Advances in Science
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
-- Sir Isaac Newton

 

Science is a continuous process. One advancement cannot occur without the previous one. As Isaac Newton has said: "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Newton's achievement in science and mathematics is nothing short of spectacular. In fact, spectacular is too small of a word to describe Newton's contribution and brilliance, inventing calculus and putting his name in every brand of physics at his time. However, Newton could not have possibly developed such elegant theories of physics, from classical mechanics to the laws of gravity, had the discoveries of Galileo and those before him never occurred. Likewise, if Albert Einstein were born a few centuries earlier, he would have never developed what had made him a household name: theories of relativity, because he would never have the shoulders of the giants on which to stand , and therefore would never see what he saw. Newton stood on the shoulders of Galileo and those before him, and Einstein stood on the shoulders of Newton and those before him. Albert Einstein, of course, understood this point perfect, and in his praise of Isaac Newton, he wrote: "you (Newton) found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." No, scientists today are not smarter than scientists of the past. We simply stood on their shoulders and see further than they were able to.

Advances in science depend on the past. However, advances in science is also inevitable. According to Richard Dickerson, Erwin Chargaff is a scientist who could not understand his own discovery, and became embittered when someone else, namely James Watson and Francis Crick, did, and won the Nobel Prize based at least partially on Chargaff's discovery of the DNA base-paring rule. I have read an article written by Chargaff that sounded somewhat displeased of Watson and Crick. However, I have to agree with one thing Chargaff said in that paper. "Science makes men. Men does not make science. If A and B do not discover it today, C will certainly discover it tomorrow." There has been a long debate regarding Watson and Crick's discovery of double helix DNA, on whether Rosalind Franklin would have solved the correct structure of DNA had she been left alone with her data. The debate is further highlighted by Aaron Klug's opening speech in DNA Double Helix's 50th Anniversary, where he stressed on the data collected by Franklind, her move toward solving the B-form DNA, and even criticized Watson and Crick for not giving Franklin enough credit. I believe Rosalind Franklin would eventually solve the DNA structure without Watson and Crick. I also believe Linus Pauling would eventually solve the correct structure if Franklin does not, and Richard Dickerson, the first to successfully crystallize and solve B-DNA structure rigorously using X-ray crystallography, would do so if Pauling fails. However, that does not undermine the achievement of Watson and Crick, the fact that they have done it first. My point lies within Chargaff's statement, that the advancements in science is inevitable. If Galileo had not discovered that our Earth circles around the Sun, then perhaps Isaac Newton will. If Newton had not come up with classical physics, then perhaps Albert Einstein will. If Einstein had not come up with his Theories of Relativity, someone else will. May that be Stephen Hawking, or a group of brilliant physicists in the world collaborating together. The discovery of relativity would be delayed, but it will be discovered eventually. However, that is not to lessen any of their contributions. The possibility that Newton might have discovered what Galileo had does not make Galileo's contribution any less, for he had made Newton's own discovery possible. Each scientific leap made the process of scientific advancement go faster. In essence, advancement in science is like to run a relay. Each runner depends on the previous runner, but if a previous runner does not exist, the next runner can take over.

 

HOME