Who would you nominate?
- Thread starter Mesquite
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Alfred Russel Wallace - he just didn't have as a good a marketing campaign as Darwin and should get far more recognition 
Sir John Sulston. His work on the genome deservedly won him the Nobel Prize, but his crowning achievement was to keep the knowledge in the public domain. He died early this year.
I have to declare an interest however. His daughter and my son have been friends since school and university.
I have to declare an interest however. His daughter and my son have been friends since school and university.
On the basis that their work has to have brought people together, rather than divided, I would say that Darwin would be out, even if he had not been on the £10 note already. Same for anyone else who published work on evolution. That debate is dividing people even today!
As a general reminder, these people have already appeared:
I like the idea of Stephen Hawking, but I would be happy to see Alan Turing too. I think I would prefer to see one of these than, say, Brunel, who already has a university to his name and didn't have to battle such odds to bring his work to the world.
As a general reminder, these people have already appeared:
- £1 – Sir Isaac Newton
- £5 – The Duke of Wellington, George Stephenson, Elizabeth Fry, Sir Winston Churchill
- £10 – Florence Nightingale, Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin, Jane Austen
- £20 – William Shakespeare, Michael Faraday, Sir Edward Elgar, Adam Smith, JMW Turner
- £50 – Sir Christopher Wren, Sir John Houblon, Matthew Boulton and James Watt
I like the idea of Stephen Hawking, but I would be happy to see Alan Turing too. I think I would prefer to see one of these than, say, Brunel, who already has a university to his name and didn't have to battle such odds to bring his work to the world.
John Harrison is a Brit whose invention has had a huge impact not only on Britain, but also on the restof the world, both negative and (mainly) positive.
I can not see why Darwin is dividing people, not really.
There will always be a fringe group that is against.
Turing and Lovell worked on other peoples findings.
Lovell? The detection systems ( type radar) were designed and constructed in many countries beforehand. For example, Luftwaffe had a very well functioning aircraft borne system years before anybody else.
It should somebody groundbreaking.
I can not see why Darwin is dividing people, not really.
There will always be a fringe group that is against.
Turing and Lovell worked on other peoples findings.
Lovell? The detection systems ( type radar) were designed and constructed in many countries beforehand. For example, Luftwaffe had a very well functioning aircraft borne system years before anybody else.
It should somebody groundbreaking.
Last edited:
Dont forget Lovell actually was able to capture the first image of the moon from the Russians, (sputnik) and was able to get it into the newspapers before the Russians were able too, he was also the first person (group) that could track a IBM by radar,, the sputnik was actually put into space by a Intercontinental Ballistic Missile,which he tracked from launch.
A lot of scientists are theorists, that is their theory cannot be dis-proved, nor proved, I often wonder how Darwin and others are seen by the rest of the World. the problem with Images on bank Notes is that the people portrayed are not always known, eg Elizabeth Fry on the £5 note, a lot of people had no Idea who she was.
Another person who deserves to be recognised is the founder of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides.
Robert Baden-Powell, whose efforts united the youth of the world in an effort to gain peace and harmony, and who laid down Laws and Guidance for the youths to follow.
A Scout smiles and whistles under all circumstances.
The most worth-while thing is to try to put happiness into the lives of others.
A Scout is never taken by surprise; he knows exactly what to do when anything unexpected happens.
A lot of scientists are theorists, that is their theory cannot be dis-proved, nor proved, I often wonder how Darwin and others are seen by the rest of the World. the problem with Images on bank Notes is that the people portrayed are not always known, eg Elizabeth Fry on the £5 note, a lot of people had no Idea who she was.
Another person who deserves to be recognised is the founder of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides.
Robert Baden-Powell, whose efforts united the youth of the world in an effort to gain peace and harmony, and who laid down Laws and Guidance for the youths to follow.
A Scout smiles and whistles under all circumstances.
The most worth-while thing is to try to put happiness into the lives of others.
A Scout is never taken by surprise; he knows exactly what to do when anything unexpected happens.
Last edited:
Yes, Baden Powell is universally not only recognised, but admired.
His primary goal with scouting was to prepare young boys for the Army life though, something that is largely forgotten today. Plus he mixed in a bit of good values and chivalry, something he felt was starting to disappear amongs the British youth.
( every generation feels that when they are getting older, in every country, since historical times though!)
Even the totalitarian regimes like Communists and National Socialists saw that his ideas were sound, and copied him.
He did not contribute to science though.
His primary goal with scouting was to prepare young boys for the Army life though, something that is largely forgotten today. Plus he mixed in a bit of good values and chivalry, something he felt was starting to disappear amongs the British youth.
( every generation feels that when they are getting older, in every country, since historical times though!)
Even the totalitarian regimes like Communists and National Socialists saw that his ideas were sound, and copied him.
He did not contribute to science though.
Interesting.
Not a single female mentioned.
Dorothy Hodgkins, Ada Lovelace, Rosalind Franklin.
We are currently having a massive campaign to increase the number of females in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) and part of that is acknowledging their contribution to science.
They may well choose a female.
Chalkflint
Not a single female mentioned.
Dorothy Hodgkins, Ada Lovelace, Rosalind Franklin.
We are currently having a massive campaign to increase the number of females in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) and part of that is acknowledging their contribution to science.
They may well choose a female.
Chalkflint
Oh, I do like the idea of John Harrison, although it may be that he isn't considered a scientist.
Janne, re Darwin, that "fringe" group you mention is a substantial part of the US population, and possibly an even greater part of the Muslim world, just for starters.
I realise that I may have made something of a mistake in factoring in the physical and social challenges that Hawking and Turning faced when I thought of them as candidates. I realised this when reading https://royalsociety.org/news/2010/influential-british-women/ and thinking that of the list Elizabeth Garrett Anderson sounded like she might make a good candidate. Then it struck me that I thought that she was impressive simply because she was the first and that she pushed the social boundaries. However she didn't make contributions to the body of scientific knowledge the way that some of the other women did.
If one factors in gender or disability for adding difficulties and hurdles not experienced by heterosexual able bodied male scientist then one should also be considering other factors such as age, race, religion and class as all of these have exerted pressures and stresses on people trying to further science. Thing is, there are an awful lot of people who contributed a lot who had to over come hurdles to do so, or who were not recognised during their life time. It seems like it might be better to ignore all these factors and just look at what the person contributed to science and what they left that others have built on.
It doesn't seem right to compare someone who worked on theories to do with black holes and quantum physics with someone who worked out molecular structures, including insulin, and tip the balance to the latter because they are female, whereas the former was in a wheel chair, and we want to encourage more females to enter science... rather than more wheel chair users.
Janne, re Darwin, that "fringe" group you mention is a substantial part of the US population, and possibly an even greater part of the Muslim world, just for starters.
I realise that I may have made something of a mistake in factoring in the physical and social challenges that Hawking and Turning faced when I thought of them as candidates. I realised this when reading https://royalsociety.org/news/2010/influential-british-women/ and thinking that of the list Elizabeth Garrett Anderson sounded like she might make a good candidate. Then it struck me that I thought that she was impressive simply because she was the first and that she pushed the social boundaries. However she didn't make contributions to the body of scientific knowledge the way that some of the other women did.
If one factors in gender or disability for adding difficulties and hurdles not experienced by heterosexual able bodied male scientist then one should also be considering other factors such as age, race, religion and class as all of these have exerted pressures and stresses on people trying to further science. Thing is, there are an awful lot of people who contributed a lot who had to over come hurdles to do so, or who were not recognised during their life time. It seems like it might be better to ignore all these factors and just look at what the person contributed to science and what they left that others have built on.
It doesn't seem right to compare someone who worked on theories to do with black holes and quantum physics with someone who worked out molecular structures, including insulin, and tip the balance to the latter because they are female, whereas the former was in a wheel chair, and we want to encourage more females to enter science... rather than more wheel chair users
.
My vote would have to go to Paul Dirac, probably one of the most influential physicists of the 20th century
Very good point. I remember when I was a teacher at a Cambridge Primary school, the University used to send squads of female physicists and engineers into schools to encourage girls to take up their subjects. This could be a good opportunity to support their initiative. I know my two granddaughters would agree. As too I think would Ingrid Sulston, whose father I originally nominated on this thread. Can I change my nomination to Ada Lovelace without whom we probably wouldn't be able to use this form of communication?
I hope that the sex, race, sexual preference or religion will not be a factor in deciding on the person.
It should be merit based, nothing else.
It should be merit based, nothing else.
I agree; I think it's actually insulting to women in science to suggest a woman should be nominated just to be PC. I accept that there were not as many women in science in the past because of prejudice, denial of access to the learned societies or even further education in general and I hope those times are changing fast but, after all, we have had a very prominent woman on our bank notes for some time now