Scientists: Utilitarian Hall of Fame

[K. A. Pital]

This is a simple thread - let's rank scientists (and groups of researchers are also eligible if there is no single person to credit) by impact - which of them managed to produce the greatest positive, from a utilitarian point of view, impact on human life level?

Agrotechnical, critical industrial and chemical inventions and developments are considered for review here.

I would open the hall with the recently deceased Norman Borlaug - as a homage, and because I really can't think of a greater figure right now.

[PeZook]

Borlaug was awesome, I'll second that. I'd have to nominate Pasteur (yeah, he didn't exactly invent germ theory out of thin air like most people think, but he did manage to sell it to his contemporaries) and Alexander Fleming.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am going to nominate Darwin, Wallace, Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan, without whom pretty much every innovation in biology including those of Borlaug et al would never have been possible.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Newton and Einstein, for their discovery of foundational scientific principles that have directed much of our science and learning;

The Curies, for setting us on the path to nuclear power.

[Vehrec]

Norman Borlaug

For direct consequences of his actions within his lifetime, I would be hard pressed to point to anyone more successful. Jenner has certainly had great effect as well, but his contribution to science was not well implemented until this century. Faraday and Maxwell laid the foundation for electromagnetic theory and constructed some very early electric motors, so they could be said to be responsible for much of our modern society's electrical components, certainly the theory behind electrical power generation.

[Surlethe]

What about James Watt's steam engine?

[Darth Wong]

Newton has to take the cake, despite being an incredibly obnoxious asshole on a personal level. You could make a strong argument that he, more than anyone else, kicked off the entire scientific revolution that led to world-changing developments (including those of the aforementioned James Watt, Charles Darwin, and others) by altering the intellectual makeup of the entire western world. After Newton, the public became convinced that the universe follows rational rules. This is such a monumental sea change that we take it for granted; we forget that anyone could have ever thought any other way.

Many of the great luminaries of science worked in a social environment that had been massively influenced by this fundamental change in western worldview: one which helped vault the British Empire into its dominant position. It's difficult to convey the importance of convincing a society (or at least its educated elitist element, which is all that matters in Victorian England) that the universe can be described by mathematical equations.

I suppose one could argue that this ranking is based on "who had the most beneficial influence on science" as opposed to "who had the most beneficial influence on humanity", but I see those as very closely related concepts.

[Rye]

Newton and Einstein, for their discovery of foundational scientific principles that have directed much of our science and learning;

The Curies, for setting us on the path to nuclear power.

I like Einstein as much as the next person, but how is he greater than your average biologist in Utilitarian terms?

I'd also point to Alexis Carrel, which is probably a controversial pick due to his eugenicist views. That said, he contributed greatly to modern stitching/suturing techniques and pioneered organ transplants. I think he was the guy that invented the curved needle, which is so important for stitching successfully in just about every operation everywhere in the world.

[PeZook]

For direct consequences of his actions within his lifetime, I would be hard pressed to point to anyone more successful.

The man pretty much directly prevented a holocaust of biblical proportions with his work, yeah. Reading the story of his achievements also makes me incredibly mad at the assholes who think GMO is teh ebiiiil and lobby to drop research and production of high-intensity crops.

[Broomstick]

I'd like to nominate a few others, some of whom are not necessarially seen as scientists but who nonetheless spent years in research, testing, trial-and-error, and development, sometimes having to significantly revise their views due to new knowledge, all things that are part of the scientific world view and tool kit. They weren't always the very first, but they brought some technological thing or other into practical and widespread use.

I will also note that some of these guys were assholes personally. Nonetheless, they created enormous change.

Thomas Edison - for lighting up our lives, literally, with electric light, and for all the other applications of electricity in daily life avoiding millions of house fires from candles and lamps, for avoiding millions of falls in unlit places. For sound recording and transmission, for the telephone that lets people call for help when needed. For practical motion pictures that are not only used for entertainment but also in research on high-speed phenomena.

Wilbur and Orville Wright - for making powered fixed-wing flight practical and leading to a revolution in transportation the likes of which probably hasn't been seen since the invention of the boat. Years of research went into their 1903 Flyer, which they then took home, dissected, and used to make an even better airplane the following year. Flight connects remote places to civilization, transports fresh foods, transports emergency supplies and personnel, provides emergency evacuations, and rapid transportation when necessary. Among other things, organ transplants are heavily dependent on flight to move organs to patients. Certain types of nuclear medicine rely on fast air transport to get needed elements with short half-lives to far flung hospitals in a timely manner.

Igor Sikorsky - for the invention of the helicopter, an aircraft with unique and often life-saving capabilities all too often taken for granted. Both military and civilian emergency medicine would be very different without them.

PeZook already mentioned Alexander Fleming, discover of penicillin, but it was the Australian Howard Walter Florey, German Ernst Chain and the English Norman Heatley who turned it into practical medicine, launching the antibiotic revolution in medicine and saving uncounted numbers of lives - including my dad's, who at the age of 11 suffered a burst appendix, was expected to die in days from peritonitis, but was given a "new, experimental drug" that saved his life.

Global Smallpox Eradication Program - no, it wasn't an individual, but who should we thank? The guy who came up with it? The directors? The people in the trenches? They weren't all scientists or doctors but damn that was an awesome application of science and technology. Humanity totally eradicated one of its most horrific diseases. As late as the 1960's millions of people still died every year from smallpox and now it's fucking gone. Mine is the last generation to universally carry the vaccination scar (yes, some people are still vaccinated, but it's not universal and questionable whether it's necessary).

Wilhelm Röntgen - discoverer of X-rays. Two weeks after he discovered them he took the first "medical x-ray", this one:

X-ray's have transformed medicine in incredible ways, and lead to our current "medical imaging" which allows us to look inside the body without physically opening it and has made possible operations and treatments otherwise impossible. Again, uncounted lives saved, uncounted lives made better by medical treatments.

[Highlord Laan]

Nikola Tesla. Without AC current, we'd never have the level of technology we do now.

[K. A. Pital]

However, Sikorskiy didn't invent the helicopter par se, just made a successful model for further production. Paul Cornu would be the first to make a man-lifting helicopter, and the first flying helicopter would be made by Charles Richet with Louis and Jacques Bréguet. So he has to share his pedestal with these folks I guess

[Sarevok]

Nikola Tesla. Without AC current, we'd never have the level of technology we do now.

I don't think you can credit Tesla with discovering AC. It was well known to the scientific community at the time. Tesla just played a large role in pushing for adopting AC in nationwide electrical power transmission, Many 19th century scientists and their businessmen assosiates saw the commercial future of electricity. Talented men like Siemens and Westinghouse knew and understood the benifits of AC over DC. Even without Tesla AC would eventually have been accepted by power companies.

[Broomstick]

However, Sikorskiy didn't invent the helicopter par se, just made a successful model for further production. Paul Cornu would be the first to make a man-lifting helicopter, and the first flying helicopter would be made by Charles Richet with Louis and Jacques Bréguet. So he has to share his pedestal with these folks I guess

"Successful model" is the key here - a helicopter that's just a one-off curiosity is not important in the larger scheme of things, a practical helicopter is. That's why I give Sikorsky credit, he's the one who made it useful, which strikes me as a key aspect for the Utilitarian Hall of Fame. I even mentioned in my first paragraph that the people I named weren't always the first, they were the people who made something useful on a wide scale.

[PeZook]

Yeah, that's why lots of people remember Watt but not Newcomen (whose engine Watt improved enough so that it actually became practical for a wide range of applications), or Oppenheimer but not Heisenberg. Ultimately, what counts is practical application of the technology, rather than one-shot wonders. In this regard I guess my nomination of Fleming doesn't count for much, since it took decades after his discovery for pennicillin to start being mass produced and applied.

[Zixinus]

Would Neumann János (you probably heard him as "John") count? He supposedly sort of created modern computing theory, that allowed many others to do neat things.

[Sarevok]

Would Neumann János (you probably heard him as "John") count? He supposedly sort of created modern computing theory, that allowed many others to do neat things.

You mean John Von Neumann ? His work was influential in the standardized design found in all modern digital computers. The very computers you and I am using to communicate implement principles of the Von Neumann architecture that bears his name.

[Zixinus]

Yes, I wonder whether the creation of computers are an universal good in the world. That's why I am unsure.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why do you wonder? Computers make things from designing cars and airplanes to explode less violently upon crashing, to predicting when the next typhoon's going to kill everyone, to making the internets and letting people reach out and touch themselves on the world wide web, all possible. The creation of computers is a very, very good thing in the world.

[K. A. Pital]

Computers are a milestone of science and industry, and as Shroom said they allow lots of things. Clearly that qualifies.

Now, I'd add Gavril Ilizarov, as a minor but notable figure - one Russian citizen who did so much for people with broken limb injuries (that are truly ubiqutous, by the way). The circular bone fixator or Ilizarov apparatus, taken for granted now did not exist before that guy.

Any people in the medicine field from the latter part of XX century (1950-2000)? I want to, maybe, see some people who didn't yet make it into the common history book.

[Darth Wong]

Well, if we're talking about picking certain technological developments which were crucial to human development, I would have to focus on water treatment and supply. The entire history of human civilization has been dominated by the supply of water, as strange as that may sound. Entire empires could rise and fall because of it. Ancient Empires such as China and Rome expended vast efforts on ensuring water supply and controlling the flow of water around their domains. Foul water in the medieval period was often a major reason for sky-high disease rates, plagues, and other limits on their development. Clean water has an incalculable effect on human life expectancy and infant mortality.

Not all public health issues have to do with drugs or surgical methods. WATER is, in some ways, the most precious substance on Earth, despite being so plentiful. Clean the water, and you save countless lives.

[Xuenay]

What about James Watt's steam engine?

At least some economists believe Watt was a crook more than anything - making a minor improvement on the steam engine, then monopolizing the engine market via strategic use of patents and successfully blocking any further improvement on the design until his patents expired.

After the expiration of Watt’s patents, not only was there an explosion in the production and efficiency of engines, but steam power came into its own as the driving force of the industrial revolution. Over a thirty year period steam engines were modified and improved as crucial innovations such as the steam train, the steamboat and the steam jenny came into wide usage. The key innovation was the high-pressure steam engine – development of which had been blocked by Watt’s strategic use of his patent.

Many new improvements to the steam engine, such as those of William Bull, Richard Trevithick, and Arthur Woolf, became available by 1804: although developed earlier these innovations were kept idle until the Boulton and Watt patent expired. None of these innovators wished to incur the same fate as Jonathan Hornblower. [...]

In fact, it is only after their patents expired that Boulton and Watt really started to manufacture steam engines. Before then their activity consisted primarily of extracting hefty monopolistic royalties through licensing. Independent contractors produced most of the parts, and Boulton and Watt merely oversaw the assembly of the components by the purchasers.

In most histories, James Watt is a heroic inventor, responsible for the beginning of the industrial revolution. The facts suggest an alternative interpretation. Watt is one of many clever inventors working to improve steam power in the second half of the eighteenth century. After getting one step ahead of the pack, he remained ahead not by superior innovation, but by superior exploitation of the legal system. The fact that his business partner was a wealthy man with strong connections in Parliament, was not a minor help. [...]

In the specific case of Watt, the granting of the 1769 and especially of the 1775 patents likely delayed the mass adoption of the steam engine: innovation was stifled until his patents expired; and few steam engines were built during the period of Watt’s legal monopoly. From the number of innovations that occurred immediately after the expiration of the patent, it appears that Watt’s competitors simply waited until then before releasing their own innovations. This should not surprise us: new steam engines, no matter how much better than Watt’s, had to use the idea of a separate condenser. Because the 1775 patent provided Boulton and Watt with a monopoly over that idea, plentiful other improvements of great social and economic value could not be implemented.

[Tolya]

I cannot really contribute anyone from the mainstream of science. I would however like to honour a doctor, who lived and practiced in the 17th century.

His name was Dr. Ephraim McDowell. In 1809 in Kentucky a woman, 45-year-old Jane Todd Crawford was misdiagnosed with pregnancy. When McDowell was called in, she was thought to be in the 11th month of her pregnancy. When he arrived on the scene, he realized that it wasn't a case of pregnancy - he immediately noticed that it was a 22-pound benign ovarian tumor.

He took the woman home, riding on a horse through heavy snow and operated (with her consent) without any anaesthethics or antysepthics. After a few hours a mob gathered before his house. People thought that Dr. McDowell killed his patient and demanded to see Jane Crawford. McDowell barricaded himself in his home together with his scared shitless assistants and completed the operation. The woman fully recovered and lived until the age of 78.

To say that this guy is the "Father of Ovariotomy" is to tell only the half of the story. To me this guy is a hero. He risked not only his personal career, but his life (people were ready and willing to hang the doctor when he barricaded himself) to save that woman. While he is not a scientist per-se but rather a practitioner of early surgery I think he deserves a place in the Utilitarian Hall of Fame.

Of course, the odds worked heavily in his favour. The tumour was benign and there was no infection, so he was lucky, since proper medical standards were totally unknown in that time. But still, he was not afraid to do something that contemporary doctors thought was impossible and saved one life and contributing to the avalanche of medical advancement of the 19th and 20th century which saved countless amount of lives.

[General Zod]

More of an engineer than a scientist, but you have to credit Henry Ford for the refinement of the assembly line concept. Without that we'd have a hard time manufacturing anything on a large scale.

[Darth Wong]

More of an engineer than a scientist, but you have to credit Henry Ford for the refinement of the assembly line concept. Without that we'd have a hard time manufacturing anything on a large scale.

The assembly line was important, but standardized dimensioning was more so.