Thursday, September 8, 2011

When it comes to science, is it better to be a face or a name?

Hi folks,

Sorry I skipped out on Tuesday - I only have myself to blame, no excuse. :( Actually, I do have an excuse - I started toad trials on Monday, and this week has proven to be a little hectic. Oh, well, cest la vie right?

I'll share some info about the project next time, but for now I wanted to talk about an interesting topic; the 'faces' of science. There are a great many scientists who contribute to their respective fields, yet most of them are unknown by the public. I mean, think about it - how many Nobel prize winners can you name? Fortunately, because no one really becomes a scientist in order to be famous (although everyone hopes for that 'breakthrough' that gets their name out there)!

Some scientists are so well known that anyone can recognize them by name, but can you name these well-known thinkers by their faces?

From top to bottom, we have Galileo Galilee, Sir Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Gregor Mendel, Thomas Edison, Watson and Crick, and Albert Einstein. How many of these did you guess right? Do you know what each scientist is responsible for contributing to the field?

Don't feel too bad if you didn't recognize many of these scientists - most lived long before the use of video cameras or photography. Today's technological advancements make it much easier to identify people as "famous".

Here are a few of the more contemporary "faces of science" that you may recognize:

You may have been able to name these right off the bat! Top to bottom: Jack Hannah, Jeff Corwin, Steve Irwin, Jane Goodall, and Steven Hawking (OK, so he's not a conservationist, but he's a cool scientist!) Of these "modern scientists", do you know what they contributed to each of their respective fields?

Now here's some food for thought: Is it better to be well-known for who you are, or for what you did?

No comments:

Post a Comment