Re: Thomas Midgley Jr.
Hmm, on the subject of the planet, how about David J. C. MacKay? Recently dead, but wrote the book[1] on what is and isn't realistic with renewable energy.
[1] ISBN 978-0954452933
Which scientist should be on the new £50 note? El Reg weighs in – and you should vote, too
This week the Bank of England said it was going to put a famous boffin on a new polymer £50 note, and has decided to ask the public who it should be. There is even an online form where you can put in a nomination – it will be open for the next six weeks. There are only two rules attached: they must be a) a scientist – covering …
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 10:24 GMT DeVino
A tricky balance between worthy and recognition
Putting Rosalind Franklin on as a kind of consolation prize smacks of white male guilt and would have probably just annoyed her.
Put Maxwell on but most folk would not have a clue who he is sadly.
I would say that Stephen Hawking and Alan Turing get enough publicity maybe.
(Go to Bletchley Park BTW. Excellent place).
I'd like to see Lovelace and Babbage on a fifty.
Having a pic of the Engine between them on the note would look good and delight the anti-counterfit folk.
Maye Sydney Padua could draw them ;-)
-
Sunday 4th November 2018 11:59 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: A tricky balance between worthy and recognition
"Putting Rosalind Franklin on as a kind of consolation prize smacks of white male guilt and would have probably just annoyed her."
Not saying this applies you specifically, but more often than not when I hear or see comments like the above, I find it says more about the the speaker/writer than anything else.
Having said that, although the work she did was very impressive and important, I don't feel it stands well with those who invented new and original work. Hers was very much a case of standing on the shoulders of giants in that she improved on existing techniques. Science needs people like her, but she's a premier league player, not a superstar. And she didn't have a beard :-)
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 13:36 GMT Martin Gregorie
Re: Where's Rutherford?
And add in James Chadwick, who discovered the electron.
John Dalton should be there too, as the first scientist to put atomic theory on a usable basis and make it the foundation of chemistry.
However, atomic theory was all a bit theoretical until Chadwick discovered the electron, proving that the were smaller particles than atoms, and Rutherford discovered that the atomic nucleus existed and was very much smaller than the atoms that contained them. This led directly to the Bohr atomic model and so to modern nuclear physics.
As far as I know none of the three - Chadwick, Dalton and Rutherford - have much recognition outside science: none are as well known as they deserve.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 14:45 GMT Phil Endecott
Re: Where's Rutherford?
I thought J. J. Thompson discovered the electron. Didn’t Chadwick discover the neutron? But yes, all of them - Thompson, Rutherford, Chadwick - diserve a mention.
Thompson is also notable for his role as a teacher to the next generation of physicists (according to Wikipedia) including Rutherford, Neils Bohr, Max Born and William Bragg.
I think I’d still vote for Maxwell though. His unification of physics (i.e. light is an electromagnetic wave) was something really significant, and with lots of practical consequences. Also, unlike the three nuclear physicists above, his memory is not tainted by the use of his discoveries to kill people (see also Alfred Nobel).
-
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 10:57 GMT chuckufarley
Michael Faraday got my vote...
...because without him it would have been a much longer road getting to where we are today.
His work was so basic and so practical that it could be the very definition of practising the scientific method. He stood up for his ideas when he knew they were right and would admit it when they were proven wrong. The fact that he was right about so much without ever knowing how to prove it mathematically should be not be lightly dismissed. I think that had he been given a quality education in his youth our world would be better off today.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 12:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Michael Faraday got my vote...
"I think that had he been given a quality education in his youth our world would be better off today."
Unfortunately a "better" education can inhibit innovative thinking by teaching people what is an establishment's rigid view of something.
My own technical education consisted of a series of milestones - at which we were told what we had been taught previously was an over-simplification. Useful in some cases within its constraints.
Our Geography teacher in the 1960s denigrated the "new" idea of tectonic plates. He said that the complementary coastlines of South America and Africa were just a coincidence.
People should be taught to query and test things in a reproducible way. Identifying the influence of wishful thinking is probably the most important aspect of self-criticism.
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 19:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Michael Faraday got my vote...
"How do I test the theory of tectonic plates for myself?"
Measure the height of Himalayan mountain peaks very accurately. The Rift Valley is also getting wider. Any of the tectonic plate edges have measurable relative movement. You just need the right equipment - probably laser - and technical knowledge. The Ring of Fire is full of such movements.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 23:20 GMT jake
Re: Michael Faraday got my vote...
"How do I test the theory of tectonic plates for myself?"
The old "making hot coco" variation is easy, and tasty. Probably on youtube, I can't be arsed to look.
Similarly, thawing out a pot of chicken stock over a point source of heat, such as the propane torch you use to sweat copper pipes together (or situate the pot so only one corner is over the hob). As the gelatin melts and starts moving around due to convection currents, the schmaltz on top mimics continental plates. When the pot is hot, skim off the fat (retain for roasting spuds!) throw in veg, meat and seasoning to taste and enjoy your tectonic soup.
Another: make a loaf of bread. Throw the water, yeast and a little sugar (honey, molasses, anything sweet) in the bottom of a bowl and whisk together. Float the flour evenly over the top of the liquid mixture and salt to taste. As the yeast proofs, you'll see cracking & rifting and upwelling and all kinds of other geological action. Then make the bread. Serve with the soup.
-
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Sunday 4th November 2018 12:04 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Edward Jenner, the inventor of vaccination.
"Everyone has heard of vaccines. Many have been vaccinated. But how many know the name of the person who invented vaccination? Truly an unsung hero."
I don't know the state of science teaching in secondary schools today, but when I did my GCEs in the late 70's, pretty much every "forgotten" scientists mentioned in these pages was part of what we learned about at school in Biology, Physics and Chemistry. Maybe we had exceptional teachers at my school?
-
-
Monday 5th November 2018 14:18 GMT Kubla Cant
Re: Edward Jenner, the inventor of vaccination.
I strongly suggest looking up Variolation in 15th century China before bragging too much about which country invented vaccination.
It's a well known fact that absolutely everything was invented in China before we even knew we needed it.
But the important difference between variolation and vaccination is Blossom the cow. Even in backward old Europe it was known that inoculation - a mild dose of smallpox - provided future immunity. The problem was ensuring that the dose was mild enough not to kill or disfigure the patient. Jenner recognised that cowpox, apparently a fairly benign infection endemic among milkmaids, provided immunity to smallpox.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sunday 4th November 2018 11:21 GMT Nick Kew
Re: 1+2+3+4+ to infinity = -1/12
Needs to be a Brit to qualify.
Ramanujan's mentor Hardy gets my vote. His work, proudly useless in his own time, now fundamental to modern cryptography. And his discovery of Ramanujan: interesting that an established great mathematician bothered to read the unsolicited work of an unknown Indian, as opposed to putting it straight in the spam!
I would also vote for Bertrand Russell, who might also qualify on grounds other than his science.
-
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 13:55 GMT Voland's right hand
Franklin
Anything else aside, she should have been _MENTIONED_ along with Watson and Crick.
Once she was dead the two esteemed gentlemen could not be bothered citing her work while collecting kudos and laurels. Do not even get me started on what is called not citing your source in science.
-
Monday 5th November 2018 16:31 GMT Alan Johnson
Much nonsense about Franklin.
"Once she was dead the two esteemed gentlemen could not be bothered citing her work while collecting kudos and laurels. Do not even get me started on what is called not citing your source in science."
Nonsense the key paper in Nature specifically mentioned her. the idea she was treated unfairly makes a good story but isn't actually true. She was a very good experimentalist working at the forefront of her field who happened to be beaten to a key discovery by soemoen else. The story about the key photgraph 'stolen' by Crick and Watson ignores the fact she had publically announced these results and therefore Circk and Watson were perfectly entitled to use those results, as they did, with due credit, which they gave.
-
-
Monday 5th November 2018 11:16 GMT Norman Nescio
Re: Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon
Because he invented the scientific method.
Hmm, there are many inventors of the scientific method. There are a couple of other Englishmen who could be argued to be instrumental in that endeavour, apart from Francis Bacon (Elizabethan statesman).
You could choose Roger Bacon
Or even, Roger Bacon's earlier contemporary, Robert Grosseteste who would also be an interesting candidate, but probably infeasible.
-
Saturday 3rd November 2018 15:12 GMT cpage
Logie Baird wasn't a scientiest, not even a half-way decent engineer
Baird was a crank who persisted with his plans for mechanical television well after the point that pure electronic solutions had been demonstrated to be vastly superior. I can't imagine how anybody could consider him.
One scientist that I'm surprised is not on the list: Francis Crick, who discovered (jointly with Jim Watson, but he's an American so ineligible) DNA. Surely much more notable than many of the minor figures on your list?
-
Monday 5th November 2018 19:19 GMT Nick Kew
Re: Crick
See all the comments about Rosalind Franklin on this thread. With a woman championed by the entire Establishment on the same ticket, a mere man like Crick is a non-starter. If DNA wins, Franklin will be the face of it.
Though I still think Hawking will win. He has an aura, and massive name recognition.
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
