Why Have the "Gentleman Scientists" Become Extinct?

[Kaylee]

Last Sat. I met up with some of the NY Big Apple Babes at the American Museum of Natural History. Both the company and the museum were absolutely terrific. Some of us broke away and saw the Darwin exhibit -- also absolutely terrific.

The Darwin exhibit was extremely thorough and touched upon many minor details as well. I had not realized to what a large extent the Beagle voyage depended upon private funds. Darwin was not compensated during the 5-year voyage and the captain, FitzRoy, paid for a large portion of the ship's renovations neccesary for the voyage.

This got me thinking -- how much of our scientific knowledge is owed to wealthy people who had the means to indulge their scientific "hobbies"? In addition to Darwin (Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) and FitzRoy (responsible for advances in meteorology) -- I was able to come up with some additional wealthy self-funded scientists and hobbyists:

Tycho Brahe (1546 - 1601) Danish astronomer

Robert Boyle (1627 -1691) First modern chemist

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) after he became wealthy, he used his leisure time and experimented in electricity, invented the lightening rod, the Benjamin Franklin stove, the armonica, swimfins, etc.

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1846) -- OK he did not contribute anything to the hard sciences AFAIK, but I am a fan , so there. However, he is sometimes called the father of archeology. He was also very creative in architecture. He designed the use of built-in closets in his home in Monticello and the inner dome (but no outer dome) in Virginia's state capital building.

Sir William Jackson Hooker (1785-1865) English botanist

So where are today's "gentleman scientists" * and hobbyists? Sure, we have made more advances in the sciences but I would strongly suspect that there are still some niche areas that could benefit from some additional research or documentation that would not require more funding or space than a wealthy individual or family could afford. So where are they? Are they "extinct" because of a change of culture, or is it for some other reasons? Or perhaps there are still some around, and I've just not heard of them. Entirely possible. Your thoughts please!


* Note: One of the places I found this apparently common phrase:
http://fusor.net/old-boards/songs.com/msgs/msg-85.html

Having investigated a number of scientists and studied letters mouldering away in a number of universities and libraries, I am most impressed by the letters that flew between the earlier scientific minds of the 1700s and 1800s. I am talking about the likes of Hooke, Oersted, Ampere, Volta, Franklin, Davy, and Faraday.

These people were for the most part, and certainly in their early efforts, pretty much self-funded gentlemen of science.

 

[fabian_lidman]

Oh, there are a few. Like this chap: http://thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm

 

[fabian_lidman]

On a more serious note, in the old days there were fewer institutions where you could do science. Normal people like you and me would have to do some real, tangible work to get food on the table. Only rich people had the luxury of looking at stars and rolling balls down inclined planes. Nowdays there's no real reason for it to be a hobby; either you get a PhD and work in a real scientific envrionment, or do something else.

 

[Mojo]

* Note: One of the places I found this apparently common phrase:
http://fusor.net/old-boards/songs.com/msgs/msg-85.html

Having investigated a number of scientists and studied letters mouldering away in a number of universities and libraries, I am most impressed by the letters that flew between the earlier scientific minds of the 1700s and 1800s. I am talking about the likes of Hooke, Oersted, Ampere, Volta, Franklin, Davy, and Faraday.

These people were for the most part, and certainly in their early efforts, pretty much self-funded gentlemen of science.

I'm not sure about the others in that quotation, but Hooke was not really a "gentleman scientist", but was if anything one of the first working scientists, employed first by Robert Boyle and later by the Royal Society as curator of experiments.

 

[drkitten]

So where are today's "gentleman scientists" * and hobbyists?

Basically, it's now easier for a non-gentleman to become a scientist, and harder for a gentleman to become one.

In the 19th century, funding for scientific research was very difficult to get, so if you didn't have a source of private funds (and a private income to indulge your hobby and still eat), you wouldn't do much science. Today, it's fairly easy (in an extremely limited sense of the word "easy") for a scientist to self-fund himself from public monies like the National Science Foundation, or from private moneies like AT&T or the Pew Foundation. So I don't need to be a gentleman to play at science.

At the same time, science has gotten much more difficult; in the 19th century, it was possible to be a respected and respectable scientist with a year or less of formal training. (Sail around the world, keep detailed notes, and voila, you're a naturalist!) Darwin, for example, never had a Ph.D. Today, a typical scientist needs a Ph.D. --- but more importantly, you need six or seven years of postgraduate education to get to the point where you've mastered what's already known. So it's a rare and very dedicated "gentleman" who will submit to such intellectual abuse merely as a hobby,

 

[rwguinn]

sorry- I was reading "gentleman" in the New World sense, as opposed to the European "Landed Gentry" sense.
So, possibly excessive inbreeding is the cause for the extinction?

And, BTW--it takes an Act of Congress in the US to create a gentleman--My wife is one, I am not--although to paraphrase RAH (in Stranger in a Strange Land)
Being a gentleman sometimes requires that you be a whirling SOB.

 

[Kaylee]

Heh. I was trying to come up with a catchy title but I may have come up with a misleading one instead. Perhaps I should have titled the thread: "Why is it that Wealthy People No Longer Do Science "?

IMHO and uneducated opinion, Fabian_Lidman, Mojo and Dr. Kitten all gave good reasons as to why this is the case. But I still feel a little dissatisfied as to why this no longer occurs. For example, some aspect of animal behaviorism could probably still benefit from contributions from amateurs. It seems reasonable that a dog trainer and/or breeder could add to the body of knowledge or at least to the body of documentation as to whether exclusive positive reinforcement (such as in clicker training) or a combination of positive reinforcement and aversive training offers the best results. I would think that there most be some other accessible areas of science that could be contributed to by other knowledgeable amateurs as well.

But, in those situations, where would someone without a PhD get published? A trainer's friends and clients may be very interested in her results, and take them seriously, but perhaps most PhDs would not be willing to even read her articles. So perhaps there are hobbyists in various areas of science mucking about for their own satisfaction -- but we just don't get to hear about them?

edited to fix spelling and grammar.

 

[drkitten]

IMHO and uneducated opinion, Fabian_Lidman, Mojo and Dr. Kitten all gave good reasons as to why this is the case. But I still feel a little dissatisfied as to why this no longer occurs. For example, some aspect of animal behaviorism could probably still benefit from contributions from amateurs.

... and there are a few amateurs publishing in such areas.

Similarly, there are occasional publications from amateur taxonomists -- "Look! I found a new butterfly!" Amateur astronomy is almost a cottage industry, and most new comets are now discovered by amateurs.

But, in those situations, where would someone without a PhD get published? A trainer's friends and clients may be very interested in her results, and take them seriously, but perhaps most PhDs would not be willing to even read her articles.

The amateurs can publish in the same journals as the pros. But this is part of the "it's harder to be an amateur nowadays" problem -- those articles are, simply put, hard to write, and part of the Ph.D. training is just learning to write the damn articles. If you're serious about "being a scientist," you have to learn how to write like a scientist -- which in turn means that you have to have the skills of a scientist, including writing.

 

[wollery]

Amateurs also contribute meaningfully to astronomy. Until recently (i.e. the instigation of projects like Planet Watch) the vast majority of Near Earth Objects (asteroids) and comets were discovered by amateurs, and huge amounts of data on periodic variable stars are recorded by amateurs. These require the sort of systematic monitoring that is actually quite difficult for professional astronomers to do.

 

[Ririon]

I am a gentleman and a scientist. Does that count even if I'm not fabulously rich? Come to think of it, I have funded my own research in some periods, which explains the "not fabulously rich" part...

 

[JohnF_73]

IMO, wealthy people these days are less altruistic in their views about humanity as a species. Corporations (with all the rights of immortal individuals) would be the best modern equivalent in terms of having the means. (Though Bill Gates, Richard Branson and others are quite the philanthropists)

 

[Kaylee]

... and there are a few amateurs publishing in such areas [edit: Behavorism].

Similarly, there are occasional publications from amateur taxonomists -- "Look! I found a new butterfly!" Amateur astronomy is almost a cottage industry, and most new comets are now discovered by amateurs.



The amateurs can publish in the same journals as the pros. But this is part of the "it's harder to be an amateur nowadays" problem -- those articles are, simply put, hard to write, and part of the Ph.D. training is just learning to write the damn articles. If you're serious about "being a scientist," you have to learn how to write like a scientist -- which in turn means that you have to have the skills of a scientist, including writing.

This is the type of information I was curious about. Thanks!

Amateurs also contribute meaningfully to astronomy. Until recently (i.e. the instigation of projects like Planet Watch) the vast majority of Near Earth Objects (asteroids) and comets were discovered by amateurs, and huge amounts of data on periodic variable stars are recorded by amateurs. These require the sort of systematic monitoring that is actually quite difficult for professional astronomers to do.

Now that surprises me. I would think that professional astronomers would have more resources (both in funds, better equipment, and co-workers (so can take a night off now and then) ) to support them and make it easier. <start really ignorant mode /> Also the uh earth rotates, so wouldn't a professional relationship with astronomers in other parts of the world help? Especially in being able to continuosly track some of the NEOs?

I am a gentleman and a scientist. Does that count even if I'm not fabulously rich? Come to think of it, I have funded my own research in some periods, which explains the "not fabulously rich" part...

Heh. Yes, I think it counts. What type of research have you self-funded? Did you find that other scientists were interested in your results?

IMO, wealthy people these days are less altruistic in their views about humanity as a species.

Perhaps. Certainly the culture has changed. Per the museum (AMNH) exhibit, during Darwin's time it was a very popular and fashionable hobby to collect beetles and compare them. AFAIK, things like that aren't done now, and if they were it would probably be considered an extremely nerdy thing to do.

Corporations (with all the rights of immortal individuals) would be the best modern equivalent in terms of having the means. (Though Bill Gates, Richard Branson and others are quite the philanthropists)

I was thinking Bill Gates would qualify. He did start his business with family money I think, and while he took a commericial approach and his role was mostly managerial, MS has played a major role on turning computer science knowledge into mass products. </end stating the obvious>. Perhaps the guys behind Apple would qualify also. Apple, more so than MS, has been responsible for some orginal ideas in the mass PC market.

Not sure that Richard Branson qualifies, have any of his businesses advanced any of the sciences or engineering?

 

[Jimbo07]

Now that surprises me. I would think that professional astronomers would have more resources (both in funds, better equipment, and co-workers (so can take a night off now and then) ) to support them and make it easier.

To oversimplify the case, you might think of it this way... The pros have a few expensive telescopes, while the amateurs have a lot of less expensive 'scopes. Rather than a single monolithic project you might go for some sort of massive parallelism. It makes sense that objects which can only be discovered when you're looking at them would benefit from many sets of eyeballs rather than one.

AFAIK, things like that aren't done now, and if they were it would probably be considered an extremely nerdy thing to do.

Like hobby electronics?

I was thinking Bill Gates would qualify. He did start his business with family money I think, and while he took a commericial approach and his role was mostly managerial, MS does rely on applying computer science knowledge.

Two things.

i) Bill Gates, while not a computer scientist by any stretch, did start with Paul Allen programming a BASIC interpreter. He may not be a scientist, but he really did start adult life as a 'techie.'
ii) MS hires physicists, computer scientists, etc. You may not like their choices, but it's too broad a brush to say they don't apply computer science knowledge.

 

[wollery]

To oversimplify the case, you might think of it this way... The pros have a few expensive telescopes, while the amateurs have a lot of less expensive 'scopes. Rather than a single monolithic project you might go for some sort of massive parallelism. It makes sense that objects which can only be discovered when you're looking at them would benefit from many sets of eyeballs rather than one.

That's part of it, also large telescopes generally have very narrow fields of view, as an example (the only one I have off the top of my head), the field of view of the 3.5m NTT at La Silla (Chile) is about 5 arcminutes. For the uninitiated, your thumb, held at arms length, has a width of about 30 arcminutes. To look for things that are moving quickly, relative to the background, you need a long term, continuous, monitoring project using telescopes with large fields of view. Amateurs are ideally placed to do this, and tend to pool their data, although you don't really need people all around the world. You just have to view the same patch of sky every night for several nights. NEOs are moving fast enough that a few days worth of data should do the job if you happen to have one passing through the patch that you're monitoring.

And that's another point. Big telescopes cost a lot of money to run, and no time allocation committee is going to approve a fishing expedition on a 3m telescope, they want pretty much guaranteed results.

 

[Roadtoad]

I may be the odd man out on this, but I tend to think we're better off with people who spend the years and change becoming scientists, rather than suffering through the dilettantes that time has erased memory of. Truth to tell, I'm surprised that anyone even remembers Lamarcke (?), except he was the guy who came up with the taxonomy we now use in zoology and botany. (I think I got that right. Let me know if I didn't.) We tend to forget that there were many pseudoscientists who also populated the landscape in ages past, and there's no mention of them now because their theories have been discredited.

 

[politas]

Heh. I was trying to come up with a catchy title but I may have come up with a misleading one instead. Perhaps I should have titled the thread: "Why is it that Wealthy People No Longer Do Science "?

Perhaps that might be because, just as it's harder to be a scientist these days, it's also harder to be wealthy. Wealthy people today are far more likely to spend a large part of their time maintaining their wealth.

 

[Ririon]

Perhaps that might be because, just as it's harder to be a scientist these days, it's also harder to be wealthy. Wealthy people today are far more likely to spend a large part of their time maintaining their wealth.

Go to any American University, and there's a good chance you will find buildings named after rich people who are still alive. Coincidence? I, for one, think big donations are involved.

 

[drkitten]

I may be the odd man out on this, but I tend to think we're better off with people who spend the years and change becoming scientists, rather than suffering through the dilettantes that time has erased memory of. Truth to tell, I'm surprised that anyone even remembers Lamarcke (?), except he was the guy who came up with the taxonomy we now use in zoology and botany. (I think I got that right. Let me know if I didn't.)

You, ahem, didn't.

Lamarck was the guy who came up with a proto-theory of evolution, the theory of use-and-disuse, and the idea that as giraffes stretched their necks to eat high leaves, they not only physically changed their own necks, but the necks of their children as well.

The guy who invented biological taxonomy was Linneus.

But it's not fair to characterize Lamarck as a pseudoscientist. He was, for his day (which was nearly a century before Darwin, remember), a top-flight biologist. He invented the $%^& theory of evolution, for Pete's sake! In an age when everyone else believed not only in special creation and spontaneous generation, but also in the immutability of species since their creation in the Garden, he suggested the almost heretical idea that no, species can change over time and here's one suggestion of a mechanism for how something like a horse can turn into something like a giraffe.

He also wasn't an amateur. He was a curator at the French Museum of Natural HIstory, as close as one could come in the 18th century to being a professional scientist.

We tend to forget that there were many pseudoscientists who also populated the landscape in ages past, and there's no mention of them now because their theories have been discredited.

This isn't confined to the past, nor has it ever been confined to pseudoscientists. If I can, in my career, achieve a single insight as brilliant as Lamarck's, I can die happy. I don't even care (much) if I'm wrong. All scientists are wrong, eventually -- even Newton didn't get gravity right, and Einstein is on the ropes. I'd like to be Darwin. I would be happy being Lamarck. I expect that I'll just end up being drkitten, though....

 

[Strider1974]

This guy seems to fit the bill.

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/Page1.htm

It takes a while for the pages to load but it is worth the wait.

 

[Kaylee]

Interesting thread. So... self-funded scientists and amateurs that contribute to their field of interest are not extinct, but probably rarer than they use to be.

Just want to make clear (in case there is any doubt) that I think as long as its for good reasons such as it's become easier for people from all economic backgrounds to get into the sciences and easier to get funding for projects, I think that's great. When I first posted this thread though I was wondering how much of the reason was due to the dumbing down of all cultures -- not just culture in the USA. FWIW, I now think that isn't a very large factor (but I still think it’s a minor one ).

Thanks to all those who explained, in what areas and why, independents and amateurs (esp. in astronomy) are still contenders.

edited for grammar.