3 ms·
It's likely that scientists were always dull, and the newspapers of yore just reported on the significantly out-of-the-ordinary. Viewed discretely, their lives
by shrikant 17y ago
It's likely that scientists were always dull, and the newspapers of yore just reported on the significantly out-of-the-ordinary. Viewed discretely, their lives and personalities seemed idiosyncratic and 'interesting'.
Blogs and Twitter and open resources such as arXiv give the world a continuous look at scientists (and their work), which, as is more often than not, seems mundane and incremental, instead of path-breaking and revolutionary.
Also, the levels of noise on the Internet makes it singularly hard to be 'interesting' in your own unique way.
- rbanffy 17y agoIf scientists were always dull and newspapers used to report on the more interesting ones, nothing prevents our society to breed them for the "interesting" trait.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoHow are newspapers and society affecting the breeding of scientists? From personal experience I can tell you that getting press coverage more often than not damages your career. Scientists are regarded as successful if they get funding for their employer. That means publishing papers. Being "interesting" tends to lead you down paths with significantly more risk, and the pressure is to reduce that risk by being plodding and incremental.