The World & I Online Magazine, ONline Archive and Educational Resource  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
Username:   Password:      Subscribe Now   Register   About Us | Contact Us | FAQs      
The World & I Archive Peoples of the World Book Reviews Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

The World & I Magazine
 
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
American Waves
Book Reviews
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Traveling the Globe
Writers and Writing

Getting to Eureka


Article # : 17920 

Section : NATURAL SCIENCE
Issue Date : 3 / 1990  2,645 Words
Author : Solomon H. Snyder
Solomon H. Snyder is director of the Department of Neuroscience at the johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

       From encounters with outstanding scientists over the years, I have learned that there is no single road to success when it comes to scientific discovery. Some Nobel laureates are sloppy and intuitive; others are impeccable and precise. Yet scholars of the discovery process know that 90 to 99 percent of the most important scientific findings are made by 1 to 10 percent of scientists. A small, gifted group of investigators seems invariable to spawn creative ideas and crucial observations. What distinguishes these innovative few?
       
       Historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science have tried for years to identify qualities that make for outstanding scientific contributions. Many of these studies have focused on the distinguishing characteristics of Nobel laureates. What they found was that intelligence as measured by IQ scores, schools attended, socioeconomic status, parental occupation, the warmth or coldness of childhood environment - none of these factors seem to be particularly relevant. The best way to predict who will make a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize is simply to examine who trained whom.
       
       Most scientists are intelligent but not remarkably brilliant. Certainly, a good scientist should be incisive, capable of separating artifacts from meaningful data. But what seems to matter most in the giants is a creativity mixed together with these critical skills. And from my own observation I am convinced that this creative aspect of scientific discovery is best communicated through apprenticeship. In this respect science is no different from other creative endeavors. Among musicians and artists, the chain of mentor-student relationships embraces all the greatest innovators. Throughout the Renaissance the most important painters ... (1998 of 16208 Characters)
Read Full Article

Copyright © 2004 The World & I Online. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy