Good point about the “Great Man Fallacy”. Certainly recognizing institutions would be a nod to the power of coopertition and GP. But I don’t think that is likely to happen any time soon.
A few possibilities that pop to mind that I haven’t seen yet in this thread…
Wright (as in brothers) and Bell (as in Sir Alexander Graham).
Both of them, however, fall short in that while they advanced technology, they didn’t change how we actually viewed the universe. Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Archimedes, and Curie didn’t just invent or create, they illuminated. They explained. They expanded not just our knowledge and abilities, but our understanding.
One scientist that hasn’t been mentioned yet (apologies if I missed it) is Darwin.
Charles Darwin did for the life sciences what our current field nominees did for the physical sciences. It would be a particularly powerful statement because of the fact that Darwin’s explanation of his observations continues to face the same kind of religious persecution that Galileo’s explanations faced in his day.
Or maybe Louis Pasteur. Not only did Pasteur illuminate the workings of pathology, but through his work on vaccinations probably did more to improve and preserve human life than the current field nominees put together. (“Where’s your field?” “Just Pasteur field.”)
John Snow? Only founded the entire science of epidemiology. (Northern teams might appreciate playing on a Snow Field.)
But if you work on the idea that “You get what you celebrate” then I think we’re already doing a pretty good job of celebrating European Male scientists. Not that they shouldn’t be celebrated, but that if we want a more diverse range of scientists going forward, then we would be well-served to seek out a more diverse group to celebrate. I’m sure Darwin, Pasteur and their pals will forgive us if we seek out those who not only had to overcome scientific, but also social challenges in their path to better explain how our universe works.
Jason
