Most famous scientist query

[mandragora]

Who would any of you say is the most famous scientist - after Einstein - of all time. If you were to say that someone is so brilliant that they could be the next Einstein or [ ]. Who would the 'or' be?

For me the name that immediately springs to mind is Newton. But is that because I'm British? What if you're American? Or Canadian? Or any other nationality, come to that. (Yes, it is for a story). I mean, Newton is much venerated in Britain, but that could be partly because he was one hell of a self-publicist.

The other name I think of is Hawking. But, again, he's a Brit and he has the whole crippled genius thing going on, which makes him much more visible to the public's eye than your usual scientific type. I mean, to produce anything at all, let alone a best-selling book, when fighting against a recalcitrant body is amazing in and of itself and I don't know whether the calibre of his work is *that* well received by those who can actually critique it. Which most definitely doesn't include me (there's a reason I'm a lawyer and not involved in any type of work where scientific know-how is usually required).

Anyhow, all comments very welcome.

ETA And... we have a winner. That's four for four. Newton it is. Thank you all for your comments - very much appreciated.

Comments

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

The two names that came to mind immediately were Newton and Pasteur. Tho, I'd say, "the next Newton or Einstein," not the other way around. :) (I also thought of Da Vinci and Galileo for "brilliant.")

After Einstein

[dorothy1901]

I'm American, and Newton came to mind first. Archimedes was second. Hawking would not be on my list of famous scientists -- not because I've never heard of him (of course I have), but because I can't point to any particular scientific discovery of his.

[derryderrydown.livejournal.com]

Newton was the first for me.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

Newton. Possibly Feynman. Galileo or DaVinci, also.

[temaris.livejournal.com]

*g* And you're up to page...?

[elistaire.livejournal.com]

Watson and Crick.
DNA, it has changed everything about how we understand ourselves and how we think about biology, and has extended itself into matters of law.

[filenotch.livejournal.com]

Same for me: Watson and Crick. I was stymied by the singular scientist requirement.

Half the pair is British, so there you go.

Oh, and I thought of James Clerk Maxwell before Newton.

[raincitygirl.livejournal.com]

Marie Curie?

[keletkezes.livejournal.com]

Hawking radiation, other stuff to do with black and white holes. Very specialised really, much more so than Newton, Einstein or Galileo.

I thought of Planck first, but that's because I always associate Planck and Einstein (must be the German-sounding names, as there's no real connection).

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I think I'd say Einstein and Newton. But what do I know *g*. Da Vinci and Galileo are interesting. I think I immediately associate Da Vinci with art and Galileo with persecution by the Church.

Poor Galileo.

Re: After Einstein

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Archimedes. Oooh, interesting choice. Note the Newton, thank you.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see I've barely heard of Planck. Hawking is specialised, but the character in question is an astrophysicist, which is why I thought he might think of him.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Yes! Many thanks.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Newton, yep. Ditto Galileo and Da Vinci (as having already been mentioned). Feynman is another one I've barely heard of (because of our specialised schooling system I gave up all scientific subjects at the age of 16, hence the stunning lack of scientific knowledge).

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Fifty-nine. But the first four are the plot... (still no sex, and I'm thinking that there won't be any for quite a while yet. Alas).

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Interesting choices. And thanks for reminding me of them.

But the character in question is an astrophysicist who has been known to comment that medicine is not *real* science. He's talking to a medical doctor who is a leading geneticist at this point. So, I suspect he'd be a bit sniffy about them (he's such a snob, at times).

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Ah, there writes the biologist. The character is an astrophyicist, though, so I suspect that he'll be thinking of a physicist. Maxwell is a great choice, except that I suspect many readers won't get the point - I wouldn't, if I hadn't looked him up. Yes, I really *am* shockingly ignorant when it comes to science.

Oooh, whilst writing, how are you on the behaviour of virii (viruses?). I have one as a plot point and want to know whether what I'm thinking is vaguely plausible. If you're willing to help, it would be much appreciated.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

I thought of her, too, right after Newton. But the character is very dismissive about medicine - it's not *real* science in his eyes.

So, I don't think he'd think of her even though I did.

Very sorry to hear about your mobile phone woes. Has it turned up as yet? It's really horrible losing it, as I know all too well.

[keletkezes.livejournal.com]

Dear God... :D

Planck just comes up from A-level (and a bit of GCSE) Physics and Planck's Constant, all to do witht he speed of light, I think... It was a long time ago. I always thought his name was a bit unfortunate.

[filenotch.livejournal.com]

Sure I'll help. You know the edress.

[filenotch.livejournal.com]

Well, speaking as a biomedical scientist, the practice of medicine isn't so much a science as an art. Many MDs would argue the point. There is good clinical research and such, so your geneticist is probably doing science in that field, just not while s/he's treating patients. IMnvHO.

[filenotch.livejournal.com]

Marie Curie wasn't in medicine. She pretty much created the field of radiation chemsitry. I'd call her an early-stage physical chemist.

Rosalind Franklin (another physical chemist) was the woman who did the X-ray crystallography that Watson and Crick used to propose the structure of DNA.

[raincitygirl.livejournal.com]

See, I am puzzled by that attitude for two reasons:

#1. Advances in medicine have made a DAMN big difference in our quality of life, and our very life expectancy. Marginalizing medical research as 'soft' science strikes me as soft-headed.

#2. Marie Curie was a chemist, not a medical doctor. Yes, her (and her husband's) experiments with radioactive substances led to medical treatments, but they also paved the way for the atomic bomb. I can't think of a more macho kind of science than nuclear physics and blowing shit up.

Incidentally, yes, I found my phone! Thank you for asking, and the two days it was gone were acutely terrible.