Yes, we do need more Carl Sagans. There's actually a bit of a vacuum. I think the nearest thing we're seeing in recent times is Richard Dawkins, and he's preoccupied with proving God doesn't exist, rather than really bringing scientific knowledge to the people.
I'm a science writer myself, but I don't have the depth of someone like Sagan, or the authority. What I would also like to see is the next Earl Schrodinger. I've been reading his writings and he was just categorically brilliant. It was Shrodinger who fired the starting gun on the race for the structure of DNA. He was the one who ignited the fire in all of those biologists--made them *really believe* that there was a way to decode genetics. I would love to know what he would make of all the discoveries in the past hundred years, and where he would lead us next.
But I'm just not seeing that guy (or gal) out there, and I wonder why. Is it because the era of the brilliant individual scientist is past, and everything is a collaboration? Or is it because the best and brightest are being drummed out of academics and their voices are being lost?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-04 03:07 pm (UTC)I'm a science writer myself, but I don't have the depth of someone like Sagan, or the authority. What I would also like to see is the next Earl Schrodinger. I've been reading his writings and he was just categorically brilliant. It was Shrodinger who fired the starting gun on the race for the structure of DNA. He was the one who ignited the fire in all of those biologists--made them *really believe* that there was a way to decode genetics. I would love to know what he would make of all the discoveries in the past hundred years, and where he would lead us next.
But I'm just not seeing that guy (or gal) out there, and I wonder why. Is it because the era of the brilliant individual scientist is past, and everything is a collaboration? Or is it because the best and brightest are being drummed out of academics and their voices are being lost?