A Point of View: Whose science is it anyway?

Scientist holding beaker

Science can only develop by ignoring national borders, says Lisa Jardine.

Since its modern beginnings in the 17th Century, science has been the most global of pursuits. Information and experimentation have criss-crossed national borders, as the curious have tried to explain the properties of natural phenomena.

Marie Curie, discoverer of radium and winner of two Nobel prizes, put the matter characteristically bluntly: "Science is essentially international. It is only through lack of a historical sense that national qualities have been attributed to it."

Not that you would think so if you have followed the science news this week. As the Nobel prizes for 2013 have been announced, each nation's media have rushed to claim the winners as their own.

"Three Americans win joint Nobel prize for medicine," shouted the headline in the New York Times. "A German and two Americans win the Nobel prize for medicine," counter-claimed Der Spiegel.

Find out more

Lisa Jardine
  • A Point of View is on Fridays on Radio 4 at 20:50 BST and repeated Sundays, 08:50 BST
  • Historian Lisa Jardine is professor of Renaissance studies at University College, London, where she is director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in the Humanities

One of this year's winners is indeed German born and trained, though he has worked for many years in the United States.

On Tuesday the prize for physics went, as expected, to Britain's (or should that be Scotland's) Peter Higgs.

Of the five other physicists who could lay claim to having made crucial early theoretical breakthroughs in relation to the Higgs-Boson particle, it was Francois Englert of Belgium alone who shared the prize with Higgs.

Predictably, every Belgian newspaper I consulted on Wednesday morning ran a banner headline along the lines of "Belgian wins Nobel prize for physics", relegating Higgs to the second or third paragraph.

Higgs and Englert published their theories of how certain particles acquire mass independently in 1964 - Higgs working in Edinburgh, and Englert and his long-term colleague Robert Brout in Brussels.

It has been characteristic of advances in science since the beginning that a single problem is worked on - and ultimately solved at about the same time - by individuals and teams in different countries, who read the same papers, correspond and meet intermittently at academic conferences.

Englert and Higgs A Belgian (left) and a Briton (right) shared the Nobel physics prize

An example on a much more modest scale from the period closest to my own heart as a historian, the 17th Century, is the investigation of a phenomenon known today as Prince Rupert's drops. As it happens, this too linked scientists in Britain and the Low Countries.

If a globule of molten glass is dropped into a bucket of cold water, it cools to form a tear-shaped drop of a size that fits into the palm of your hand with a long, slender tail.

This tadpole-shaped drop has extraordinary properties. The main body of the tear is remarkably strong - you can stand on it, or hit it with a hammer, without it breaking.

But if the tiniest fragment is broken from the tail, the entire drop shatters and explodes with a loud bang, disintegrating into dust - watch one shatter in this clip from Smarter Every Day on YouTube.

Prince Rupert drops being made in lab Making a Prince Rupert's drop

This combination of strength and weakness, and its potential explosive possibilities, demanded an explanation.

Prince Rupert's drops seem first to have attracted scientific interest in Germany in the 1640s. By the 1650s they were being examined and discussed in France and the Netherlands, with a whole range of theories being produced concerning the drop's strange properties. One of the earliest recorded attempts at an explanation involved the Dutch polymath Sir Constantijn Huygens and the amateur scientist Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle.

Cavendish was domiciled in Antwerp at the time, exiled from Britain during the Commonwealth period. In a letter to her following a visit, Huygens recorded a conversation they had about the drops - at the time known as "Dutch tears" - in her private chemistry laboratory. There, each week, she apparently "dirtied several white petticoats" worn as overalls to protect her clothing while she conducted experiments.

Enclosing several specimens, Huygens begs her to investigate their properties. "The King of France is as yet unresolved in the question, notwithstanding he hath been curious to move it to an assembly of the best philosophers of Paris."

The duchess replied a week later. She expressed her gratitude to Huygens for seeking her opinion. In her view, the cause of the explosion when the tip of the drop was broken was that there was a tiny quantity of volatile material trapped inside which reacted violently on contact with air.

With a nice feminine touch, she observed that if liquid had somehow been inserted into the drops (actually, the drops contain no liquid) it would have required no greater skill than that employed to make fashionable glass earrings.

"Women wear at their ears for pendants as great wonders, glass bobs with narrow necks as these glasses have tails, and yet it is filled with several colours silks and coarse black cotton-wool, which to my sense is more difficult to put into these glass pendants, than liquor into these glass guns."

Margaret Cavendish, 1623-73

Margaret Cavendish
  • Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
  • Attendant to Queen Henrietta Maria - travelled with her into exile in France
  • Prolific writer who produced poetry and plays as well as writing on natural philosophy and science
  • Wrote under her own name at a time when most women writers used male pseudonyms

The correspondence continued for some weeks, though neither party could come up with anything like an acceptable explanation.

In 1661, the properties of the "glass bubbles" were demonstrated at a meeting of the recently formed Royal Society in London. Several of its founding members had recently returned from continental Europe at the Restoration of Charles II - including the king's German cousin Prince Rupert, who gave his name to the drops. So it is not surprising that specimens of what diarist Samuel Pepys called "Chymicall glasses" came with them.

"The king sent by Sir Paul Neile five little glass bubbles," the minutes of the meeting record, "in order to have the judgement of the society concerning them."

Anxious to impress the king (whose financial support the society was actively seeking) the members responded immediately. More drops were produced and experimented on two days later, and a full report of the experiments given to the society at its weekly meeting by the president.

These were shared with the French traveller Balthasar de Monconys when he attended the Royal Society. He made his own French translation of the report, and discussed the drops and their properties with the scientific community in Leiden when he visited shortly afterwards.

Robert Hooke's microscope Robert Hooke's drawing of his own compound microscope in Micrographia (1665)

It was my scientific hero Robert Hooke, the society's curator of experiments - the person in charge of those experiments recorded in 1661 - who made an important early contribution to explaining this strange phenomenon, based on the differential cooling of the glass itself after it was plunged into water, and drawing an analogy with the way the locked stones in brick arches collapse instantaneously and violently once the keystone is removed.

Hooke used his new microscope to examine drops which had been shattered, but held intact with strong glue. His contributions to a theoretical explanation cover 11 closely-argued pages in his 1665 Micrographia.

In the 19th Century the great Lord Kelvin added his contribution. But the behaviour of these "Dutch tears" was not fully explained until the 1920s. So multiple connections between at least four European nations contributed to the eventual properly scientific understanding of "Prince Rupert's drops".

I might add that Margaret Cavendish's involvement in the story is not her only appearance in early modern science. Pepys described in his diary a sensational London social event in 1667, when the duchess paid a ceremonial visit to the Royal Society at the invitation of its president and fellows - the only woman to do so before the modern era. Among the experiments carried out for her were several involving Robert Boyle's famous "evacuating engine" or air pump.

Around the BBC

Professor Brian Cox looks at the history of Britain's science heroes

Listen to Lisa Jardine's Seven Ages of Science

Find out more about Alfred Nobel

It is tempting for the historian to claim landmark events in science on behalf of the nation to which he or she belongs. I have come close to doing as much myself, when I hinted that Hooke might have been the first to provide an explanation for the behaviour of Prince Rupert's drops. Brian Cox begins his recent Science Britannica TV series by announcing: "In these films I want to explore Britain's pivotal role in creating modern science."

But science has always ignored national borders, in pursuit of the fullest possible understanding of nature. Even at the height of the Anglo-Dutch wars in the mid-17th Century, correspondence full of information and data continued to be exchanged uncensored between Dutch scientists and the Royal Society in London.

Higgs and Englert have been quick to point out that the crucial experimental work at CERN that confirmed their Nobel-prize winning theoretical breakthrough was the result of global teamwork, involving thousands of researchers and almost 100 nationalities.

To be true to the benefits of a scientific future we have to honour its equally international past.

Best explanation of Higgs boson?
Image shows room full of people Scientists' best theory for why different things have mass is the "Higgs field" - where mass can be seen as a measure of the resistance to movement. The "Higgs field" is shown here as a room of physicists chatting among themselves.
Room full of people, new scientist enters the room A well-known scientist walks into the room and causes a bit of a stir - attracting admirers with each step and interacting strongly with them - signing autographs and stopping to chat.
Crowd gathers round well-known scientist As she becomes surrounded by admiring fans, she finds it harder to move across the room - in this analogy, she acquires mass due to the "field" of fans, with each fan acting like a single Higgs boson.
Two crowds around different scientists, one big, one small If a less popular scientist enters the room, only a small crowd gathers, with no-one clamouring for attention. He finds it easier to move across the room - by analogy, his interaction with the bosons is lower, and so he has a lower mass.

Follow @BBCNewsMagazine on Twitter and on Facebook

Here is a selection of your comments

Whose science is it anyway? This is a really searching title because the pursuit of science began long before the Renaissance, in the Far and Middle East.

Haji M Zin, Melaka, Malaysia

As a German citizen who has been working in Ireland and England I find it amusing how nationalistic the press is about such science prizes. My research group consists of people from India France, Germany, Brazil and Ireland. So, which nation should get the prize? The beauty of science is that it is inherently democratic. It does not matter who you are, how old you are, if you are male or female, or poor or rich. Only your arguments and experimental data count. Also, science is the ultimate team sport. Did not Sir Isaac Newton say that "We are taller than they, because we are standing on the shoulders of giants"? The Nobel Prize winners are always hailed like gold medal winners at the Olympics, except that research is always international, while the Olympics are not. It is therefore irrelevant if the third Nobel Prize winner is officially a German or US citizen.

Prof. Christian Holscher, PhD, Biomedical and Life Sciences, Lancaster University, England

The true patriot, of course, knows that just one British college (Trinity, Cambridge) can lay claim to more Nobel laureates than the entire nation of France.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Whose science is it anyway? For an answer to this question, take a look at patent law and the growing importance of "intellectual property". Part of the scientific community is re trying to continue the traditional open forum approach, but this clashes with increased industrial and military sponsorship of their research.

Malcolm Baird, Hamilton, Canada

Whose science is it? Well, once it is printed and published in learned journals it is the property of the big publishing houses, from whom you can get downloads of articles at exorbitant prices. Even your own articles of long ago will cost you money if you have lost or misplaced them down the years.

JP Ward, Netherlands

Ms Jardine's article must surely prompt discussion of what constitutes The Scientific Method. What passes for science these days differs greatly from the approach of Isaac Newton and his excellent 17th century colleagues. "Hypotheses non fingo" wrote Newton, who offered no explanation for his greatest discoveries, but instead restricted himself to stating observable facts and formulating laws that describe them. In contrast, it seems to me that today, much is based on conjecture rather an investigation of phenomena. Perhaps in parallel with Peak Oil we are experiencing Peak Discovery, and there is not much left in nature that human intellect is able to reveal. Perhaps science has become metaphysical again. Thomas Kuhn surely was justified for commenting that science goes through cycles of quick development, followed by stagnation and conservatism, and then revolution. Perhaps time is ripe for a modern genius to come along and bring science back to Earth from Planet Zog with its relativity and quantum physics. Oh, and might I just appeal to commentators that they cease mentioning theory when they in fact refer to hypothesis.

Alan Robinson, Bjerreby, Denmark

While the article's author makes a valid point, it is not a new one and in fact has been around for at least a couple of hundred years. And I am rather amazed that she would choose an amateur, the Duchess, as someone to make that point with, given all of the other towering figures of science that could have much more aptly been used. Perhaps she felt she had to choose the Duchess, who of course was one of the privileged idle rich whose husband's wealth afforded her the time to dabble on the margins of serious science, simply because she was female. And by the way, Marie Curie's achievements were done with the serious help of her husband, something the author curiously omits to mention.

Drevor, Crofton USA

The search for knowledge of the physical universe is the one transcendent purpose in modern times that unites people of all nationalities and ethnicities, and all religious and non-religious beliefs. Science and fundamental technology belong to everyone. Yet it is also appropriate for the nations and peoples of the world to express and share their pride in the accomplishments of their citizens. The same case obtains for athletic excellence, as expressed in the Olympics. The British and Belgian people celebrate the achievements of Higgs and Englert, and the entire world joins in, with a spirit of good will. And if the mood encourages laypeople to ask why knowledge of inertia and the inertial mass of particles is important to our understanding of the universe as a whole, all the better. For those who ask what the practical import of such knowledge may be, consider that a complete understanding of inertia may lead to discoveries that enable space exploration on a scale we can barely dream of today, except in our wildest flights of fiction. Step outside and look into the night sky: that, there, is our home: the cosmos at-large, from which perspective all of humanity is one.

George Gleason, Berkeley California USA

More on This Story


Try our new site and tell us what you think. Learn more
Take me there

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.