19 November 2009
By Tennie Videler
Delanceyplace is a daily email that contains a pretty random extract from a non-fiction book, often history books. It can be a bit America focussed, but I generally enjoy getting them. The extract today was about the rise of the number of people who would today be classed as scientists, in the 19th century; 'Roughly speaking, the number of scientists doubled every fifteen years during the nineteenth century.' 'It is during the nineteenth century that science makes the shift from being a gentlemanly hobby [] to a well-populated profession, where progress depends on the work of many individuals who are, to some extent, interchangeable.' (my extracts from the extract).
Just a bit worrying if scientists are seen as interchangeable, even if it is to some extent.................
Julia Forman19 November 2009 at 10:08 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I found today's article really interesting, and it's something I've thought about before, with regard to competing for resources in research. When we compete for funding or research positions, if we aren't successful, it's because someone else is, in what might have been our place, doing work that we otherwise might have done. So I can understand the argument that scientists are interchangeable, to a certain extent. If we are motivated by a desire to improve society through research (e.g. with medical/scientific advances) then thinking "Well, if I don't do it, someone else will" can be a real blow to one's motivation! On the other hand, some of the most satisfying moments in research are those which require creativity or a unique insight, the moments that seem to draw on our uniqueness. Whether we are in fact so unique, or fairly interchangeable, is a question I'll leave to the philosophers of science... Or as one of my labmates once told me, "Remember, you are unique. Just like everybody else."