I haven't finished reading it yet, but I'd say I generally agree that scientists today are dull. They don't have a sense of mission. They have little ambition. They seem more like bureaucrats than scientists.<p>I am trying to separate myself from this trend. (I am currently studying physics independently.)<p>I can recall a few conversations with scientists that re-affirm this observation. One time I phoned a certain doctor of physics at the Hebrew University. (His field is something related to building a quantum computer.) We had a friendly chat about some things in physics, he seemed nice. Then we got to the topic of me studying physics independently, without trying to obtain a degree for it. He asked me, "Why are you studying physics then?" I said, "To discover the laws of the universe." He said, "Seriously now, why?"
Some of the "problem" might be that things are a bit more entreprenurial than previously. Now, if you've got a wild idea (that just might be right) and you've got the ego to go with it, you can start a company and profit from it. Way more $$ in that than academia.<p>Similarly, there's more $$ in working in industry with a PhD rather than academia. And the tenure/grant game requires those in academia to have political and social skills that might be off-putting to the smart/driven set being talked about.<p>Finally, it's possible we're just not that interested in scientists/engineers (as in the 50's and 60's). Better to know what Lindsay Lohan's up to... There's like an hour of entertainment news EVERY DAY, and maybe a science article or two per quarter.<p>Followup: Rephrasing my Lohan comment - there might be all sorts of interesting scientists out there, but how would any of us know unless they're in the field? Rock stars, nowadays, aren't big-name scientists like they used to be. They're just rock stars...
Are they? Sure, compared to the great scientists of the past.<p>But that word "great" is important.<p>As a general rule, when you compare the best things in one category with the average things in another, the first category tends to come out looking better.<p>See also various comparisons in music, literature, etc., etc.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thurston" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thurston</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s</a><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall</a><p>zkz: Maybe you are boring.<p>(note: The wikipedia articles linked to don't generally tell you why the subject isn't dull. In some cases the stories may need to be heard from people who knew the scientist in question, as there doesn't seem to be any written record to link to.)
You've clearly never seen Dr Brian Cox the "Rock-star physicist"<p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.h...</a>