As a child, did you want to be a scientist when you grew up so you could cure diseases? Such an aspiration is actually a fairly recent phenomenon. The word scientist, the professionalization of science, and the creation of many of the institutions and structures so integral to the functioning of modern science only began around 150 years ago. Between 1830 and 1870 was a period of remarkable scientific development. In 1802, only 20 full-time scientific jobs existed in the USA, yet by 1880 there were 800 professional scientists. How and why did professional science begin, and how were the early scientific pioneers viewed by society?

In 1833, William Whewell coined the word scientist, a new derivative of the Latin word for knowledge. At a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Whewell proposed that the name scientist could provide a collective identity to unite a chaotic ensemble of amateur researchers, known by various names including natural philosophers or men of science. Many of these people were upper class gentlemen for whom science was a hobby. However, it was an era in which many other fields such as law or medicine were turning professional. The idea of specialization and organized group endeavors was gaining popularity at the expense of the previous ideal of a solitary quest for wisdom. The whole concept of how to carry out science was undergoing a revolution.

Around the time that the word scientist entered the lexicon, many of the institutions and scientific support structures that we now take for granted first arose. In America in the 1830s and 40s, professional scientific journals were springing up, the Smithsonian was established, and local scientific associations were losing ground to national organizations, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (founded in 1848). Scientific meetings were becoming important. Scientific schools were founded at Harvard and Yale and, by 1850, many colleges started to offer science degrees as an alternative to the long established BA in humanities. By the 1890s, science PhDs were becoming commonplace. These developments in the USA closely mirrored changes in Europe, where Germany was the world leader in the professionalization of science.

Science had suddenly come of age, but what was its reputation? Professional science found its home at the universities, many of which had a strongly religious identity. Initially, science had great intellectual prestige in the academic hierarchy, as it was considered to be a profound way to appreciate God’s creation. The universities’ Protestant ethos of open enquiry and independent thought provided a supportive environment for science to flourish. However, the religious entente soon eroded and, by the 1870s, scientists no longer framed their work within any spiritual context and science emerged as a discipline separate from the realm of religious study. Indeed, science now rivaled religion as a way to find truth.

The public’s response to the new professional scientists was mixed. Tension arose as the amateur gentleman scientists were superceded by the professional breed. Another affront was the birth of jargon and, as science grew more specialized, scientists were beginning to speak their own language, which the 19th century public could not translate. The public was still keen to learn about the latest scientific marvels and so popular science emerged to fill this need. In 1845, publication began of Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the USA. Public dialogue was not just to raise awareness, it was vital to determine funding. Yet even in those early days, there was public disillusionment when science failed to deliver on inflated promises and skepticism when scientists took credit for technological advances they had not aided.

What was the American perspective on science at that time? Naturally enough, in the recently founded American nation a debate arose about the democratic nature of this new profession. Was scientific power to rest in the hands of an elite, an unpalatable concept in the New World because of the negative associations of elitism left behind in Europe? How democratic should American science be—would the US appetite for practicality triumph, or could abstract research with no immediate benefits be justified? In the 1830s, Tocqueville analyzed the effects of democracy on American society. He discerned a practical streak to American science, less sympathetic to abstract science than aristocratic cultures: “permanent inequality of conditions leads men to confine themselves to arrogant and sterile research of abstract truth; whilst the social condition and institutions of democracy prepare them to seek the immediate and useful practical results of the sciences.” However, Tocqueville urged Americans to foster abstract research despite their inclinations toward more utilitarian goals. He was optimistic though that American science would blossom because of the value of cultivation of the mind in a democracy: “it becomes evident that the chief cause of disparity between the fortunes of men is the mind. Whatever tends to invigorate, to extend, or to adorn the mind, instantly rises to great value.”

What was the scientific niche of The Rockefeller University at its foundation in 1901? Although scientific research was becoming more professional, similar progress had not been achieved in medical research. It was an era when medicine was held in very low esteem. However, in late 19th century Europe there were indications of genuine scientific methods, particularly in bacteriology, used to provide medical advances. The newly founded Pasteur and Koch Institutes sought to capitalize on these successes. But medical research was certainly not mainstream. When RU was founded, only five American universities had substantial medical research units and only three relevant journals existed. RU was innovatory because it was the first US institution in which medical researchers could work full-time in their laboratory without the demands of medical teaching. One RU professor at the time wondered if he would be able to fill his day with just research alone! The medical research professional had been born.

By the time RU was founded, there had been much change in the scientific process, and scientists began to pay increasing attention to their public image. The sources of research funding were being redefined and the general public did not trust scientists alone to decide what science got funded and for how much. Science remained a hot topic and in popular magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post people read about how scientific research could lead to cures for diseases, or how it could help the country defend itself in time of war. Scientists also began to emerge as heroic literary characters. One such example is Sinclair Lewis’ 1925 novel Arrowsmith set in the McGurk Institute, a thinly veiled portrayal of The Rockefeller University. To get an insider view of RU, Lewis consulted extensively with Dr. Paul de Kruif, a bacteriologist who had worked at Rockefeller. The central character Martin Arrowsmith may have been modelled on de Kruif and many characters in the novel were clearly based on people at Rockefeller. In the book, Lewis shows the difficulty faced by the idealistic scientist in searching for scientific truth. Thus, the world was given one of many vivid images of the noble scientist.

As time has passed, the pursuit of science continues to retain much of its initial prestige. Scientists play a major role in society with scientists advising world leaders, evening news reports generally containing at least one story on a new scientific breakthrough, scientists (whether good or evil) serving as major characters in films, and scientific data generally influencing legislative decisions. According to a study by the National Science Foundation, most Americans indicate at least a moderate interest in news about the latest scientific breakthrough, yet only 2% of the most closely followed news items are about science.

There is a definite perception of what a scientist is which has remained rather constant over the last 50 years. In 1957, Margaret Mead developed the Draw a Scientist Test (DAST) for children. Children often depict scientists as men wearing glasses, a white lab coat, with lots of hair (especially facial hair). Even as children get older and learn more about science, these impressions are even more concrete for them. Children tend to picture scientists near laboratory equipment with notices of danger. Although these drawings tend to support the notion that scientists are slightly crazy, most surveys of adults and children show that the majority views scientists as “helping to solve challenging problems” and “dedicated people who work for the good of humanity.” Only 25% of those surveyed believe that scientists are “odd and peculiar people.” Interestingly, public confidence in the leadership of the scientific community is greater than that of the Supreme Court, education authorities, the press, and television. Only medical professionals are more trusted than scientists.

One could argue that over time, the definition and perception of the professional scientist has not changed much at all. Regardless of what vision pops into a person’s head at the thought of a scientist—someone hairy or bald, male or female, crazy or normal—the core image is someone engaged in the admirable task of seeking knowledge. We owe much to the early pioneers who made such an impact on how the world views scientists today.

Sources:

Related Articles:

• Political Science
• The Lab Rat Race
• “The Leopard” Shakes Italian Research
• Women and the Science Pipeline
• Women and the Science Pipeline at RU