[durnygbur]

These hints reminded me that we don't have "great scientists" anymore. Can you list recent Nobel Prize laureates?

Great scientists were basically people-institutions and all the mundane and scrupulous work was done by assistants, doctoral candidates, technicians, as we have an example of Hilbert and some much less known mathematician. There still exist relicts of this system in the academia.

With increasing emancipation and alternative opportunities this extend of exploitation of the nameless is not possible anymore, and this is good.

[m463]

I suspect that age has something to do with it (and he even alluded to that in his last point)

Lots of great scientists are not recognized until the body of their work has had enough time to be recognized and stand out.

so known "great scientists" are old or gone, but maybe we are surrounded by future great scientists but only notice the youtubers.

[dghughes]

> Can you list recent Nobel Prize laureates?

For me the Nobel Prize was greatly diminished in 2014 when the Nobel committee lost all credibility.

The inventor of the LED Nick Holonyak, Jr. didn't win a Nobel Prize but in 2014 the inventors of the blue LED did; Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura.

[dmitrybrant]

All of that may be true, but there's also the uncomfortable fact that the pickings of major discoveries are much fewer than they were in previous generations. Not to say that the great scientists (or their assistants) weren't geniuses, but as our knowledge advances it gets exponentially more difficult to make meaningful contributions, much less significant discoveries.

[535188B17C93743]

We do have "pop scientists". While they're not all necessarily "groundbreaking" or "leading researchers", I wouldn't discount the impact of folks like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, and Brian Greene.

[toyg]

In the UK, Brian Cox for physics/astronomy and David Attenborough in the natural sciences are likely responsible for enough recruitment that will probably lead to significant knowledge gains.

[dredmorbius]

Carl Sagan, to a previous generation.

Arguably one might make the same case for Michael Faraday or Humphry Davy, who's fame in large part devolves from excellent and hugely popular public demonstrations of their work.

It's not that they didn't (necessarily) also do groundbreaking work. But they were phenomenally effective communicators.

Extended to writing, Darwin, Einstein, and Feynman could be similarly considered.

[dehrmann]

Arguably, this is because all the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and all the remaining problems are too complex for a single person to solve.

[jiggunjer]

I'd say it isn't complexity, but resources. New data needs highly specialized equipment and materials. Even then the accuracy and precision may be lacking.

If we could manipulate the microscopic with the ease of the macroscopic we'd be making many more discoveries.