• Question: hi I was wondering in your opinion whos the best scientist in the world.

    Asked by anon-200916 to Rosemary, Oliver, Leigh, Jordan, Hannah, David on 2 Mar 2019.
    • Photo: David Walker-Sünderhauf

      David Walker-Sünderhauf answered on 2 Mar 2019:

      This is a really a tough question, because there are so many different scientists in so many different disciplines! In recent history, I think Stephen Hawking was a brilliant physicist with a very inspirational personal story, succeeding against all odds. His work was also revolutionary to physics and astronomy.
      More specific to my own field of work (gene editing and biotechnology), Jennifer Doudna is an outstanding scientist. She was amongst the first to recognise that we can actually use the protein machinery that makes up CRISPR-Cas (a bacterial immune system) to edit DNA in all sorts of plants and animals. This CRISPR gene editing technique has revolutionised many fields of biology by giving researchers a new, easy-to-use tool to edit DNA in labs.

    • Photo: Jordan Kirby

      Jordan Kirby answered on 4 Mar 2019: last edited 4 Mar 2019 11:55 am

      There are so many brilliant scientists in the world it’s very hard to choose!!!
      .
      From a work perspective I would have to give it to Kary Mullis, the Inventor of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) a process which a small amount of DNA can be amplified up to huge quantities in a relatively short period of time. This technology had such a massive impact on Biology and Biochemistry that it is hard to imagine what modern science would be without it!
      .
      From a personal perspective though I would give it to Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the Dutch scientist and buisness merchant (from the 1600s!). He is considered the “Father of microbiology“ being the first person to view the invisible world of microbes (credited as the discoverer of bacteria and protists!). Leeuwenhoek was not primarily a scientist but was a draper (a textiles merchant) and lens maker. When he presented his findings of his “animalcules” (Little animals as he coined them) to the Scientists of his time he was heavily criticized for his lack of science background and his findings.
      .
      Leeuwenhoek however knew what he saw and stood by his work and continued pursuing his studies and his work was eventually accepted by the British royal society.
      .
      This is what I find most amazing about him, he was a man who came from a non-scientific background and whose interest and thirst for knowledge and experimentation gave birth to a whole new field of biology! I often tell people about his story when I meet students who are unsure if they want to get into science and technology based on their backgrounds to show that if you have the interest and craving for knowledge then anything is possible!
      .
      Ill finish this off with a quote from the guy himself:
      .
      “…my work, which I’ve done for a long time, was not pursued in order to gain the praise I now enjoy, but chiefly from a craving after knowledge, which I notice resides in me more than in most other men.” – Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Letter of June 12, 1716

    • Photo: Oliver Gordon

      Oliver Gordon answered on 6 Mar 2019: last edited 6 Mar 2019 11:04 am

      I’m going to give a boring answer to this one…
      .
      I don’t like saying there is a “best” scientist. It doesn’t really matter how much “impact” you have (scientists love talking about this to death and back…), as long as you share your knowledge in an honest, useful way.
      .
      By “best” I’d take that to mean “important”. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Marie Curie and so on are all “important” in that they inspired generations on generations of new scientists, but if there are no new scientists today to build on what they did, then all their work is in a sense, worthless. So all the current scientists are important, and therefore the “best”.
      .
      Scientists also love to argue about whos work is more important. I could be dismissive and say that astronomers are worthless and incapable of being “the best” because they do nothing that influences other people’s lives… it’s just facts, right? But then you realise that their work influences people outside of astronomy, who also do important work.
      .
      From a personal point of view, I don’t think I’ll be a good scientist unless my work gets picked up upon by new generations of people! So they should be more important than me!
      .
      It’s like the chicken and the egg. Which is more important? Which is “best”?
      .
      (Or, to answer another way, I’m avoiding answering your question because I can’t think of an answer, so am giving you a complicated non-answer that I myself barely understand!)

Comments