Just E.O. Wilson?

Both Jason (TFK) and John (SF) also give E.O. Wilson as the response to Ask a ScienceBlogger. This is kind of disheartening. Can anyone think of another scientist who is plausible and alive? (obviously Carl Sagan would have been a good candidate) I mean, James Watson is an acerbic kook part of the time, Freeman Dyson is a bit idiosyncratic, and Murray Gell-Mann doesn't cut a wide public profile. Like John Wilson "popped" into my head but I spent 15 minutes thinking of possible second options. For living Americans I came up empty.

Tags

More like this

Lewontin...also Steven Weinberg and Jared Diamond.

By Rich Lawler (not verified) on 19 Nov 2006 #permalink

I'd suggest Stephen Pinker. While he doesn't do the kind of "wet" science or big expensive equipment experiments that most people associate with the term "science", all of his thinking is grounded in the methodology and discipline of science, and it's at least arguable that the work he does represents the field of science that will be most important for the future of our culture and our species.

Richard

I too suggested Pinker as someone with future potential in the tread below when our frat boy host first posed the query. Don't think Pinker currently has quite enough gravitas though he's getting there.

The Brits would name Dawkins in a heartbeat. He's too energetically opposed to religion to have any prayer in this country though.

I can give the ideal CV for our science laureate though. He should be a human genetics pioneer whose work has directly or indirectly lead to some really significant medical advance. He should then have turned to wider popularization for the high IQ public of genetic science, and taken some controversial but not TOO controversial stances, which have turned out to be well supported by further lab evidence.

He should write and speak very well. He needn't be handsome and in fact shouldn't be at least not too much, but he should be human / kindly looking, and non verbally communicate caring for his fellow human beings (unlike e.g. Crick).

Pinker makes it on all of these things except discoveries that strike the somewhat above average citizen as undoubtedly compellingly important.

Though maybe he's as good a choice as any. He's also not been antagonistic towards the religious, while clearly not there himself.

Maybe I HAVE talked myself into Steven Pinker. (Radical feminists won't be happy, though he is attractive and personally non threatening.)

In five to ten years Bruce Lahn could well turn out to be the man as well.

Sean B. Carroll, with his multiplying books on evo-devo, is rapidly becoming this generation's Stephen Jay Gould, I think. But like Pinker and others, Carroll is simply too young still. Others just don't have enough name recognition outside of the AAAS and their respective fields.

But absolutely no one is combining the name recognition with work in multiple fields the way Wilson has done.

FC might be good. again, the youth thing though. the full impact of the HGP will be felt in a generation or so.

an evolutionary biologist that doesn't understand psychology and a psychologist that doesn't understand evolutionary biology

Right now, if anybody asked me, I am too impressed with another Sociobiology hero - Trivers, especially after hosting one of his talks and reading his earlier papers.

Not many a day you get rewarded with accolades and subtle flirtings from a man like him! Am charmed!!!