Scientist - The - BEST - and the - WORST - Example

[needimprovement]

The concept may not be controversial, but my question may be.

 

Who do you consider the - BEST - and the - WORST - example of Scientist that you are aware of?

 

The answer may be from personal experience, scientific achievements/history, or today's headlines. That does not matter.

 

Give a bit of background (e.g., personal and circumstance, or scientific achievements/historical) and why this is an example of the best Scientist or the opposite.

 

If you had to follow that individual, would you? Or not? and why?

 

Let us discuss, but everyone has a right to input, so let's make sure we respect that right and be nice.

Edited August 10, 2010 by needimprovement

[ajb]

Alive today I would have to say the best is Edward Witten because he has some deep insight into the use of modern mathematics in theoretical physics as well as the ability to see the physics in mathematics. He seems to have great command of both physics and mathematics. He has influenced theoretical and mathematical physics greatly since the 1980's. This is probably most evident in the intersection of geometry, topology and quantum field theory. He has won many awards.

 

His work has had some direct influence on me, in particular his development of supersymmetric quantum mechanics and the geometry of the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism. His proposal of M-theory and his work on string theory has also influenced me indirectly.

 

There are many other scientist that are of direct influence to me. Some famous names include Maxim Kontsevich, Albert S. Schwarz, Jim Stasheff and Pavol Severa.

 

As for the worse, I think that it would be very rude to suggest anyone. So I won't.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ajb

[JN.]

Well, I admire a lot of scientists, but I think one of the most inspiring examples comes from Marie Curie. I think that she's an example as a scientist and as a person. And with her I learned a thing that I realized how important it is only a few time ago: ideas are far more important than biographies, and it does not matter if a very famous scientist says something, because we are all able to judge its ideas and to verify the truth of its words.

 

I don't know the worst example.. Maybe Georges Cuvier. He was dependent of the public opinion and he did not try to find hypothesis that could match the evidences; he just try to adapt the evidences to the conclusions he was expecting. 

[Kerry]

I'm currently writing a piece on Marie Curie - she's very inspirational.She had to cope with personal heartbreak on several occasions and faced much trouble in her professional career simply for being a woman.

 

Another truely inspiriational scientist is Rosalind Franklin - she provided the data for Watson & Crick to go public with their structure of DNA and didn't seem to complain! Again she faced opposition in her professional career, often being ridiculed and belittled, and who knows what else she might of discovered if she hadn't died at such a young age.

[CharonY]

Franklin's story actually gives important insights into the live in academia (and I believe most of it still holds true). One way to look at it was the fact that she did not provided enough balance between communication (including handwaving) and secrecy. It probably did not help that she was a woman.

 

Regarding bad scientists, I would basically put people in that deliberately conducted fraud. This includes e.g. the famous autism fraud and ethical misbehavior conducted by Wakefield. Of course one could argue that they do not deserve to be called scientists.