Scientific genius is extinct

Open Access articles citing this article.

• Research on scalable graphene faces a reproducibility gap

  • Peter Bøggild

  Nature Communications Open Access 28 February 2023

• The inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge diversity of researchers and societal impact

  • Gaofeng Wang
  • , Yetong Gan
  • & Haodong Yang

  Scientific Reports Open Access 03 November 2022

• Research on scalable graphene faces a reproducibility gap

  • Peter Bøggild

  Nature Communications (2023)

• The inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge diversity of researchers and societal impact

  • Gaofeng Wang
  • Yetong Gan
  • Haodong Yang

  Scientific Reports (2022)

• Topical connections between the institutions within an organisation (institutional co-authorships, direct citation links and co-citations)

  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Loet Leydesdorff

  Scientometrics (2015)

• Do great minds appear in batches?

  • Ho Fai Chan
  • Benno Torgler

  Scientometrics (2015)

• Together we stand

  • Ioannis Pavlidis
  • Alexander M. Petersen
  • Ioanna Semendeferi

  Nature Physics (2014)

Commenting on this article is now closed.

1. Robert Gertz 30 January 2013, 13:47

   I don't know...I think we shouldn't rush to such pronouncements. Genius is a questionable thing in any case but I doubt team science will lead to the end of individual accomplishment on the order of Einstein or Newton.

2. Gene Godbold 30 January 2013, 17:20

   Since genius is unexpected and you can't imagine something new until the genius shows it to you, why do you despair that there is something revolutionary and novel out there to be discovered? Genius must be waited for patiently and then appreciated when it manifests. It's like grace.

3. Nitin Gandhi 30 January 2013, 22:17

   This article can be published 25, 50, 100, 150, or even 200 yrs ago, or it can be published in next 25, 50 100 or 200 yrs, it will still remain relevant!

   I think the author is carried away with the general "gloom" in current scientific profession. This cannot be considered the end of genius. I wish and I hope!

4. gaurav sharma 31 January 2013, 01:02

   I appreciate the concern of the author about Science and its Genius fellows. I also believe that after Einstein or Newton the world is waiting to see a genius. But we can not ignore the modern revolutionist in Science as John Craig Venter, Stephen Hawking, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Richard Feynman, and many more who have contributed in a single field up to a high mark. Criticism should be there but appreciation should not be ignored. I just remember one line from 'The Genesis of Science? from James Hannam.. "Maybe the Dark (here Last 50 years) Ages Weren't So Dark After All...". We have achieved a lot and we are waiting to achieve a lot more in coming years. and fingers crossed, a Genius mind would be waiting somewhere in Future who will prove this statistics wrong!!!

5. David Innes 1 February 2013, 08:23

   I was interested to see the obituary for Carl Woese (clearly an example of scientific genius) in the same issue as this article.

6. Nathan Johnson 1 February 2013, 16:46

   I think it's a little cynical to say that "genius is extinct." You mention Darwin, Einstein, Marie Curie, Newton, Descartes, etc. as possessing this quality, but those individuals typically came across once in a generation. I would argue that Hawking fits the bill for the current one, especially when you consider that many of these people were not necessarily viewed as geniuses right away. We just have to be patient, eventually someone will come and redefine what we consider to be scientific certainties.

7. Benjamin Shaw 2 February 2013, 07:28

   It is true that the way in which major scientific discoveries occur has changed. So too has the effect they have on the now well established fields in which they occur. I don't agree that scientific genius no longer exists, but that the stringent definition of the term you used in this article is no longer relevant or useful.

   I agree with gaurav sharma that there are a few scientists since Einstein that I would consider to have been/be scientific geniuses.

   Even accepting your logic, It seems odd to me that you appear to be dispirited by the fact that you don't believe anyone will ever fit your definition again. The main reason you state for this is that we have such a large amount of knowledge it is hard to see how we have missed some field-shattering piece of information. I don't know if I agree, as other commenters have said you won't know it till someone does it, but If it is the case then that is a pretty awesome sign of human progression and should be celebrated not mourned.

8. Claudiu Bandea 3 February 2013, 10:05

   Whether at individual or group level, scientific creativity can only make a splash in fields of inquiry that hold great unknowns. Currently, there are plenty of highly creative scientific minds around the world, so the making of a 'scientific genius' is only limited by the presence of such unknowns, which fundamentally questions the very notion of 'scientific genius'.

   Take, for example, your own research specialty, studying 'scientific genius', which you feel is on the endangered list (BTW, fortunately, sooner or later all fields of science will join this list, which is a celebratory path towards knowing everything is there to know). What unknowns, even if not great, can your field offer?

9. Luke Braidwood 6 February 2013, 02:50

   "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

   Lord Kelvin, 1900...

10. Charles Packer 6 February 2013, 22:49

    I think Mr. Simonton is premature to write off the role of genius in the scientific adventure. He's looking at things through the wrong end of the telescope. There are surely great insights yet to be made. They will be made by individuals. A very few of those insights will change our views fundamentally &#8212 of the cosmos, of the human mind, of society. These will be considered to be achievements of genius.

11. CA P 8 February 2013, 12:08

    Prof. Simonton brings us a very nice piece on the myth of a scientific genius vrs. "A" genius. This is an absolute must-know for every student, which needs to understand that a "scientific genius" has little to nothing to do with the lonely noun. We all venerate Einstein, which was far from a genius, because unlike "A" genius, as von Neuman, he did not want to drop an A-bomb over Kyoto. That and because most scientist (but not the mystifying public) agree that Einstein's achievements were mild by themselves: That is, predecesors of Lorenz, predecesors of Brown and predecesors of Maxwell would have independently found Einstein's contributions. Unfortunatelly, this cannot happen in the 21st century because 1- Einstein had ca. 4 years of research and open acess to scientific journals. Today, if you are researching for ca. 4 years without publishing mediocre stuff you will be fired. 2- You will be reminded during your 4 years of research to "concetrate on a single academic discipline". So many achievements will be made but not the multi-disciplinary ones Prof. Simonton uses to define "Scientific Genius", and which I am 100% supportive about. In conclusion, Prof. Simonton will not be proven wrong in this century. But his discipline is needed now more than ever, because the scientific genius has never been extint. It is nothing that is born. It is always there, waiting for the right conditions and environment to sprout. Not the environment of physics, nor chemistry nor informatics, nor that of Google, of IBM nor graphene or silicon, but all of them.

12. CA P 8 February 2013, 12:12

    Prof. Simonton brings us a very nice piece on the myth of a scientific genius vrs. "A" genius. This is an absolute must-know for every student, which needs to understand that a "scientific genius" has little to nothing to do with the lonely noun. We all venerate Einstein, which was far from a genius, because unlike "A" genius, as von Neuman, he did not want to drop an A-bomb over Kyoto. That and because most scientist (but not the mystifying public) agree that Einstein's achievements were mild by themselves: That is, predecesors of Lorenz, predecesors of Brown and predecesors of Maxwell would have independently found Einstein's contributions. Unfortunatelly, this cannot happen in the 21st century because 1- Einstein had ca. 4 years of research and open acess to scientific journals. Today, if you are researching for ca. 4 years without publishing mediocre stuff you will be fired. 2- You will be reminded during your 4 years of research to "concetrate on a single academic discipline". So many achievements will be made but not the multi-disciplinary ones Prof. Simonton uses to define "Scientific Genius", and which I am 100% supportive about. In conclusion, Prof. Simonton will not be proven wrong in this century. But his discipline is needed now more than ever, because the scientific genius has never been extint. It is nothing that is born. It is always there, waiting for the right conditions and environment to sprout. Not the environment of physics, nor chemistry nor informatics, nor that of Google, of IBM nor graphene or silicon, but all of them. regards, C.A. Palma

13. Maya Lincoln 23 February 2013, 05:41

    Prof. Simonton claims that the reason for the lack of genius in science nowadays is that ?neither discipline creation nor revolution is available to contemporary scientists?. I agree that as science becomes more developed and established, it becomes harder to invent genius theories that will be ?original, useful and surprising?. Nevertheless, harder doesn?t mean impossible. Prof. Simonton?s didn?t mention one mechanism that practically almost prevents real innovation, and that does not allow genius leaps to happen. This factor is, in fact, the reviewing mechanism of most contemporary scientific Journals. These ?processes? are extremely regulated, infected by personal and financial interests, and will take very little or no risk. These mechanisms show no openness whatsoever to innovative scientific leaps, due to the fact that such innovations, by their nature, cannot always be proven solidly at inception.

    This screening of such innovative papers is not done deliberately in order to put back science, but in general a Journal will not take the risk of publishing false theories. I assume this method screens a great amount of false works, but it also blocks a small amount of new directions which, if published, could be further developed by the scientific community and be found useful and even create new disciplines.

    On a personal note ? I am sharing this information from my personal experience. I submitted an innovative paper explaining the creation of the universe ?ex nihilo? to Nature and to a couple of other Journals. The comments I received were more or less alike: although it is very interesting the Journal cannot publish it due to one or more of the following reasons: (1) the Journal publishes only papers that are based on prior solid work; (2) the theory is too speculative. Nevertheless, none of the reviewers indicated any error or false assumption within the theory.

    In summary, I think it is important that Journals will allocate place also to a small amount of surprising, out of the box, innovative theories, possibly under a compatible category. These papers may contribute immensely to other scientific works and will be further developed, or &#8211 will be proven as false ? and as such will advance science as well.

    Sincerely, Dr. Maya Lincoln, www.processgene.com