one genius.
Also as the globalization has increased, scientists are communicating more and collaborating more which was not possible say 40 years ago and hence, the scientist will publish their individual works. In those times, it often happened that two or three scientist discovered the same thing around the same time. The one who published first, or the one who published in English got all the recognition. Now, as globalization is increasing, scientist tend to collaborate more than compete.
And yet another problem is that most of the geniuses are picked up by the industry, that pays them well which means anything they invent becomes companies proprietary. So unless one of them have taken a vow of poverty (and hence remain in academia), almost all geniuses are in the industry. And hence, it has become increasingly difficult for the academia to keep up with the industry and then invent something they haven't already. For example Bluetooth was discovered by Ericsson (company name, later merged with Sony to become Sony Ericsson)
Yet, every year the noble prizes are given to the greatest work in science. They don't become a household name, for whatever reason but there are great scientist out there, if someone want to look up! :)
In reply to Richa
Fortunately, the industrial houses don't have theoretical physicists on their payroll – no profit. They need engineers and those who can deliver something practical. Not those who create abstract theory. Einstein for example, would still be a pauper cause no company would pay him for discovering general relativity.
There are a few outstanding problems in physics today:
1. What is dark matter?
2. What is dark energy
3. How does gravity fit into the standard model of quantum mechanics?
4. Where the fuck is the Higgs boson?
5. Why can't we detect those gravity waves?
Unfortunately, only the first three can be solved via some theoretical breakthrough. The scientist who manages to answer them will become a household name – I hope.
The other two are merely a question of more and more powerful machinery like the LHC…unless some great brain comes out and changes the theory completely.
Do you come from Physics? Way you feel excited about Physics questions made me feel that. Are there not similar questions. in Mathematics, Computer Science, Biology, Economics Social Sciences etc. any subject you name? Many of them may remain unsolved in any body’s life time. By the time they get solved new one’s will come up, which generate passions. Long back Godel sort of proved that in Mathematics. His famous incompleteness theorem can be thought of as stating that as some things get solved newer and newer problems will come in. In India also our ancient sages had said “What ever u may know will remain just drop in the ocean”.
Your initial assumptions that Scientists become household names in their life time, I am not sure how right it is. People like Newton, Einstein or Feynman became household names not just because they were Scientists, but because they did a lot of other things apart from Science. Newton for example had his mystics and was also later chief of mint. Einstein’s saintly style and quotes are the one’s which are remembered more often. Feynman’s public activities like TV programs, his book “surely you are joking— ” etc. make him memorable.
Finally the concept that no body pays for Science today is not so much right. I have been a full time researcher in all my professional life and have lived all over world in more than 30 countries mostly paid by government funding in these countries. Practically never I had to apply for grants, nor did I feel any time I had to compromise, any time . My physicist friends tell me that even for large experiments, they never felt there is a lack of money (even in poor countries). Good management is the only problem generally.
Private industrialists, business people have spent money on pure science research, even in countries like India. In countries like USA there are many . Business people and traders, much maligned as marawadi seths in socialist and license raj era in India (which incidentally brought down capacity to do any thing of our resourceful and energetic country quite a bit, in those days) had inclination to do some thing for country. There is this famous story (true in some form- I do not have exact details now, but I have seen it mentioned in books) that Physicist Raman had gone to GD Birla asking for about Rs.50,000 donation. He had said some thing like “if you give me that I can perhaps win Nobel prize.” This was much before he won Nobel Prize. Birla arranged for that. It is a learning from both of them- Confidence of Raman and ability of Birla to understand that and have faith in it.
Finally in past centuries many great scientists lived in poverty. Today with internet even if you do not want to be employed you can do your work peacefully and just do a little bit some thing else to earn enough(you seem to be doing that well? ) to live comfortably. You may not become a millionaire but can have a decent life and devote to your passion. There are a lot of such people in USA, Europe today. I hope in India also this environment gets created soon.
So environment is much better today. Not seeing it is just an excuse.
(I was a bit reluctant to give my email address in this private site from a techie– I hope it will not be misused)
Cancel reply
W
In reply to soumyasrajan
Welcome to my blog Soumya! Don't worry about your email ID. It won't be misused :)
I guess time will tell whether or not any scientists from this era will be remembered. Since everything is collaborative these days, I don't have many hopes :) But who knows? You may be right!
Hi! Bhagwad
Thanks for yr comment. Perhaps you did not see my comment completely. One point I was making is that the idea it self that a Scientist may become a big hero in his/her life time just because of scientific achievements is perhaps not so much in right direction and has not happened too often in History.
Science isn’t science anymore just special interests. Fringe theories (even if there is some strength in some of these ideas) are not funded or funded as well as their counterparts. Ironically it was the middle-of-the-road fringe theories that ended up making history. Individual great scientists and/or inventors have been replaced with special interest groups with their own agenda and propaganda. In a sense “science” today has turned into another religion. Fringe theories will never have the back-up or support as the more accepted theories.
Cancer research is just one small example here. Cancer can easily be controlled through a strict ketogenic diet, taking antidiabetic medication, baking soda and deoxy glucose while carefully monitoring your blood glucose levels, blood ph levels as well as your level of ketones but were any clinical trials done to test this protocol, NO. Will there ever be clinical trials to test this protocol? NO (afterall no real money to be made with a low carb diet and simple antidiabetic medications). So how do I know this protocol works? Personal experience myself along with many testimonials. Some of these experiments were done on an individual protocol basis but not the entire four step protocol itself. Again the science of cancer research has turned into special interests on behalf of the profits being made from drug companies, hospitals, HMO’s, the ridiculous vegetarian/anti-red meat agenda (the same propaganda that obviously would oppose a high fat, high protien meat eating diet) as well as the overall funding made from cancer organisations.
Another good example is the Big Bang Theory. Where is the funding for the Plasma or Big Breed Theories? Those so-called fringe theories I’ve mentioned are being studied on a small group or individual basis but they are not greatly funded or not funded at all. Unfortunately science isn’t science anymore but has become a corporation itself being used by special interests to make their own pockets bigger. This is why you do not hear of any great scientists or inventors anymore, no catering to special interests well then no buck. Answering a question on the OP I can say no, we are not even close, in fact not even remotely close to knowing everything about physics or our own Universe.
Hey I will give these so-called scientists one bit of credit, they are great at debunking dualism without proper research on the topic. By the way I am not religious (used to be), I’m not a creationist, I’m not a spiritualist or “New Age” religion person, I’m not an atheist, just an open minded skeptical person myself who classifies themselves as a theistic agnostic. Sorry but unless it’s an individual who works on their own the days of great scientists or discoveries are probally over. Same thing with a great invention, if this invention would help people but hurt special interest profits the invention will fade into oblivion. So much for Nikola Tesla’s dream of “free electrical power” for everyone. There are a few physicists and scientists in other fields I do have a great deal of respect for today but they are few.
In reply to Paradox
I don’t think that science has been hijacked – perhaps it’s true for those scientists who work for corporations. They obviously need to cater to the profit motive. But lots of science is government funded and plenty of non money making research gets done.
I think you have a point there, The main genuis are no more. Even though there’re new inventions in the world today. I think it’s invented from old ideas
0.
Hopped on to your blog after reading your recent (today’s) comment at the Indian Liberals blog (http://www.IndianLiberals.org).
1.
David Harriman (http://www.thelogicalleap.com/) had in 2003 written an article on a similar topic. His analysis suggests that the absence of great works in physics can be attributed to the collapse of a more rational philosophic environment:
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/3147-Where-Have-You-Gone-Isaac-Newton.html
2.
I noticed that Soumya has spoken about confidence here. I don’t intend to suggest any comparison with C. V. Raman in terms of scale of work/achievement. However, since confidence is rather about an individual than about his work, might as well share here a bit from my personal experience.
In the past, I was failed in the PhD qualifiers in a US university (in an engg. program). During my recent PhD (in engineering sciences), I claimed to have essentially resolved the quantum-mechanical wave-particle duality (in the context of photons). I published papers on it, and also included the research in my official PhD thesis. Not only that, when the university people asked me about some suitable examiners that I might suggest, I also included a Nobel laureate (and others at or graduated from the likes of MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, etc., also, IISc, etc.) So, sure enough, if you are talking of confidence as such, I did have that much of a confidence—no more, no less.
For certain further parts of the story, see my blog, for example:
(i) http://ajitjadhav.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/my-qm-related-research-and-physicists/
(ii) http://ajitjadhav.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/my-current-study-and-research-plans-also-seeking-a-little-research-funding/
3.
And, oh, just FYI, apart from it all, I do believe: (i) that both of the related ideas that humans cause global warming and that global warming is an unqualified bad, are nothing less than a fraud in science; (ii) that homeopathy can work (i.e. that it is neither a scientific fraud nor limited only to the “placebo effect”); and (iii) that in a completely free society, patents actively help (i.e. do not at all hinder) the progress of science—as is best illustrated by the 19th century.
Best,
–Ajit
[E&OE]