Reply to comment

In reading both articles, I found myself thinking about the actual definition of science, and how scientists (including Brian Greene) seem to believe it impacts the world. It is more than true that we are surrounded by science, but I feel like science is too often viewed as a series of large discoveries that cause us to spring forward again and again until the specific state we live in right now. The history of science, to me, is a series of what ifs that could have happened without small discoveries. After all, science is mostly repetition. Small changes one or two scientists may have made could have repeated by hundreds of scientists, one of whom combined it with another idea to create one of these ‘earth shattering discoveries.’

A small contribution I think of is Karl Benz’s use of gasoline in creating the precursor to today’s automobiles. Without his contribution, we might have still found gasoline as a useful source of energy, or continued with steam powered energy to create cars that run by steam and gears. This has even larger applications for technology and political issues. We might still use helium filled zeppelins without gas powered engines, or wouldn’t have ever known that it is possible to fly a rocket to the moon. Benz is a well known name within some circles, and in some ways a bad example of what I am trying to demonstrate, but do consider the wide implication of his seemingly tiny contribution. Of course, there were others who contributed to Benz’s idea, but I think his discovery of the use of gasoline is still considered minor.

A possibly better example is the use of the giant squid axon in cognitive research. John Zachary Young is credited with first using the axon; a simple idea that using this neuron would make neuroscience research visible to the naked eye and thus simplified. Suddenly neuroscientists could test important theories, and modify them as needed. Hodgkin and Huxley used his research to give much bigger and well known contributions to the science, but I think it’s important to note what Young did.

In science classes we learn about how neurons fire, and the structure of sex gametes. I’ve rarely heard about the usefulness of a giant squid axon, or the man who had a microscope next to his bed so that he could do reproductive research without defying the church. I think it’s important to note these tiny contributions that have shaped our world. Sometimes science can feel overwhelming to students just beginning exploration in the subject because they are presented with a bunch of huge advances. I’m not sure they realize the amount of impact something seemingly small can have in the larger picture. It’s impractical to tell every story, but humanizing aspects of science might allow students to connect with bits of science rather than brushing off the entire subject. Science is not just about the obvious world changing contributions like the discovery of electricity; it is mainly rooted in the small steps of unknown scientists which have lead to drastic changes.