short essay on scientists

22 Famous Scientists Who Changed How We View the World (and the Universe)

From medicine to physics and astronomy, these scholars have saved lives and improved our understanding across all aspects of the natural world.

Whether it’s a medicine that has saved countless lives or an equation that helped propel the evolution of energy and technology, these breakthroughs arose from the scientific method of observation and experimentation.

Here are 22 of the most famous scientists from the 15 th century to today and how their crucial contributions in many fields of study still impact us.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Astronomer and mathematician 1473-1543

For centuries, people incorrectly believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus theorized otherwise, with the belief that the size and speed of a planet’s orbit depended on its distance from the centralized sun.

Rather than a breakthrough, however, Copernicus’ hypotheses were met with controversy as they deviated from the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. The church even outright banned his research collection, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres , in 1616 long after the German scientist’s death.

Galileo Galilei

Physicist and astronomer 1564-1642

Galileo changed how we literally see the world by taking early telescopes and improving their design. The Italian scientist made lenses capable of magnifying objects twenty-fold .

When Galileo used his tools to look toward the heavens, he discovered Jupiter’s four largest moons, now named in his honor , and stars far off in the Milky Way not visible to the human eye. His findings built the foundation for modern astronomy.

Learn More About Galileo Galilei

Robert Hooke

Astronomer, physicist, and biologist 1635-1703

Englishman Hooke coined the term “cell,” now known as the basic structural unit of all organisms, in his 1665 book Micrographia after observing the cell walls in slices of cork tissue. But his studies weren’t limited to biology. He is famous for Hooke’s Law, which states that the force required to compress or extend a spring is proportional to the distance of compression or extension. He also helped redesign London buildings destroyed by the city’s “Great Fire” in 1666.

Learn More About Robert Hooke

Sir Isaac Newton

Physicist and mathematician 1643-1727

You probably know about Newton’s three laws of motion, including that objects will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon. But did you also know his theory of gravity allowed the Englishman to calculate the mass of each planet and Earth’s ocean tides? Although Albert Einstein would later improve on some of his theories, Newton remains one of the most important minds in history.

Fun fact: Newton’s mother tried to pull him out of school at age 12 to become a farmer. Seems like a good thing that plan fell through.

Learn More About Isaac Newton

Charles Darwin

Biologist 1809-1882

Growing up in Great Britain, Darwin was raised in a Christian family and held creationist beliefs. That’s not what you’d expect from the man whose landmark 1859 book On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection provided a detailed description of the theory of evolution. In his writings, he outlined his natural selection concept, in which species that evolve and adapt to their environment thrive while the others perish.

Learn More About Charles Darwin

Ada Lovelace

Mathematician and computer scientist 1815-1852

A computer scientist in the 1800s? Yes—Lovelace’s notes and instructions on mentor Charles Babbage ’s “analytical engine” are considered a breakthrough on the path to modern computers. For example, the London-born Lovelace first theorized a process now called looping, in which computer programs repeat a series of instructions until a desired outcome is reached.

Although her contributions weren’t recognized until the 20 th century, her legacy was forever cemented in 1980 when the U.S. Department of Defense named the new computer language Ada in her honor.

Learn More About Ada Lovelace

Gregor Mendel

Geneticist 1822-1884

Mendel, from Austria, became an Augustinian monk and an educator, instead of taking over his family’s farm as his father wished. His growing skills did pay off, as Mendel used pea plants to study the transmission of hereditary traits. His findings that traits were either dominant or recessive and passed on independently of one another became the foundation for modern genetic studies.

Learn More About Gregor Mendel

Louis Pasteur

Chemist and microbiologist 1822-1895

Pasteur used his observations of microorganisms to suggest hygienic methods we take for granted today, like sterilizing linens, dressings, and surgical instruments. The process of treating food items with heat to kill pathogens—known as pasteurization—also bears his name.

However, the French scientist is arguably most renowned for his efforts in creating vaccines for diseases such as cholera, smallpox, anthrax, and rabies. He worked on the rabies vaccine despite suffering from a severe brain stroke in 1868.

Learn More About Louis Pasteur

Sigmund Freud

Psychologist 1856-1939

Although his research initially focused on neurobiology, Freud—who was born in what is now the Czech Republic but grew up in Austria—became known for his psychoanalytic theory that past traumatic experiences caused neuroses in patients. He also proposed the ideas of the id, ego, and superego as the three foundations of human personality and that dreams were a method of coping with conflicts rooted in the subconscious.

Learn More About Sigmund Freud

Nikola Tesla

Physicist and mathematician 1856-1943

Chances are you’re reading this in a lit room. If so, you have the Croatia-born Tesla to thank. He designed the alternative current, or AC, electric system, which remains the primary method of electricity used throughout the world (rival Thomas Edison created a direct current system).

Additionally, his patented Tesla coil used in radio transmission antennas helped build the foundation for wireless technology. The scientist also helped pioneer remote and radar technology.

Learn More About Nikola Tesla

George Washington Carver

Botanist and agricultural scientist Circa 1864-1943

Washington Carver is best known for his work with the peanut plant. Born into slavery , the Missouri native developed more than 300 uses for it —including shaving cream, shampoo, plastics, and of course, recipes for foods like bread and candies. But he also looked out for farmers by teaching them livestock care and cultivation techniques. Washington Carver built fruitful friendships with major figures like automaker Henry Ford , whom he worked with to create a soybean-based alternative to rubber and an experimental lightweight car body.

Learn More About George Washington Carver

Marie Curie

Physicist and chemist 1867-1934

Curie, originally from modern-day Poland, was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize —in physics—and also became the first person to win two Nobel prizes .

The scientist, with the help of husband Pierre Curie , discovered radioactivity and the elements polonium and radium. She also championed the use of portable X-ray machines on the battlefields of World War I. Curie died from aplastic anemia, likely caused by her exposure to radiation.

Learn More About Marie Curie

Albert Einstein

Physicist 1879-1955

In addition to his frizzy hair and reported distaste for wearing socks, Einstein became famous for his theory of relativity , suggesting that space and time are intertwined . And, of course, the famous equation E=MC², which showed that even the tiniest particles can produce large amounts of energy.

The German scientist was also a champion for civil rights , once calling racism a “disease.” He joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the 1940s.

Learn More About Albert Einstein

Physicist 1885-1962

Bohr studied and played soccer at Denmark’s University of Copenhagen before embarking to England to work with J.J. Thomson , who discovered the electron. Bohr proposed an entirely different model of the atom, in which electrons can jump between energy levels. This helped pave the way for quantum mechanics.

Bohr was also a key contributor to the Manhattan Project, in which the United States developed an atomic bomb during World War II. Bohr worked with project director J. Robert Oppenheimer , the subject of the 2023 biopic Oppenheimer .

Learn More About Niels Bohr

Rachel Carson

Biologist 1907-1964

Carson penned the famous book Silent Spring in 1962. The American scientist’s research on the adverse effects of DDT and other pesticides in nature is credited with beginning the modern environmental movement . Soon after the book’s release, the Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970, and the use of DDT was banned by 1972. Carson, who died of breast cancer, posthumously received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980.

Learn More About Rachel Carson

Alan Turing

Computer scientist and mathematician 1912-1954

A skilled cryptanalyst, Turing helped decipher coded messages from the German military during World War II. The British mathematician is also considered the father of computer science and artificial intelligence, with his Turing Test purported to measure a machine’s ability to exhibit behaviors comparable to human beings.

Turing’s life and efforts during the war were the basis for the 2014 movie The Imitation Game , starring Benedict Cumberbatch .

Learn More About Alan Turing

Gertrude B. Elion

Biochemist and pharmacologist 1918-1999

Elion, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1988, developed 45 patents in medicine throughout her remarkable career. Hired by Burroughs-Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) in 1944, the American soon went on to develop a drug, 6-MP, to combat leukemia. In 1977, she and her team created the antiviral drug acyclovir that debunked the idea that any drug capable of killing a virus would be too toxic for humans. It’s used to treat herpes, chickenpox, and shingles.

Learn More About Gertrude B. Elion

Katherine Johnson

Mathematician 1918-2020

Each of NASA’s early milestones—from sending an astronaut, Alan Shepard , to space for the first time in 1961, to Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 crew landing on the moon eight years later—were all possible because of Johnson. The West Virginia native helped perform the mathematical calculations necessary to determine their correct flight paths .

In a show of gratitude, NASA named a building at its Langley Research Center in Virginia after Johnson in 2017. Her inspiring true story was told in the 2016 movie Hidden Figures , with Taraji P. Henson playing her on the big screen.

Learn More About Katherine Johnson

Rosalind Franklin

Chemist and biophysicist 1920-1958

Franklin began working at King’s College London in 1951 and used X-ray diffraction techniques to find that human DNA had two forms: a dry “A” form and wet “B” form. However, Franklin’s discovery was overlooked after a colleague leaked her findings to scientists Francis Crick and James Watson . That pair went on to create the double helix model for DNA structure. Franklin died from ovarian cancer at age 37.

Learn More About Rosalind Franklin

Jane Goodall

Primatologist 1934-present

Goodall’s extensive study of chimpanzees has helped us understand how similar humans are to our evolutionary relatives. After arriving in Tanzania in 1960, the British scientist discovered chimps create and use tools, develop complex language and social systems, and aren’t exclusively vegetarian as once believed.

Once she understood chimpanzees, Goodall turned her efforts to preserving their habitats and preventing unethical treatment of the animals in scientific experiments.

Learn More About Jane Goodall

Tyler Piccotti first joined the Biography.com staff as an Associate News Editor in February 2023, and before that worked almost eight years as a newspaper reporter and copy editor. He is a graduate of Syracuse University. When he's not writing and researching his next story, you can find him at the nearest amusement park, catching the latest movie, or cheering on his favorite sports teams.

Nobel Prize Winners

14 Hispanic Women Who Have Made History

Martin Luther King Jr.

Henry Kissinger

Malala Yousafzai

Jimmy Carter

10 Famous Poets Whose Enduring Works We Still Read

Wole Soyinka

Jean-Paul Sartre

Albert Camus

Essay on Science for Students and Children

500+ words essay on science.

Essay on science:  As we look back in our ancient times we see so much development in the world. The world is full of gadgets and machinery . Machinery does everything in our surroundings. How did it get possible? How did we become so modern? It was all possible with the help of science. Science has played a major role in the development of our society. Furthermore, Science has made our lives easier and carefree.

Science in our Daily Lives

As I have mentioned earlier Science has got many changes in our lives. First of all, transportation is easier now. With the help of Science it now easier to travel long distances . Moreover, the time of traveling is also reduced. Various high-speed vehicles are available these days. These vehicles have totally changed. The phase of our society. Science upgraded steam engines to electric engines. In earlier times people were traveling with cycles. But now everybody travels on motorcycles and cars. This saves time and effort. And this is all possible with the help of Science.

Secondly, Science made us reach to the moon. But we never stopped there. It also gave us a glance at Mars. This is one of the greatest achievements. This was only possible with Science. These days Scientists make many satellites . Because of which we are using high-speed Internet. These satellites revolve around the earth every day and night. Even without making us aware of it. Science is the backbone of our society. Science gave us so much in our present time. Due to this, the teacher in our schools teaches Science from an early age.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Science as a Subject

In class 1 only a student has Science as a subject. This only tells us about the importance of Science. Science taught us about Our Solar System. The Solar System consists of 9 planets and the Sun. Most Noteworthy was that it also tells us about the origin of our planet. Above all, we cannot deny that Science helps us in shaping our future. But not only it tells us about our future, but it also tells us about our past.

When the student reaches class 6, Science gets divided into three more subcategories. These subcategories were Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. First of all, Physics taught us about the machines. Physics is an interesting subject. It is a logical subject.

Furthermore, the second subject was Chemistry . Chemistry is a subject that deals with an element found inside the earth. Even more, it helps in making various products. Products like medicine and cosmetics etc. result in human benefits.

Last but not least, the subject of Biology . Biology is a subject that teaches us about our Human body. It tells us about its various parts. Furthermore, it even teaches the students about cells. Cells are present in human blood. Science is so advanced that it did let us know even that.

Leading Scientists in the field of Science

Finally, many scientists like Thomas Edison , Sir Isaac Newton were born in this world. They have done great Inventions. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. If he did not invent that we would stay in dark. Because of this Thomas Edison’s name marks in history.

Another famous Scientist was Sir Isaac Newton . Sir Isaac Newton told us about Gravity. With the help of this, we were able to discover many other theories.

In India Scientists A..P.J Abdul was there. He contributed much towards our space research and defense forces. He made many advanced missiles. These Scientists did great work and we will always remember them.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Enterprise Custom Courses
• Build Your Own Courses
• Help Center
• Clinical Trial Recruitment
• Pharmaceutical Marketing
• Health Department Resources
• Patient Education
• Research Presentation
• Remote Monitoring
• Health Literacy & SciComm
• Student Education & Higher Ed
• Individual Learning
• Member Directory
• Community Chats on Slack
• SciComm Program
• The Story-Driven Method
• The Instructional Method

In Science We Need Trust, a short essay

By Aparna Shah, PhD.

It is almost impossible to exaggerate how much scientific knowledge impacts our everyday lives. This has been especially evident during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, whether it be in the context of methods used to detect the virus, public policies and measures to curb its spread, advances in treatment options, or vaccine development  —  our ultimate escape route. Yet this very pandemic has exposed the extent of disbelief in science within society, which begs the question: What makes people mistrust science? [ Editor’s note: Or rather, what makes science less than trustworthy? ]

A 2019 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center to understand public trust in scientific experts among Americans revealed a partisan divide in responses, with people’s political identities correlating with their confidence (or lack thereof). However, this political schism was observed primarily in people’s attitudes towards climate, energy, and the environment. It did not extend necessarily to other scientific issues.

What then are some common sources of doubt in scientific findings?

Their survey showed that among other factors, questions about scientific integrity were at the core of public mistrust in science. A lack of transparency about various aspects of the scientific endeavor has widened the gap between scientists and society . People are skeptical of the sources of research funding and potential conflicts of interest. Policies to account for scientific errors and misconduct are unheard of among the general public. The publication process is an enigma, and this brings us to another obstacle  —  the paywall. Not having access to scientific literature makes the scientific process even more obscure and unreliable.

Taking a step back, we must also consider the importance of educating the public on the scientific method itself in order to battle mistrust and encourage critical thinking. Scientific evidence is frequently presented to the public as established facts. This fails to convey the nuances of the research process and leads to questions such as, ‘Isn’t this just a theory?’ or ‘Why are scientists contradicting what they said about the effectiveness of masks two months ago?’ A better knowledge of the scientific method would entail appreciating that science is a systematic and empirical process of testing hypotheses.

While in science there is no absolute certainty, scientists scrutinize each other’s methods and analyses and often repeat their own as well as others’ studies. It is through this rigor and reproducibility that the scientific community arrives at reliable knowledge, which may be further refined with the availability of more powerful tools and techniques. Insight into this process of scientific inquiry would help people see the objectivity in research findings and underscore the self-correcting nature of science. Some scientists have also advocated for being more open about existing controversies in science and engaging in public debates to disclose how science evolves over time.

Finally, motivated reasoning , confirmation biases , and cognitive dissonance also obstruct people’s ability to objectively evaluate scientific evidence and may contribute to mistrust in science.

While some of these issues stem from human psychology and may be harder to address, others can be tackled by enhancing transparency, rigor, accessibility, education, engagement, and communication. The onus to regain and sustain public trust in science is, after all, on us.

Aparna Shah (@Neuro_Musings) is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. She is exploring the role of microRNAs (or gene-silencing ‘messengers’) in regulating neuronal function. She has spent the last decade exploring the neurobiology underlying depression and antidepressant therapies, Parkinson’s disease, and drug addiction. She is passionate about science communication, education, and outreach and believes that the best way to learn something is to explain it to someone else! She finds baking therapeutic and is as obsessed with food as her rescue beagle.

Learn more about the trust gap between scientists and the public here . Come back soon for more information on how art and storytelling can help people engage with and trust science more.

Featured image by DiAn Augustus appears in our “How to build trust in science and health” Lifeology course .

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the author: paige jarreau.

Related Posts

Communicating About Postpartum Depression

Elfy Chiang: SciArt Illustrator Check-In

7 Tips for Having Uncomfortable Conversations About Vaccines

How to Talk About Vaccines When You’re Not an Expert – A Lifeology Community Collaboration with Cochrane

5 Tips for People Joining the Lifeology SciComm Certificate Program

SciComm Collaboration With Virtual Coworking Sessions

Logo Left Content

Logo Right Content

Stanford University School of Medicine blog

How a Nobel laureate’s life story and encouraging words inspire my scientific journey

Editor's update: Emily Ashkin is featured in a podcast from The Lasker Foundation.

My legs were starting to ache from standing by my research poster for nearly ten hours. At 15, I was anxiously awaiting the possibility to speak to my biggest role model, J. Michael Bishop , MD.

I'd heard rumors from other students who had previously participated in the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) that the Nobel Laureate walks around from poster to poster to speak with students during the Public Showcase Day. However, they said he usually only goes up to posters of students who scored highest the previous day of judging.

I did not believe that I had done well during the judging sessions, and was disheartened at the thought that I might not have the opportunity to meet my scientific hero.

I first learned Dr. Bishop's story at the age of 11. This was around the same time a family member was diagnosed with cancer, and I had made it my life goal to study the disease.

However, I had no means to pursue a career in science. As a Latina, with neither of my parents as scientists, I had no one to pave a path for me to follow.

Contributions that extend beyond science

With encouragement from my mom's doctors, I started learning the basics and foundations of cancer biology. And that was where I came across Dr. Bishop's paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries. Very quickly, I learned that Dr. Bishop's contributions to science extended far beyond his discoveries in the lab. Every year, Dr. Bishop serves as a mentor and speaks as part of a panel at the ISEF poster session.

He speaks about his childhood and how he had hardly been exposed to science. Throughout his college education, he never imagined himself as a scientist. He had even been denied entry into countless labs due to a lack of prior experience. He had an ambition to become a scientist, but lacked the guidance to visualize his future career. Over time, he developed relationships with mentors who believed in him. More importantly, he learned how to believe in himself.

I found inspiration in Dr. Bishop's goal of becoming a scientist and his willingness to be open and vulnerable -- he often gave talks about experiencing self-doubt. Dr. Bishop is a role model for anyone who -- like me -- comes from an unconventional background, inspiring us to persevere and work through self-doubt to pursue a career in science.

Talking with my hero

After learning Dr. Bishop's story, I realized that there is no exact mold that dictates the development of a scientist, and I became more determined to continue studying cancer biology. I also became determined to keep sharing his message with the generations of scientists who will follow me.

All of this weighed heavily on my mind as I looked up and realized that Dr. Bishop was inches away from the aisle of posters nearest to mine. I ran up to my hero and asked him to come to my poster even if I wasn't on his list. He was kind enough to spend almost an hour with me, discussing my research and ultimately my goal to pursue a PhD.

I conveyed to him my self-doubt, given my background, and how learning about his story of discovering that science was right for him gave me direction.

Dr. Bishop looked me in the eyes and made it clear to me that my background was a strength, something that I hold onto to this day.

Continuing to draw inspiration

I continue to draw inspiration from him throughout my scientific journey, especially when I face obstacles, such as difficult classes or failed experiments.

Seven years after meeting Dr. Bishop, I have the privilege of pursuing a PhD in cancer biology, and my path continues to mirror his. I find guidance in how he handled the uncertainty he faced, but also the value he places on mentoring young minds.

I am devoting my graduate and scientific career to mentoring students from underrepresented backgrounds through teaching, guiding them through their own research projects, and openly sharing my own story, just as Dr. Bishop has.

I aspire to keep paving new paths and to become a role model to other young minds. I want to inspire them to turn to science and critical thinking to solve problems affecting themselves, their families and their communities.

This piece, originally in a longer form , was among 11 winners of the 2020 Lasker Essay Contest , which recognizes writing by young scientists from around the world. It first appeared on Scope in the summer of 2020.

Emily Ashkin is a PhD candidate in the lab of Monte Winslow , PhD, and part of Stanford Medicine's Cancer Biology Program . Emily has a strong passion for inclusivity in science and science communication. Feel free to communicate at  [email protected] .

Top photo courtesy of Emily Ashkin. Photo of Bishop by General Motors Cancer Research Foundation .

Related posts

A winning essayist’s tips for keeping track of scientific facts

Brother’s brain surgery inspires Stanford MD-PhD student

Popular posts.

Are long COVID sufferers falling through the cracks?

Is an increase in penile length cause for concern?

Short Essay: Wonder Of Science

Three short essay examples on wonder of science.

Table of Contents

Wonder Of Science Essay Example 1

Science has always been a fascinating subject for many people. It has helped us understand the world around us and has led to countless discoveries that have changed the course of human history. From the ancient civilizations to modern times, science has played a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the universe. In this essay, we will explore the wonder of science by examining its history and evolution, as well as the different branches of science and their wonders.

Science has a long and rich history that dates back to ancient civilizations. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans made significant contributions to science, including the development of medicine, mathematics, and astronomy. However, it was during the scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries that science truly began to flourish. This period saw the emergence of great scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and Kepler, who made groundbreaking discoveries that revolutionized our understanding of the universe. Today, science continues to evolve, and recent breakthroughs such as the discovery of the Higgs boson particle and the development of gene-editing technology have opened up new possibilities for the future.

Science is a vast field that encompasses many different branches, each with its own unique wonders. Biology, for example, has helped us understand the mysteries of life, from the smallest microorganisms to the complexities of the human body. It has led to the development of life-saving treatments and technologies, such as antibiotics and vaccines. Physics, on the other hand, has revealed the laws of the universe, from the behavior of subatomic particles to the workings of the cosmos. It has led to the development of technologies such as lasers and nuclear power. Chemistry, meanwhile, has helped us understand the composition of matter, from the elements that make up the periodic table to the complex molecules that form the basis of life. It has led to the development of materials such as plastics and synthetic fibers.

In conclusion, science is a wonder that has shaped our world in countless ways. From the ancient civilizations to modern times, science has helped us understand the universe and has led to countless discoveries that have changed the course of human history. The different branches of science each have their own unique wonders, from the mysteries of life to the laws of the universe. As science continues to evolve, we can only imagine the possibilities that lie ahead.

Wonder Of Science Essay Example 2

Science has always been an essential aspect of human life, driving innovation and progress in society. From the earliest observations of the natural world to the latest cutting-edge research, science has helped us to understand and improve the world around us. In this essay, we will explore the wonder of science, from its historical roots to the exciting modern discoveries that are shaping our future.

Science is a broad and complex field that encompasses many different disciplines, from physics and chemistry to biology and astronomy. At its core, science is about understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. Throughout history, science has played a critical role in shaping human civilization, from the ancient Greeks and their theories of the universe to the modern-day scientists who are unlocking the secrets of the human genome. Science has allowed us to explore the depths of space, the mysteries of the human body, and the complexities of the natural world. It is a testament to the power of human curiosity and ingenuity.

The history of science is a long and fascinating one, spanning thousands of years of human history. From the earliest civilizations, humans have been fascinated by the natural world and have sought to understand its mysteries. The ancient Greeks, for example, were pioneers in the study of astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy. They developed complex theories of the universe and laid the groundwork for modern scientific inquiry. In the centuries that followed, scientists continued to make groundbreaking discoveries, from Galileo’s observations of the stars to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Today, we stand on the shoulders of these giants, building on their work to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge even further.

In the modern era, science is more exciting and innovative than ever before. From space exploration to genetics to artificial intelligence, scientists are making incredible breakthroughs that are changing the world. One of the most exciting areas of research today is space exploration, with missions to Mars and beyond pushing the boundaries of what we know about the universe. In genetics, scientists are unlocking the secrets of the human genome, offering the potential for revolutionary new treatments for diseases. And in artificial intelligence, researchers are developing machines that can learn and adapt, with the potential to transform industries from healthcare to finance. The wonders of modern science are truly awe-inspiring, and they offer a glimpse into a future that is full of promise and possibility.

In conclusion, the wonder of science is a testament to the power of human curiosity and ingenuity. From the earliest observations of the natural world to the latest cutting-edge research, science has allowed us to understand and improve the world around us. The history of science is a long and fascinating one, and the wonders of modern science are more exciting and innovative than ever before. As we continue to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge, we can look forward to a future that is full of promise and possibility.

Wonder Of Science Essay Example 3

Science is a fundamental aspect of human existence, shaping the way we understand the world around us and driving progress in virtually every aspect of our lives. From the earliest civilizations to the present day, scientific discoveries have revolutionized our understanding of everything from the natural world to the inner workings of the human body. In this essay, we will explore the wonder of science, examining its history, the wonders of nature and the universe, and its impact on society.

From the earliest civilizations, humans have sought to understand the world around them. Ancient cultures such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese made significant contributions to the development of science, laying the groundwork for the scientific method that we use today. Over time, this method evolved, with scientists refining their approaches to experimentation and observation. This led to some of the most significant scientific discoveries in history, such as the discovery of gravity by Sir Isaac Newton and the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin. These discoveries have had a profound impact on modern society, shaping our understanding of the world and paving the way for new innovations and advancements.

The natural world is full of wonder and mystery, with an incredible diversity of life on Earth and countless mysteries yet to be unraveled in the universe. From the smallest microorganisms to the largest creatures on the planet, the natural world is a source of endless fascination and inspiration. The universe, too, is full of wonder, with its vastness and complexity inspiring awe and wonder in scientists and non-scientists alike. From the beauty of natural phenomena like the Aurora Borealis and bioluminescence to the mysteries of black holes and dark matter, the wonders of nature and the universe are truly awe-inspiring.

Science has had a profound impact on society, driving progress and innovation in virtually every aspect of our lives. Medical advancements, for example, have helped to cure diseases and extend human life, while technological innovations have transformed the way we communicate, work, and interact with the world around us. Science also plays a critical role in addressing global challenges such as climate change and pandemics, with scientists working tirelessly to develop new solutions and technologies to mitigate their impact. Without science, many of the advancements and innovations that we take for granted today would not be possible.

In conclusion, the wonder of science is truly awe-inspiring, with its history, the wonders of nature and the universe, and its impact on society all contributing to its enduring importance. From the earliest civilizations to the present day, science has shaped our understanding of the world and driven progress and innovation in virtually every aspect of our lives. As we continue to explore the mysteries of the universe and tackle the challenges facing our world, science will undoubtedly continue to play a critical role in shaping our future.

About Mr. Greg

Mr. Greg is an English teacher from Edinburgh, Scotland, currently based in Hong Kong. He has over 5 years teaching experience and recently completed his PGCE at the University of Essex Online. In 2013, he graduated from Edinburgh Napier University with a BEng(Hons) in Computing, with a focus on social media.

Mr. Greg’s English Cloud was created in 2020 during the pandemic, aiming to provide students and parents with resources to help facilitate their learning at home.

Whatsapp: +85259609792

[email protected]

• The Magazine
• Stay Curious
• The Sciences
• Environment
• Planet Earth

10 Famous Scientists and Their Contributions

Get to know the greatest scientists in the world. learn how these famous scientists changed the world as we know it through their contributions and discoveries..

From unraveling the mysteries of the cosmos to unearthing the origins of humanity, these famous scientists have not only expanded the boundaries of human knowledge but have also profoundly altered the way we live, work, and perceive the world around us. The relentless pursuit of knowledge by these visionary thinkers has propelled humanity forward in ways that were once unimaginable. 

These exceptional individuals have made an extraordinary impact on fields including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and numerous others. Their contributions stand as a testament to the transformative power of human curiosity and the enduring impact of those who dared to ask questions, challenge the status quo, and change the world. Join us as we embark on a journey through the lives and legacies of the greatest scientists of all time.

1. Albert Einstein: The Whole Package

Albert Einstein was not only a scientific genius but also a figure of enduring popularity and intrigue. His remarkable contributions to science, which include the famous equation E = mc2 and the theory of relativity , challenged conventional notions and reshaped our understanding of the universe.

Born in Ulm, Germany, in 1879, Einstein was a precocious child. As a teenager, he wrote a paper on magnetic fields. (Einstein never actually failed math, contrary to popular lore.) His career trajectory began as a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office in 1905, where he published his four groundbreaking papers, including his famous equation, E = mc2, which described the relationship between matter and energy.

Contributions

Einstein's watershed year of 1905 marked the publication of his most important papers, addressing topics such as Brownian motion , the photoelectric effect and special relativity. His work in special relativity introduced the idea that space and time are interwoven, laying the foundation for modern astronomy. In 1916, he expanded on his theory of relativity with the development of general relativity, proposing that mass distorts the fabric of space and time.

Although Einstein received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, it wasn't for his work on general relativity but rather for his discovery of the photoelectric effect. His contributions to science earned him a prestigious place in the scientific community.

Key Moment 

A crowd barged past dioramas, glass displays, and wide-eyed security guards in the American Museum of Natural History. Screams rang out as some runners fell and were trampled. Upon arriving at a lecture hall, the mob broke down the door.

The date was Jan. 8, 1930, and the New York museum was showing a film about Albert Einstein and his general theory of relativity. Einstein was not present, but 4,500 mostly ticketless people still showed up for the viewing. Museum officials told them “no ticket, no show,” setting the stage for, in the words of the Chicago Tribune , “the first science riot in history.”

Such was Einstein’s popularity. As a publicist might say, he was the whole package: distinctive look (untamed hair, rumpled sweater), witty personality (his quips, such as God not playing dice, would live on) and major scientific cred (his papers upended physics).

Read More: 5 Interesting Things About Albert Einstein

Einstein, who died of heart failure in 1955 , left behind a profound legacy in the world of science. His life's work extended beyond scientific discoveries, encompassing his role as a public intellectual, civil rights advocate, and pacifist.

Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity remains one of his most celebrated achievements. It predicted the existence of black holes and gravitational waves, with physicists recently measuring the waves from the collision of two black holes over a billion light-years away. General relativity also underpins the concept of gravitational lensing, enabling astronomers to study distant cosmic objects in unprecedented detail.

“Einstein remains the last, and perhaps only, physicist ever to become a household name,” says James Overduin, a theoretical physicist at Towson University in Maryland.

Einstein's legacy goes beyond his scientific contributions. He is remembered for his imaginative thinking, a quality that led to his greatest insights. His influence as a public figure and his advocacy for civil rights continue to inspire generations.

“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination,” he said in a Saturday Evening Post interview. “Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

— Mark Barna

Read More: 20 Brilliant Albert Einstein Quotes

2. Marie Curie: She Went Her Own Way

Marie Curie's remarkable journey to scientific acclaim was characterized by determination and a thirst for knowledge. Living amidst poverty and political turmoil, her unwavering passion for learning and her contributions to the fields of physics and chemistry have made an everlasting impact on the world of science.

Marie Curie , born as Maria Salomea Sklodowska in 1867 in Warsaw, Poland, faced immense challenges during her early life due to both her gender and her family's financial struggles. Her parents, fervent Polish patriots, sacrificed their wealth in support of their homeland's fight for independence from Russian, Austrian, and Prussian rule. Despite these hardships, Marie's parents, who were educators themselves, instilled a deep love for learning and Polish culture in her.

Marie and her sisters were initially denied higher education opportunities due to societal restrictions and lack of financial resources. In response, Marie and her sister Bronislawa joined a clandestine organization known as the Flying University, aimed at providing Polish education, forbidden under Russian rule.

Marie Curie's path to scientific greatness began when she arrived in Paris in 1891 to pursue higher education. Inspired by the work of French physicist Henri Becquerel, who discovered the emissions of uranium, Marie chose to explore uranium's rays for her Ph.D. thesis. Her research led her to the groundbreaking discovery of radioactivity, revealing that matter could undergo atomic-level transformations.

Marie Curie collaborated with her husband, Pierre Curie, and together they examined uranium-rich minerals, ultimately discovering two new elements, polonium and radium. Their work was published in 1898, and within just five months, they announced the discovery of radium.

In 1903, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, and Henri Becquerel were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their pioneering work in radioactivity. Marie became the first woman to receive a Nobel Prize, marking a historic achievement.

Read More: 5 Things You Didn't Know About Marie Curie

Tragedy struck in 1906 when Pierre Curie died suddenly in a carriage accident. Despite her grief, Marie Curie persevered and continued her research, taking over Pierre's position at the University of Paris. In 1911, she earned her second Nobel Prize, this time in Chemistry, for her remarkable contributions to the fields of polonium and radium.

Marie Curie's legacy extended beyond her Nobel Prizes. She made significant contributions to the fields of radiology and nuclear physics. She founded the Radium Institute in Paris, which produced its own Nobel laureates, and during World War I, she led France's first military radiology center, becoming the first female medical physicist.

Marie Curie died in 1934 from a type of anemia that likely stemmed from her exposure to such extreme radiation during her career. In fact, her original notes and papers are still so radioactive that they’re kept in lead-lined boxes, and you need protective gear to view them

Marie Curie's legacy endures as one of the greatest scientists of all time. She remains the only person to receive Nobel Prizes in two different scientific fields, a testament to her exceptional contributions to science. Her groundbreaking research in radioactivity revolutionized our understanding of matter and energy, leaving her mark on the fields of physics, chemistry, and medicine.

— Lacy Schley

Read More: Marie Curie: Iconic Scientist, Nobel Prize Winner … War Hero?

3. Isaac Newton: The Man Who Defined Science on a Bet

Isaac Newton was an English mathematician, physicist and astronomer who is widely recognized as one of the most influential scientists in history. He made groundbreaking contributions to various fields of science and mathematics and is considered one of the key figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century.

Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day in 1642. Despite being a sickly infant, his survival was an achievement in itself. Just 23 years later, with Cambridge University closed due to the plague, Newton embarked on groundbreaking discoveries that would bear his name. He invented calculus, a new form of mathematics, as part of his scientific journey.

Newton's introverted nature led him to withhold his findings for decades. It was only through the persistent efforts of his friend, Edmund Halley, who was famous for discovering comets, that Newton finally agreed to publish. Halley's interest was piqued due to a bet about planetary orbits, and Newton, having already solved the problem, astounded him with his answer.

Read More: 5 Eccentric Facts About Isaac Newton

The culmination of Newton's work was the "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," commonly known as the Principia , published in 1687. This monumental work not only described the motion of planets and projectiles but also revealed the unifying force of gravity, demonstrating that it governed both heavenly and earthly bodies. Newton's laws became the key to unlocking the universe's mysteries.

Newton's dedication to academia was unwavering. He rarely left his room except to deliver lectures, even if it meant addressing empty rooms. His contributions extended beyond the laws of motion and gravitation to encompass groundbreaking work in optics, color theory, the development of reflecting telescopes bearing his name, and fundamental advancements in mathematics and heat.

In 1692, Newton faced a rare failure and experienced a prolonged nervous breakdown, possibly exacerbated by mercury poisoning from his alchemical experiments. Although he ceased producing scientific work, his influence in the field persisted.

Achievements

Newton spent his remaining three decades modernizing England's economy and pursuing criminals. In 1696, he received a royal appointment as the Warden of the Mint in London. Despite being viewed as a cushy job with a handsome salary, Newton immersed himself in the role. He oversaw the recoinage of English currency, provided economic advice, established the gold standard, and introduced ridged coins that prevented the tampering of precious metals. His dedication extended to pursuing counterfeiters vigorously, even infiltrating London's criminal networks , and witnessing their executions.

Newton's reputation among his peers was marred by his unpleasant demeanor. He had few close friends, never married, and was described as "insidious, ambitious, and excessively covetous of praise, and impatient of contradiction" by Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed. Newton held grudges for extended periods and engaged in famous feuds, notably with German scientist Gottfried Leibniz over the invention of calculus and English scientist Robert Hooke.

Isaac Newton's legacy endures as one of the world's greatest scientists. His contributions to physics, mathematics, and various scientific disciplines shifted human understanding. Newton's laws of motion and gravitation revolutionized the field of physics and continue to be foundational principles.

His work in optics and mathematics laid the groundwork for future scientific advancements. Despite his complex personality, Newton's legacy as a scientific visionary remains unparalleled.

How fitting that the unit of force is named after stubborn, persistent, amazing Newton, himself a force of nature.

— Bill Andrews

Read More: Isaac Newton, World's Most Famous Alchemist

4. Charles Darwin: Delivering the Evolutionary Gospel

Charles Darwin has become one of the world's most renowned scientists. His inspiration came from a deep curiosity about beetles and geology, setting him on a transformative path. His theory of evolution through natural selection challenged prevailing beliefs and left an enduring legacy that continues to shape the field of biology and our understanding of life on Earth.

Charles Darwin , an unlikely revolutionary scientist, began his journey with interests in collecting beetles and studying geology. As a young man, he occasionally skipped classes at the University of Edinburgh Medical School to explore the countryside. His path to becoming the father of evolutionary biology took an unexpected turn in 1831 when he received an invitation to join a world-spanning journey aboard the HMS Beagle .

During his five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle, Darwin observed and documented geological formations, various habitats and the diverse flora and fauna across the Southern Hemisphere. His observations led to a paradigm-shifting realization that challenged the prevailing Victorian-era theories of animal origins rooted in creationism. 

Darwin noticed subtle variations within the same species based on their environments, exemplified by the unique beak shapes of Galapagos finches adapted to their food sources. This observation gave rise to the concept of natural selection, suggesting that species could change over time due to environmental factors, rather than divine intervention.

Read More: 7 Things You May Not Know About Charles Darwin

Upon his return, Darwin was initially hesitant to publish his evolutionary ideas, instead focusing on studying his voyage samples and producing works on geology, coral reefs and barnacles. He married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, and they had ten children, with Darwin actively engaging as a loving and attentive father — an uncommon practice among eminent scientists of his era.

Darwin's unique interests in taxidermy , unusual food and his struggle with ill health did not deter him from his evolutionary pursuits. Over two decades, he meticulously gathered overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

Publication

All of his observations and musings eventually coalesced into the tour de force that was On the Origin of Species , published in 1859 when Darwin was 50 years old. The 500-page book sold out immediately, and Darwin would go on to produce six editions, each time adding to and refining his arguments.

In non-technical language, the book laid out a simple argument for how the wide array of Earth’s species came to be. It was based on two ideas: that species can change gradually over time, and that all species face difficulties brought on by their surroundings. From these basic observations, it stands to reason that those species best adapted to their environments will survive and those that fall short will die out.

Despite facing fierce criticism from proponents of creationism and the religious establishment, Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution eventually gained acceptance in the 1930s. His work revolutionized scientific thought and remains largely intact to this day.

His theory, meticulously documented and logically sound, has withstood the test of time and scrutiny. Jerry Coyne, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, emphasizes the profound impact of Darwin's theory, stating that it "changed people’s views in so short a time" and that "there’s nothing you can really say to go after the important aspects of Darwin’s theory." 

— Nathaniel Scharping

Read More: 8 Inspirational Sayings From Charles Darwin

5. Nikola Tesla: Wizard of the Industrial Revolution

Nikola Tesla grips his hat in his hand. He points his cane toward Niagara Falls and beckons bystanders to turn their gaze to the future. This bronze Tesla — a statue on the Canadian side — stands atop an induction motor, the type of engine that drove the first hydroelectric power plant.

Nikola Tesla exhibited a remarkable aptitude for science and invention from an early age. His work in electricity, magnetism and wireless power transmission concepts, established him as an eccentric but brilliant pioneer in the field of electrical engineering.

Nikola Tesla , a Serbian-American engineer, was born in 1856 in what is now Croatia. His pioneering work in the field of electrical engineering laid the foundation for our modern electrified world. Tesla's groundbreaking designs played a crucial role in advancing alternating current (AC) technology during the early days of the electric age, enabling the transmission of electric power over vast distances, ultimately lighting up American homes.

One of Tesla's most significant contributions was the development of the Tesla coil , a high-voltage transformer that had a profound impact on electrical engineering. His innovative techniques allowed for wireless transmission of power, a concept that is still being explored today, particularly in the field of wireless charging, including applications in cell phones.

Tesla's visionary mind led him to propose audacious ideas, including a grand plan involving a system of towers that could harness energy from the environment and transmit both signals and electricity wirelessly around the world. While these ideas were intriguing, they were ultimately deemed impractical and remained unrealized. Tesla also claimed to have invented a "death ray," adding to his mystique.

Read More: What Did Nikola Tesla Do? The Truth Behind the Legend

Tesla's eccentric genius and prolific inventions earned him widespread recognition during his lifetime. He held numerous patents and made significant contributions to the field of electrical engineering. While he did not invent alternating current (AC), he played a pivotal role in its development and promotion. His ceaseless work and inventions made him a household name, a rare feat for scientists in his era.

In recent years, Tesla's legacy has taken on a life of its own, often overshadowing his actual inventions. He has become a symbol of innovation and eccentricity, inspiring events like San Diego Comic-Con, where attendees dress as Tesla. Perhaps most notably, the world's most famous electric car company bears his name, reflecting his ongoing influence on the electrification of transportation.

While Tesla's mystique sometimes veered into the realm of self-promotion and fantastical claims, his genuine contributions to electrical engineering cannot be denied. He may not have caused earthquakes with his inventions or single handedly discovered AC, but his visionary work and impact on the electrification of the world continue to illuminate our lives.

— Eric Betz

Read More: These 7 Famous Physicists Are Still Alive Today

6. Galileo Galilei: Discoverer of the Cosmos

Galileo Galilei , an Italian mathematician, made a pivotal contribution to modern astronomy around December 1609. At the age of 45, he turned a telescope towards the moon and ushered in a new era in the field.

His observations unveiled remarkable discoveries, such as the presence of four large moons orbiting Jupiter and the realization that the Milky Way's faint glow emanated from countless distant stars. Additionally, he identified sunspots on the surface of the sun and observed the phases of Venus, providing conclusive evidence that Venus orbited the sun within Earth's own orbit.

While Galileo didn't invent the telescope and wasn't the first to use one for celestial observations, his work undeniably marked a turning point in the history of science. His groundbreaking findings supported the heliocentric model proposed by Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who had revolutionized astronomy with his sun-centered solar system model . 

Beyond his astronomical observations, Galileo made significant contributions to the understanding of motion. He demonstrated that objects dropped simultaneously would hit the ground at the same time, irrespective of their size, illustrating that gravity isn't dependent on an object's mass. His law of inertia also played a critical role in explaining the Earth's rotation.

Read More: 12 Fascinating Facts About Galileo Galilei You May Not Know

Galileo's discoveries, particularly his support for the Copernican model of the solar system, brought him into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1616, an inquisition ordered him to cease promoting heliocentrism, as it contradicted the church's geocentric doctrine based on Aristotle's outdated views of the cosmos.

The situation worsened in 1633 when Galileo published a work comparing the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, further discrediting the latter. Consequently, the church placed him under house arrest, where he remained until his death in 1642.

Galileo's legacy endured despite the challenges he faced from religious authorities. His observations and pioneering work on celestial bodies and motion laid the foundation for modern astronomy and physics.

His law of inertia, in particular, would influence future scientists, including Sir Isaac Newton, who built upon Galileo's work to formulate a comprehensive set of laws of motion that continue to guide spacecraft navigation across the solar system today. Notably, NASA's Galileo mission to Jupiter, launched centuries later, demonstrated the enduring relevance of Galileo's contributions to the field of space exploration. 

Read More: Galileo Galilei's Legacy Went Beyond Science

7. Ada Lovelace: The Enchantress of Numbers

Ada Lovelace defied the conventions of her era and transformed the world of computer science. She is known as the world's first computer programmer. Her legacy endures, inspiring generations of computer scientists and earning her the title of the "Enchantress of Numbers.”

Ada Lovelace, born Ada Byron, made history as the world's first computer programmer, a remarkable achievement considering she lived a century before the advent of modern computers. Her journey into the world of mathematics and computing began in the early 1830s when she was just 17 years old. 

Ada, the only legitimate child of the poet Lord Byron, entered into a pivotal collaboration with British mathematician, inventor, and engineer Charles Babbage. Babbage had conceived plans for an intricate machine called the Difference Engine — essentially a massive mechanical calculator.

Read More: Meet Ada Lovelace, The First Computer Programmer

At a gathering in the 1830s, Babbage exhibited an incomplete prototype of his Difference Engine. Among the attendees was the young Ada Lovelace, who, despite her age, grasped the workings of the machine. This encounter marked the beginning of a profound working relationship and close friendship between Lovelace and Babbage that endured until her untimely death in 1852 at the age of 36. Inspired by Babbage's innovations, Lovelace recognized the immense potential of his latest concept, the Analytical Engine.

The Analytical Engine was more than a mere calculator. Its intricate mechanisms, coupled with the ability for users to input commands through punch cards, endowed it with the capacity to perform a wide range of mathematical tasks. Lovelace, in fact, went a step further by crafting instructions for solving a complex mathematical problem, effectively creating what many historians later deemed the world's first computer program. In her groundbreaking work, Lovelace laid the foundation for computer programming, defining her legacy as one of the greatest scientists.

Ada Lovelace's contributions to the realm of "poetical science," as she termed it, are celebrated as pioneering achievements in computer programming and mathematics. Despite her tumultuous personal life marked by gambling and scandal, her intellectual brilliance and foresight into the potential of computing machines set her apart. Charles Babbage himself described Lovelace as an "enchantress" who wielded a remarkable influence over the abstract realm of science, a force equivalent to the most brilliant male intellects of her time. 

Read More: Meet 10 Women in Science Who Changed the World

8. Pythagoras: Math's Mystery Man

Pythagoras left an enduring legacy in the world of mathematics that continues to influence the field to this day. While his famous Pythagorean theorem , which relates the sides of a right triangle, is well-known, his broader contributions to mathematics and his belief in the fundamental role of numbers in the universe shaped the foundations of geometry and mathematical thought for centuries to come.

Pythagoras , a Greek philosopher and mathematician, lived in the sixth century B.C. He is credited with the Pythagorean theorem, although the origins of this mathematical concept are debated.

Pythagoras is most famous for the Pythagorean theorem, which relates the lengths of the sides of a right triangle. While he may not have been the first to discover it, he played a significant role in its development. His emphasis on the importance of mathematical concepts laid the foundation for modern geometry.

Pythagoras did not receive formal awards, but his legacy in mathematics and geometry is considered one of the cornerstones of scientific knowledge.

Pythagoras' contributions to mathematics, particularly the Pythagorean theorem, have had a lasting impact on science and education. His emphasis on the importance of mathematical relationships and the certainty of mathematical proofs continues to influence the way we understand the world.

Read More: The Origin Story of Pythagoras and His Cult Followers

9. Carl Linnaeus: Say His Name(s)

Carl Linnaeus embarked on a mission to improve the chaos of naming living organisms. His innovative system of binomial nomenclature not only simplified the process of scientific communication but also laid the foundation for modern taxonomy, leaving an enduring legacy in the field of biology.

It started in Sweden: a functional, user-friendly innovation that took over the world, bringing order to chaos. No, not an Ikea closet organizer. We’re talking about the binomial nomenclature system , which has given us clarity and a common language, devised by Carl Linnaeus.

Linnaeus, born in southern Sweden in 1707, was an “intensely practical” man, according to Sandra Knapp, a botanist and taxonomist at the Natural History Museum in London. He lived at a time when formal scientific training was scant and there was no system for referring to living things. Plants and animals had common names, which varied from one location and language to the next, and scientific “phrase names,” cumbersome Latin descriptions that could run several paragraphs.ccjhhg

While Linnaeus is often hailed as the father of taxonomy, his primary focus was on naming rather than organizing living organisms into evolutionary hierarchies. The task of ordering species would come later, notably with the work of Charles Darwin in the following century. Despite advancements in our understanding of evolution and the impact of genetic analysis on biological classification, Linnaeus' naming system endures as a simple and adaptable means of identification.

The 18th century was also a time when European explorers were fanning out across the globe, finding ever more plants and animals new to science.

“There got to be more and more things that needed to be described, and the names were becoming more and more complex,” says Knapp.

Linnaeus, a botanist with a talent for noticing details, first used what he called “trivial names” in the margins of his 1753 book Species Plantarum . He intended the simple Latin two-word construction for each plant as a kind of shorthand, an easy way to remember what it was.

“It reflected the adjective-noun structure in languages all over the world,” Knapp says of the trivial names, which today we know as genus and species. The names moved quickly from the margins of a single book to the center of botany, and then all of biology. Linnaeus started a revolution — positioning him as one of the greatest scientists — but it was an unintentional one.

Today we regard Linnaeus as the father of taxonomy, which is used to sort the entire living world into evolutionary hierarchies, or family trees. But the systematic Swede was mostly interested in naming things rather than ordering them, an emphasis that arrived the next century with Charles Darwin.

As evolution became better understood and, more recently, genetic analysis changed how we classify and organize living things, many of Linnaeus’ other ideas have been supplanted. But his naming system, so simple and adaptable, remains.

“It doesn’t matter to the tree in the forest if it has a name,” Knapp says. “But by giving it a name, we can discuss it. Linnaeus gave us a system so we could talk about the natural world.”

— Gemma Tarlach

Read More: Is Plant Communication a Real Thing?

10. Rosalind Franklin: The Hero Denied Her Due

Rosalind Franklin, a brilliant and tenacious scientist, transformed the world of molecular biology. Her pioneering work in X-ray crystallography and groundbreaking research on the structure of DNA propelled her to the forefront of scientific discovery. Yet, her remarkable contributions were often overshadowed, and her legacy is not only one of scientific excellence but also a testament to the persistence and resilience of a scientist who deserved greater recognition in her time.

Rosalind Franklin , one of the greatest scientists of her time, was a British-born firebrand and perfectionist. While she had a reputation for being somewhat reserved and difficult to connect with, those who knew her well found her to be outgoing and loyal. Franklin's brilliance shone through in her work, particularly in the field of X-ray crystallography , an imaging technique that revealed molecular structures based on scattered X-ray beams. Her early research on the microstructures of carbon and graphite remains influential in the scientific community.

However, it was Rosalind Franklin's groundbreaking work with DNA that would become her most significant contribution. During her time at King's College London in the early 1950s, she came close to proving the double-helix theory of DNA. Her achievement was epitomized in "photograph #51," which was considered the finest image of a DNA molecule at that time. Unfortunately, her work was viewed by others, notably James Watson and Francis Crick.

Watson saw photograph #51 through her colleague Maurice Wilkins, and Crick received unpublished data from a report Franklin had submitted to the council. In 1953, Watson and Crick published their iconic paper in "Nature," loosely citing Franklin's work, which also appeared in the same issue.

Rosalind Franklin's pivotal role in elucidating the structure of DNA was overlooked when the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1962 to James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins. This omission is widely regarded as one of the major snubs of the 20th century in the field of science.

Despite her groundbreaking work and significant contributions to science, Franklin's life was tragically cut short. In 1956, at the height of her career, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, possibly linked to her extensive X-ray work. Remarkably, she continued to work in the lab until her passing in 1958 at the young age of 37.

Rosalind Franklin's legacy endures not only for her achievements but also for the recognition she deserved but did not receive during her lifetime. She was known for her extreme clarity and perfectionism in all her scientific endeavors, changing the field of molecular biology. While many remember her for her contributions, she is also remembered for how her work was overshadowed and underappreciated, a testament to her enduring influence on the world of science.

“As a scientist, Miss Franklin was distinguished by extreme clarity and perfection in everything she undertook,” Bernal wrote in her obituary, published in Nature . Though it’s her achievements that close colleagues admired, most remember Franklin for how she was forgotten. 

— Carl Engelking

Read More: The Unsung Heroes of Science

More Greatest Scientists: Our Personal Favorites

Isaac Asimov   (1920–1992) Asimov was my gateway into science fiction, then science, then everything else. He penned some of the genre’s most iconic works — fleshing out the laws of robotics, the messiness of a galactic empire, the pitfalls of predicting the future — in simple, effortless prose. A trained biochemist, the Russian-born New Yorker wrote prolifically, producing over 400 books, not all science-related: Of the 10 Dewey Decimal categories, he has books in nine. — B.A.

Richard Feynman   (1918–1988) Feynman played a part in most of the highlights of 20th-century physics. In 1941, he joined the Manhattan Project. After the war, his Feynman diagrams — for which he shared the ’65 Nobel Prize in Physics — became the standard way to show how subatomic particles interact. As part of the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster investigation, he explained the problems to the public in easily understandable terms, his trademark. Feynman was also famously irreverent, and his books pack lessons I live by. — E.B.

Robert FitzRoy   (1805–1865) FitzRoy suffered for science, and for that I respect him. As captain of the HMS Beagle , he sailed Charles Darwin around the world, only to later oppose his shipmate’s theory of evolution while waving a Bible overhead. FitzRoy founded the U.K.’s Met Office in 1854, and he was a pioneer of prediction; he coined the term weather forecast. But after losing his fortunes, suffering from depression and poor health, and facing fierce criticism of his forecasting system, he slit his throat in 1865. — C.E.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck   (1744–1829) Lamarck may be remembered as a failure today, but to me, he represents an important step forward for evolutionary thinking . Before he suggested that species could change over time in the early 19th century, no one took the concept of evolution seriously. Though eventually proven wrong, Lamarck’s work brought the concept of evolution into the light and would help shape the theories of a young Charles Darwin. Science isn’t all about dazzling successes; it’s also a story of failures surmounted and incremental advances. — N.S.

Lucretius   (99 B.C.–55 B.C.) My path to the first-century B.C. Roman thinker Titus Lucretius Carus started with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Michele de Montaigne, who cited him in their essays. Lucretius’ only known work, On the Nature of Things, is remarkable for its foreshadowing of Darwinism, humans as higher primates, the study of atoms and the scientific method — all contemplated in a geocentric world ruled by eccentric gods. — M.B.

Katharine McCormick   (1875–1967) McCormick planned to attend medical school after earning her biology degree from MIT in 1904. Instead, she married rich. After her husband’s death in 1947, she used her inheritance to provide crucial funding for research on the hormonal birth control pill . She also fought to make her alma mater more accessible to women, leading to an all-female dormitory, allowing more women to enroll. As a feminist interested in science, I’d love to be friends with this badass advocate for women’s rights. — L.S.

John Muir   (1838–1914) In 1863, Muir abandoned his eclectic combination of courses at the University of Wisconsin to wander instead the “University of the Wilderness” — a school he never stopped attending. A champion of the national parks (enough right there to make him a hero to me!), Muir fought vigorously for conservation and warned, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” It’s a reminder we need today, more than ever. — Elisa Neckar

Rolf O. Peterson   (1944–) Peterson helms the world’s longest-running study of the predator-prey relationship in the wild, between wolves and moose on Isle Royale in the middle of Lake Superior. He’s devoted more than four decades to the 58-year wildlife ecology project, a dedication and passion indicative, to me, of what science is all about. As the wolf population has nearly disappeared and moose numbers have climbed, patience and emotional investment like his are crucial in the quest to learn how nature works. — Becky Lang

Marie Tharp   (1920–2006) I love maps. So did geologist and cartographer Tharp . In the mid-20th century, before women were permitted aboard research vessels, Tharp explored the oceans from her desk at Columbia University. With the seafloor — then thought to be nearly flat — her canvas, and raw data her inks, she revealed a landscape of mountain ranges and deep trenches. Her keen eye also spotted the first hints of plate tectonics at work beneath the waves. Initially dismissed, Tharp’s observations would become crucial to proving continental drift. — G.T.

Read more: The Dynasties That Changed Science

Making Science Popular With Other Greatest Scientists

Science needs to get out of the lab and into the public eye. Over the past hundred years or so, these other greatest scientists have made it their mission. They left their contributions in multiple sciences while making them broadly available to the general public.

Sean M. Carroll  (1966– ) : The physicist (and one-time  Discover  blogger) has developed a following among space enthusiasts through his lectures, television appearances and books, including   The Particle at the End of the Universe, on the Higgs boson .

Rachel Carson   (1907–1964) : With her 1962 book  Silent Spring , the biologist energized a nascent environmental movement. In 2006,  Discover  named  Silent Spring  among the top 25 science books of all time.

Richard Dawkins   (1941– ) : The biologist, a charismatic speaker, first gained public notoriety in 1976 with his book  The Selfish Gene , one of his many works on evolution .

Jane Goodall   (1934– ) : Studying chimpanzees in Tanzania, Goodall’s patience and observational skills led to fresh insights into their behavior — and led her to star in a number of television documentaries.

Stephen Jay Gould   (1941–2002) : In 1997, the paleontologist Gould was a guest on  The Simpson s, a testament to his broad appeal. Among scientists, Gould was controversial for his idea of evolution unfolding in fits and starts rather than in a continuum.

Stephen Hawking   (1942–2018) : His books’ titles suggest the breadth and boldness of his ideas:  The Universe in a Nutshell, The Theory of Everything . “My goal is simple,” he has said. “It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.”

Aldo Leopold   (1887–1948) : If Henry Thoreau and John Muir primed the pump for American environmentalism, Leopold filled the first buckets . His posthumously published  A Sand County Almanac  is a cornerstone of modern environmentalism.

Bill Nye   (1955– ) : What should an engineer and part-time stand-up comedian do with his life? For Nye, the answer was to become a science communicator . In the ’90s, he hosted a popular children’s science show and more recently has been an eloquent defender of evolution in public debates with creationists.

Oliver Sacks   (1933–2015) : The neurologist began as a medical researcher , but found his calling in clinical practice and as a chronicler of strange medical maladies, most famously in his book  The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

Carl Sagan   (1934–1996) : It’s hard to hear someone say “billions and billions” and not hear Sagan’s distinctive voice , and remember his 1980  Cosmos: A Personal Voyage  miniseries. Sagan brought the wonder of the universe to the public in a way that had never happened before.

Neil deGrasse Tyson   (1958– ) : The astrophysicist and gifted communicator is Carl Sagan’s successor as champion of the universe . In a nod to Sagan’s  Cosmos , Tyson hosted the miniseries  Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey  in 2014.

E.O. Wilson   (1929–2021) : The prolific, Pulitzer Prize-winning biologist first attracted broad public attention with 1975’s  Sociobiology: The New Synthesis . His subsequent works have filled many a bookshelf with provocative discussions of biodiversity, philosophy and the animals he has studied most closely: ants. — M.B.

Read More: Who Was Anna Mani, and How Was She a Pioneer for Women in STEM?

Science Stars: The Next Generation

As science progresses, so does the roll call of new voices and greatest scientists serving as bridges between lab and layman. Here are some of our favorite emerging science stars:

British physicist Brian Cox became a household name in the U.K. in less than a decade, thanks to his accessible explanations of the universe in TV and radio shows, books and public appearances.

Neuroscientist Carl Hart debunks anti-science myths supporting misguided drug policies via various media, including his memoir High Price .

From the Amazon forest to the dissecting table, YouTube star and naturalist Emily Graslie brings viewers into the guts of the natural world, often literally.

When not talking dinosaurs or head transplants on Australian radio, molecular biologist Upulie Divisekera coordinates @RealScientists , a rotating Twitter account for science outreach.

Mixing pop culture and chemistry, analytical chemist Raychelle Burks demystifies the molecules behind poisons, dyes and even Game of Thrones via video, podcast and blog.

Climate scientist and evangelical Christian Katharine Hayhoe preaches beyond the choir about the planetary changes humans are causing in PBS’ Global Weirding video series. — Ashley Braun

Read More: 6 Famous Archaeologists You Need to Know About

This article was originally published on April 11, 2017 and has since been updated with new information by the Discover staff.

• solar system

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Science: Sample for Students in 100,200 Words

• Updated on  
• Oct 28, 2023

Science, the relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, has ignited the flames of human progress for centuries. It’s a beacon guiding us through the uncharted realms of the universe, unlocking secrets that shape our world. In this blog, we embark on an exhilarating journey through the wonders of science. We’ll explore the essence of science and its profound impact on our lives. With this we will also provide you with sample essay on science in 100 and 200 words.

Must Read: Essay On Internet   

What Is Science?

Science is a systematic pursuit of knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It aims to understand the underlying principles governing the universe, from the smallest particles to the vast cosmos. Science plays a crucial role in advancing technology, improving our understanding of life and the environment, and driving innovation for a better future.

Branches Of Science

The major branches of science can be categorized into the following:

• Physical Science: This includes physics and chemistry, which study the fundamental properties of matter and energy.
• Biological Science : Also known as life sciences, it encompasses biology, genetics, and ecology, focusing on living organisms and their interactions.
• Earth Science: Geology, meteorology, and oceanography fall under this category, investigating the Earth’s processes, climate, and natural resources.
• Astronomy : The study of celestial objects, space, and the universe, including astrophysics and cosmology.
• Environmental Science : Concentrating on environmental issues, it combines aspects of biology, chemistry, and Earth science to address concerns like climate change and conservation. 
• Social Sciences : This diverse field covers anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics, examining human behavior, society, and culture.  
• Computer Science : Focused on algorithms, data structures, and computing technology, it drives advancements in information technology. 
• Mathematics : A foundational discipline, it underpins all sciences, providing the language and tools for scientific analysis and modeling.  

Wonders Of Science

Science has numerous applications that profoundly impact our lives and society: Major applications of science are stated below:

• Medicine: Scientific research leads to the development of vaccines, medicines, and medical technologies, improving healthcare and saving lives.
• Technology: Science drives technological innovations, from smartphones to space exploration.
• Energy: Advances in physics and chemistry enable the development of renewable energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
• Agriculture: Biology and genetics improve crop yields, while chemistry produces fertilizers and pesticides.
• Environmental Conservation : Scientific understanding informs efforts to protect ecosystems and combat climate change.
• Transportation : Physics and engineering create efficient and sustainable transportation systems.
• Communication : Physics and computer science underpin global communication networks.
• Space Exploration : Astronomy and physics facilitate space missions, expanding our understanding of the cosmos.

Must Read: Essay On Scientific Discoveries  

Sample Essay On Science in 100 words

Science, the bedrock of human progress, unveils the mysteries of our universe through empirical investigation and reason. Its profound impact permeates every facet of modern life. In medicine, it saves countless lives with breakthroughs in treatments and vaccines. Technology, a child of science, empowers communication and innovation. Agriculture evolves with scientific methods, ensuring food security. Environmental science guides conservation efforts, preserving our planet. Space exploration fuels dreams of interstellar travel.

Yet, science requires responsibility, as unchecked advancement can harm nature and society. Ethical dilemmas arise, necessitating careful consideration. Science, a double-edged sword, holds the potential for both salvation and destruction, making it imperative to harness its power wisely for the betterment of humanity.

Sample Essay On Science in 250 words

Science, often regarded as humanity’s greatest intellectual endeavor, plays an indispensable role in shaping our world and advancing our civilization.

At its core, science is a methodical pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. Through systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis, it seeks to uncover the underlying principles that govern our universe. This process has yielded profound insights into the workings of the cosmos, from the subatomic realm to the vastness of space.

One of the most remarkable contributions of science is to the field of medicine. Through relentless research and experimentation, scientists have discovered vaccines, antibiotics, and groundbreaking treatments for diseases that once claimed countless lives. 

Furthermore, science has driven technological advancements that have reshaped society. The rapid progress in computing, for instance, has revolutionized communication, industry, and research. From the ubiquitous smartphones in our pockets to the complex algorithms that power our digital lives, science, and technology are inseparable partners in progress.

Environmental conservation is another critical arena where science is a guiding light. Climate change, a global challenge, is addressed through rigorous scientific study and the development of sustainable practices. Science empowers us to understand the impact of human activities on our planet and to make informed decisions to protect it.

In conclusion, science is not just a field of study; it is a driving force behind human progress. As we continue to explore the frontiers of knowledge, science will remain the beacon guiding us toward a brighter future.

Science is a boon due to innovations, medical advancements, and a deeper understanding of nature, improving human lives exponentially.

Galileo Galilei is known as the Father of Science.

Science can’t address questions about personal beliefs, emotions, ethics, or matters of subjective experience beyond empirical observation and measurement.

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on science that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

With a heart full of passion for writing, I pour my emotions into every piece I create. I strive to connect with readers on a personal level, infusing my work with authenticity and relatability. Writing isn't just a skill; it's my heartfelt expression to touch hearts and minds.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Study Today

Largest Compilation of Structured Essays and Exams

Essay on My Favourite Scientist | Short Paragraph

December 3, 2017 by Study Mentor 3 Comments

Of all the scientists I have read about, I like Thomas Alva Edison (born on 11 February 1847,) the best, because he was a hard worker and a very fine human being.

He is credited with inventing the telegraph, the electric bulb, the telephone, the dynamo, the motion picture machine and the electric train.

There are hundreds of other minor appliances that he invented. Such a great and genius personality. By the way, in school life  he was not very clever, but he was hardworking. As a scientist, he was patient and humble and kind.

He encouraged the youth to work hard and to learn from their mistake. He is the only man who first provided the entire city of New York with electricity. The next city he electrified was Paris.

Even though he met with failure many a time, he was not discouraged. He tried every possible known metal to make the filament of the electric bulb. Every time the bulb would glow for a short time and then burn out.

Just by chance he decides to use a non-metal. Carbon. Wonder of wonder – the bulb not only emitted light, but kept on doing so for a long time.  It was his patience that gave him victory over darkness.

He is my role model too. Just because of his patience and dedication towards work lead’s him to be successful.

In today’s life whether we used electric bulb, or the latest Led bulb, no matter, but we should always recall this man, who gave path to light over the darkness.

I do hope that when I grow up I become a scientist like Thomas Edison and work like him.

Some of Thomas Edison Inventions

• Autographic printer
• Carbon microphone
• Kinetoscope
• Electric Bulb

Awards Edison got for his successful inventions

• Edward Longstreth Medal
• Albert Medal

Many more to be listed, but I have describe few of them above.

Table of Contents

My Favourite Scientist Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

It is very important to have a role model in our lives who will inspire us to be someone in future so as to leave an everlasting mark on history. Having a knack for science, my favorite scientist and role model had always been the late Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, one of the leading scientists of India’s space program, and also the former President of India

The life of Dr.Kalam is a tale of perseverance and has numerous things that we can learn from both from the perspective of science as well as for the betterment of ourselves and an individual.

HIS EARLY LIFE AND STRUGGLES

He was born into a middle class Tamil family in an island town of Rameswaram in the state of Madras. His father Jainulabdeen didn’t have any kind of formal education, nor was he wealthy. In spite of all these hindrances, he had in himself great wisdom and had a truly generous spirit.

His mother Ashiiamma was a lady full of care for everyone around. She loved to feed people and every day at home far more number of people ate than the total members of their family.

Young Dr.Kalam had many siblings. He was short with undistinguished looks. His father always preached and practiced to live a life devoid of all unnecessary luxuries.

HIS STUDENT LIFE

After completing his bachelors in science in Physics, he wanted to study engineering. In order to fund this desire of his, his sister, had mortgaged her gold bangles to procure money. While in the first year of engineering at the Madras Institute of Technology, Kalam always

desired to fly and had subsequently chosen aerospace engineering as his field of specialization.

After graduating from the Madras institute of Technology, Dr. Kalam joined the Defense Research and Space Organization (DRDO).

His work was of such vigour and prominence that just after nine years of service there, he was transferred to the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) as the project director of India’s first Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV-III) which after 10 years of hard work came into reality placing the Rohini Satellite in the near-earth orbit.

The story of this SLV development also teaches us something greatly about Dr.Kalam, that how he was a person of immense hope and indomitable spirit. The ISRO team had faced many setbacks before the Rohini satellite was finally successfully orbited in 1980.

During the mid-70s, when they had prepared a launch vehicle, instead of going to the orbit, the satellite failed and landed into the Bay of Bengal. Everyone but Dr.Kalam was disappointed. When time came for the press conference, he did not let any of his team members go to the stage, he himself faced all the criticisms and ill-talks.

Few years later when the mission was successful, at the press conference, Dr.Kalam was at the back and he told his team to go to stage and take the credit. This spirit of Dr. Kalam is truly remarkable, both as a scientist as well as a human being. He was an ideal leader when time came to face the harsh setbacks; he was the one who took responsibility for it, whereas when success was achieved, he gave the credit to his team.

HIS INDOMITABLE SPIRIT

Dr.Kalam since the days of his early student hood had a desire to fly. So he applied for the test for being a fighter jet pilot. He was rejected narrowly. He placed nine for the post which had only eight vacancies.

Post this defeat he was extremely disappointed and for once thought of quitting everything and becoming a saint. But it was only because of his indomitable spirit that he did not give up and tried other avenues where his skills were put to better use.

His achievements as a scientist

Dr.Kalam had a very illustrious career as a scientist successfully launched satellite Rohini to orbit through the SLV-III.

In the 1980s he led India’s missile programme. Under his leadership, India became a major military power after the successes of Agni and Prithvi.

Not only in the field of aviation and defense. Dr.Kalam’s work toward the development of nation knew no bounds and had no limit to his scope of work. In 1998, along with cardiologist Dr.Soma Raju, Kalam developed a low cost Coronary stent. It was named as “Kalam-Raju Stent” honouring them

In 1998, the Pokhran-II tests showcased India’s nuclear capabilities to the world. Mr Kalam’s role was instrumental in the project.

His views on war

Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam, had a very interesting opinion about war and weapons. He was a peace loving man till death and never ever had resorted to any form of violence to achieve some specific target. However he was of the opinion that every country should be self-sufficient in terms of armory and their inventory of weapons should be as powerful. He always said that weapons are necessary to prevent war. He used to call nuclear weapons as ‘weapons of peace’.

His love for Everyone

Dr. Kalam while serving his term of Presidency did everything in his power to not only spread love for science but also bring the masses closer to the government.

He was known for making trips pan India meeting students and addressing gatherings inspiring them with his words of wisdom. He loved children and the children loved him too. Till date he is considered by many to be the most knowledgeable and approachable President that the country has ever seen.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

• Essay on Pollution
• Essay on my School
• Summer Season
• My favourite teacher
• World heritage day quotes
• my family speech
• importance of trees essay
• autobiography of a pen
• honesty is the best policy essay
• essay on building a great india
• my favourite book essay
• essay on caa
• my favourite player
• autobiography of a river
• farewell speech for class 10 by class 9
• essay my favourite teacher 200 words
• internet influence on kids essay
• my favourite cartoon character

Brilliantly

Content & links.

Verified by Sur.ly

Essay for Students

• Essay for Class 1 to 5 Students

Scholarships for Students

• Class 1 Students Scholarship
• Class 2 Students Scholarship
• Class 3 Students Scholarship
• Class 4 Students Scholarship
• Class 5 students Scholarship
• Class 6 Students Scholarship
• Class 7 students Scholarship
• Class 8 Students Scholarship
• Class 9 Students Scholarship
• Class 10 Students Scholarship
• Class 11 Students Scholarship
• Class 12 Students Scholarship

STAY CONNECTED

• About Study Today
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Scholarships

• Apj Abdul Kalam Scholarship
• Ashirwad Scholarship
• Bihar Scholarship
• Canara Bank Scholarship
• Colgate Scholarship
• Dr Ambedkar Scholarship
• E District Scholarship
• Epass Karnataka Scholarship
• Fair And Lovely Scholarship
• Floridas John Mckay Scholarship
• Inspire Scholarship
• Jio Scholarship
• Karnataka Minority Scholarship
• Lic Scholarship
• Maulana Azad Scholarship
• Medhavi Scholarship
• Minority Scholarship
• Moma Scholarship
• Mp Scholarship
• Muslim Minority Scholarship
• Nsp Scholarship
• Oasis Scholarship
• Obc Scholarship
• Odisha Scholarship
• Pfms Scholarship
• Post Matric Scholarship
• Pre Matric Scholarship
• Prerana Scholarship
• Prime Minister Scholarship
• Rajasthan Scholarship
• Santoor Scholarship
• Sitaram Jindal Scholarship
• Ssp Scholarship
• Swami Vivekananda Scholarship
• Ts Epass Scholarship
• Up Scholarship
• Vidhyasaarathi Scholarship
• Wbmdfc Scholarship
• West Bengal Minority Scholarship
• Click Here Now!!

Mobile Number

Have you Burn Crackers this Diwali ? Yes No

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

ImportantIndia.com

Indian History, Festivals, Essays, Paragraphs, Speeches.

My Favourite Scientist – Short Essay

Category: Essays and Paragraphs On January 13, 2019 By Ananda

Scientists are great individuals. They bring about innovation . They introduce us to new things. They are the ones who have the power to uncover and discover things which may be in front of us but, we couldn’t see them or discover them. Scientists play a very crucial role in the development of a country and the world at the whole. One invention can benefit thousands of lives. Every necessary thing we use in our day to day lives is an invention by some renowned scientist. But, we take scientists for granted and don’t care for their feats and how they have benefitted us.

My favourite scientist is late A.P.J Abdul Kalam. He was a great personality. He was a true scientist. He knew the science of life more than tangible science. He knew how love can discover inventions of great potential, hidden in people. His motto to help everyone was the greatest discovery in itself.

It was sir APJ Abdul Kalam who came out as a scientist and discovered the act of helping. He showed people how to help. How can everyone help and invent a world where nobody fights. Where lending a helping hand is a must. He was the true scientist as he knew the chemistry of hearts . He knew how to win hearts. The way he used to send waves of euphoria into children were no less than electric waves. He knew exactly which wire to hit with the current.

With this, he was also a successful scientist in tangible science. He was the missile man of India. He was the one who invented missiles for India. His contributions to the scientific sector of India has been great. And of course, we know how good he was in the sector of hearts and souls.

• History of Mughal Empire
• Modern History of India
• Important India
• Indian Geography
• Report an Article
• Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, Cookie Policy, and Copyrights.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write a Short Essay

Last Updated: January 17, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Christopher Taylor, PhD . Christopher Taylor is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of English at Austin Community College in Texas. He received his PhD in English Literature and Medieval Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 111,472 times.

Essay writing is a common assignment in high school or college courses, especially within the humanities. You’ll also be asked to write essays for college admissions and scholarships. In a short essay (250-500 words), you will need to provide an introduction with a thesis, a body, and a conclusion, as you would with a longer essay. Depending on the essay requirements, you may also need to do academic or online research to find sources to back up your claims.

Picking a Topic and Gathering Research

• If you have any questions about the topic, ask your instructor. If your essay doesn't respond to the prompt, you likely won't receive full credit.

• If you're writing an essay for an in-class test or for an application, tailor the essay to the given prompt and topic. Quickly brainstorm a few ideas; for example, think of positive things you can say about yourself for a college-entrance essay.
• For example, the topic “depression in American literature” is far too broad. Narrow down your topic to something like “Willie Loman’s depression in Death of a Salesman .”
• Or, you could write about a narrow topic like “the increase in the USA’s national debt in the 1950s” rather than a broad topic like “the American economy in the 20th century.”

• Depending on the field in which you’re writing the essay—e.g., hard sciences, sociology, humanities, etc.—your instructor will direct you towards appropriate databases. For example, if you’re writing a high-school or college-level essay for your English class, visit online literary databases like JSTOR, LION, and the MLA Bibliography.
• If you're writing the essay for a college or graduate-school application, it's unlikely that you'll need to include any secondary sources.
• If you're writing a timed or in-class essay, you may not be able to find research articles. But, still do draw information from texts and sources you've studied both in and out of class, and build from points made in any provided reading passages.

• If you’re writing about current events or journalism topics, read articles from well-known news sites like CNN or the BBC.
• Avoid citing unreliable websites like blogs or any sites that have a clear bias about the topic they’re reporting on.

Composing the Essay

• If you write the essay without outlining, the essay will be poorly organized.

• This thesis statement is far too weak: “ Death of a Salesman shows the difficulty of living in America after WWII.”
• Instead, hone your thesis to something like: “Arthur Miller uses Death of a Salesman to show that the American Dream is materialist and impractical.”

• So, avoid beginning the paragraph by writing something like, “Since the beginning of time, all people have been consumed with the desire for their father’s approval.”
• Instead, write something like, “In the play Death of a Salesman , Willie Loman’s sons compete for their father’s approval through various masculine displays."
• Then, you can say, "To examine this topic, I will perform a close reading of several key passages of the play and present analyses by noted Arthur Miller scholars."

• In a short essay, the conclusion should do nothing more than briefly restate your main claim and remind readers of the evidence you provided.

• So, take the example about Death of a Salesman . The first body paragraph could discuss the ways in which Willie’s sons try to impress him.
• The second body paragraph could dive into Willie’s hopelessness and despair, and the third paragraph could discuss how Miller uses his characters to show the flaws in their understanding of the American Dream.

• Always cite your sources so you avoid charges of plagiarism. Check with your instructor (or the essay prompt) and find out what citation style you should use.
• For example, if you’re summarizing the inflation of the American dollar during the 1930s, provide 2 or 3 years and inflation-rate percentages. Don’t provide a full-paragraph summary of the economic decline.
• If you're writing an in-class essay and don't have time to perform any research, you don't need to incorporate outside sources. But, it will impress your teacher if you quote from a reading passage or bring up pertinent knowledge you may have gained during the class.

• If no one agrees to read the essay, read over your own first draft and look for errors or spots where you could clarify your meaning. Reading the essay out loud often helps, as you’ll be able to hear sentences that aren’t quite coherent.
• This step does not apply to essays written during a timed or in-class exam, as you won't be able to ask peers to read your work.

• It’s always a mistake to submit an unrevised first draft, whether for a grade, for admissions, or for a scholarship essay.
• However, if you're writing an essay for a timed exam, it's okay if you don't have enough time to combine multiple drafts before the time runs out.

Condensing Your Essay

• So, if you’re writing about Death of a Salesman , an article about symbolism in Arthur Miller’s plays would be useful. But, an article about the average cost of Midwestern hotels in the 1940s would be irrelevant.
• If you’re writing a scholarship essay, double-check the instructions to clarify what types of sources you’re allowed to use.

• A common cliche you might find in an essay is a statement like, "I'm the hardest working student at my school."
• For example, this sentence is too verbose: “I have been a relentlessly stellar student throughout my entire high school career since I am a seriously dedicated reader and thoroughly apply myself to every assignment I receive in class.”
• Shortened, it could read: “I was a stellar student throughout my high school career since I was a dedicated reader and applied myself to every assignment I received.”

• Avoid writing something like, “Willie Loman can be seen as having achieved little through his life because he is not respected by his sons and is not valued by his co-workers.”
• Instead, write, “Arthur Miller shows readers that Willie’s life accomplishments have amounted to little. Willie’s sons do not look up to him, and his co-workers treat him without respect.”

• For example, if you’re trying to prove that WWII pulled the USA out of the Great Depression, focus strictly on an economic argument.
• Avoid bringing in other, less convincing topics. For example, don’t dedicate a paragraph to discussing how much it cost the USA to build fighter jets in 1944.

Short Essay Template and Example

Expert Q&A

• When composing the text of your essay, resist the temptation to pull words from a thesaurus in an attempt to sound academic or intelligent. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• If your high school or college has an online or in-person writing center, schedule an appointment. Taking advantage of this type of service can improve your essay and help you recognize structural or grammatical problems you would not have noticed otherwise. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/research_papers/choosing_a_topic.html
• ↑ https://monroecollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=589208&p=4072926
• ↑ https://www.utep.edu/extendeduniversity/utepconnect/blog/march-2017/4-ways-to-differentiate-a-good-source-from-a-bad-source.html
• ↑ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/essay-outline/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/thesis-statements/
• ↑ https://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/how-to-write-an-essay/essay-introduction
• ↑ https://lsa.umich.edu/sweetland/undergraduates/writing-guides/how-do-i-write-an-intro--conclusion----body-paragraph.html
• ↑ https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/writingsuccess/chapter/8-3-drafting/
• ↑ https://www.trentu.ca/academicskills/how-guides/how-write-university/how-approach-any-assignment/writing-english-essay/using-secondary
• ↑ https://patch.com/michigan/berkley/bp--how-to-shorten-your-college-essay-without-ruining-it
• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/style/ccs_activevoice/
• ↑ https://wordcounter.net/blog/2016/01/26/101025_how-to-reduce-essay-word-count.html

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

D. L. Smith

Sep 9, 2019

Did this article help you?

Aug 15, 2023

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

Academic Test Guide

Essay on My Favourite Scientist in English For Students

We are Sharing an Essay on My Favourite Scientist in English for students. In this article, we have tried our best to provide a Short essay on My Favourite Scientist for Class 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 in 100, 250, 300, 400, 500 words.

My Favourite Scientist Essay

Science is a search for knowledge regarding the nature of the universe. Scientists devote their whole life to searching for the answers as to how certain things happen. Scientists carry out experiments to test their theories and observations, and then make conclusions that become laws of science.

Different scientists have carried out observations and experiments and discovered different things. For example, Sir Issac Newton discovered the force of gravity, the Wright brothers invented the aeroplane and Thomas Alva Edison has a number of inventions to his credit.

My favourite scientist is Edison (1847-1931). He was a famous American inventor whose inventions have had a dramatic effect on modern life. As a boy, he sold newspapers at railroad stations and learnt how to use the telegraph machine for sending messages. It was during these years as a telegraphist that he invented many electrical gadgets. People began to pay for his inventions and his fame spread. In 1876 he moved to Mento Park, New Jersey and the world came to know him as the “Wizard of Mento Park”. A year later he invented the phonograph or record player.

In 1879 he invented one of the most useful of things -the electric light bulb. The arc light used in his time was costly and could not be used on a large scale. He thought of a filament that could produce light when charged with electricity. He tried various materials but they were soon burnt out. He finally obtained a special type for the purpose. The lamp he now made burnt for several days and nights. The invention was perfected and today there is light not only in the streets but in every house. Edison truly converted the darkness of night into light.

Another great contribution that Edison made to the world of science is his work on cinematography.

Edison has more than 1,100 inventions to his credit and it is impossible to mention all of them. Edison is certainly a scientist to be revered, for his inventions have now not only become indispensable to mankind but have served as a stepping stone for advanced research.

# Speech | Paragraph on My Favourite Scientist # composition & Article on My Favourite Scientist

Dear viewers, Hope you like this article Essay on My Favourite Scientist in English, Please let us know by commenting below.

10 Lines on APJ Abdul Kalam

Science and Religion Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

• Sign in / Register

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Scientist Spotlight Homework Assignments Shift Students’ Stereotypes of Scientists and Enhance Science Identity in a Diverse Introductory Science Class

• Jeffrey N. Schinske
• Heather Perkins
• Amanda Snyder

Biology Department, De Anza College, Cupertino, CA 95014

Search for more papers by this author

Psychology Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

Research into science identity, stereotype threat, and possible selves suggests a lack of diverse representations of scientists could impede traditionally underserved students from persisting and succeeding in science. We evaluated a series of metacognitive homework assignments (“Scientist Spotlights”) that featured counterstereotypical examples of scientists in an introductory biology class at a diverse community college. Scientist Spotlights additionally served as tools for content coverage, as scientists were selected to match topics covered each week. We analyzed beginning- and end-of-course essays completed by students during each of five courses with Scientist Spotlights and two courses with equivalent homework assignments that lacked connections to the stories of diverse scientists. Students completing Scientist Spotlights shifted toward counterstereotypical descriptions of scientists and conveyed an enhanced ability to personally relate to scientists following the intervention. Longitudinal data suggested these shifts were maintained 6 months after the completion of the course. Analyses further uncovered correlations between these shifts, interest in science, and course grades. As Scientist Spotlights require very little class time and complement existing curricula, they represent a promising tool for enhancing science identity, shifting stereotypes, and connecting content to issues of equity and diversity in a broad range of STEM classrooms.

INTRODUCTION

Whether or not we consciously register the impacts of this messaging, we are regularly bombarded with information regarding the types of people who work in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). From television shows and movies to websites, news articles, and advertisements, the media recurrently conveys images of who does science, more often than not showcasing a relatively narrow view of science and scientists. Setting the media aside, perhaps we need look no further than our own classrooms to understand the ways scientists are portrayed. Many students are likely to get their earliest and most direct experiences with “real” scientists when attending college STEM classes—classes taught by a mostly white, mostly male faculty nationwide ( National Science Foundation, 2013 ). Our textbooks, in the very rare instances they connect content to discussions of specific scientists, can tend to focus the most attention on individuals matching common scientist stereotypes (e.g., Darwin and Mendel in Reece et al. , 2014 ). Even our classrooms themselves may, through their physical layouts and decorations, convey messages regarding who can participate in STEM ( Cheryan et al. , 2009 ). We might wonder, then, what are the impacts of these recurrent messages on students enrolled in postsecondary STEM classes, particularly in the increasingly diverse classroom environments of the United States? And what, if anything, might faculty do in response to this messaging?

Scientist Stereotypes Impact Persistence and Success in STEM by Influencing Science Identity, Sense of Belonging, and Stereotype Threat

The messages we convey to students, either intentionally or unintentionally, regarding who does science can influence students’ stereotypes of scientists. Many lines of evidence point to the importance of these stereotypes in shaping students’ sense of belonging in STEM, with implications for persistence and success in STEM programs. For example, stereotypical representations of scientists in the media ( Tanner, 2009 ; Cheryan et al. , 2013 ; DeWitt et al. , 2013 ; Martin, 2015 ) and in classroom decorations ( Cheryan et al. , 2009 ) have the potential to reduce interest in STEM fields among women and people of color. On the other hand, a variety of studies suggest students are more likely to pursue majors and careers in STEM if they agree with certain “positive” stereotypes of scientists ( Beardslee and O’Dowd, 1961 ; Wyer, 2003 ; Schneider, 2010 ). Our own work further suggests that holding counterstereotypical images of scientists might be an important factor in predicting success in science classes ( Schinske et al. , 2015 ).

These findings illustrate the importance of science identity, a sense of belonging, and stereotype threat in determining persistence and success in STEM classes. Identity refers to the extent to which we view ourselves as a particular “kind of person” ( Gee, 2000 ), with science identity more specifically referring to whether we see ourselves as scientists. If students hold stereotypes that portray scientists as a different “kind of person” than themselves, those students might conclude they are not “science people.” This mismatch between a student’s personal sense of identity and a science identity can hamper persistence in STEM ( Seymour and Hewitt, 1997 ; Brickhouse et al. , 2000 ). Harboring views of scientists that differ from students’ perceptions of themselves could also cause students to feel as though they do not belong in science. The extent to which students feel a sense of belonging similarly correlates with levels of achievement and motivation in school settings ( Goodenow, 1993 ; Roeser et al. , 1996 ).

Feeling that one differs from stereotypical descriptions of people in a particular field of study can additionally hinder achievement in that field due to stereotype threat. Under stereotype threat, students harbor an often subconscious fear of confirming a negative stereotype about their groups ( Steele, 1997 ). For example, students of color, women, and first-generation college students might fear confirming a stereotype that their groups are not good at science due to a perception that scientists are white men from privileged, highly educated backgrounds. This threat can undermine engagement and performance, even among students who are otherwise well qualified academically ( Steele, 1997 ). Even subtle cues involving a lack of women or people of color visually represented in an academic environment or on a flyer can trigger dramatic reductions in interest and performance due to stereotype threat ( Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev, 2000 ; Purdie-Vaughns et al. , 2008 ). More specific to science contexts, stereotype threat has been described as a significant factor in predicting interest, persistence, and success in STEM majors, especially for women and students of color ( Hill et al. , 2010 , chap. 3; Beasley and Fischer, 2012 ). Interventions that remove the conditions that trigger stereotype threat can reduce or even entirely eliminate achievement gaps between women and men or between students of color and white students in test scores and course grades (e.g., Steele and Aronson, 1995 ; Good et al. , 2003 ; Cohen et al. , 2006 ).

What Can Faculty Do in STEM Classes to Broaden the Image of the Scientist?

Given the evidence suggesting that stereotypes of scientists impact persistence and success in STEM, efforts to feature counterstereotypical images of scientists have the potential to narrow equity gaps and broaden participation in STEM. Stereotypes of scientists are malleable ( Cheryan et al. , 2015 ), and previous work suggests that providing counterstereotypical messaging could enhance interest and success in STEM among underserved populations of students ( McIntyre et al. , 2004 ; Steinke et al. , 2009 ; Cheryan et al. , 2013 ).

One common strategy for introducing counterstereotypical images of scientists to students is to increase the prevalence and visibility of diverse STEM “role models”—individuals who students may choose to emulate. Marx and Roman (2002) describe how role models are chosen through “selective, social comparison whereby certain attributes are copied and others are excluded.” Because comparisons of social similarity may involve the visible personal characteristics of potential role models, many studies have focused on the potential benefits of gender- or race/ethnic-matched role models. For example, the presence of female role models has served to mitigate stereotype threat and boost math performance among female students ( Marx and Roman, 2002 ; Marx and Ko, 2012 ). In terms of race/ethnicity, both white and nonwhite students tend to select race/ethnic-matched career role models ( Karunanayake and Nauta, 2004 ), and having a race/ethnic-matched instructor role model has been shown to correlate with student success ( Dee, 2004 ; Fairlie et al. , 2011 ).

While these results would suggest placing a priority on seeking out gender/race/ethnic-matched role models for STEM students, other studies have failed to find distinct benefits of role models who match students’ own races/ethnicities and genders ( Ehrenberg et al. , 1995 ; Maylor, 2009 ; Phelan, 2010 ). Perhaps explaining these discrepancies, Marx and Roman (2002) point out that the attributes important to seek in a role model will ultimately be those attributes of importance to the individual choosing the role model (e.g., the attributes considered important by students). Because social identities are informed by many different factors, and individuals have multiple identities that resonate in different contexts ( Gee, 2000 ), it might be difficult to predict which role model attributes will be most important in encouraging students to form a science identity. Buck et al . (2008) provide guidance in this area in finding that students needed to identify someone “who cared about them and shared common interest/experiences” in order for role models to be effective. This work implies that faculty interested in enhancing students’ science identity and sense of belonging in STEM should, in addition to identifying diverse role models in terms of gender/race/ethnicity, place a priority on featuring individuals to whom students might personally relate, based on interests and experiences.

Moving from Identifying Role Models to Showcasing Possible Selves

The concept of “possible selves” might represent a more useful and precise way to think of counterstereotypical examples than does the concept of “role modeling.” Possible selves refer to everything that each of us “is tempted to call by the name of me ” ( James, 2005 ) or the set of “individually significant hopes, fears, and fantasies” that define oneself ( Markus and Nurius, 1986 ). Individuals can reflect upon their own possible selves, and these possible selves are understood to influence motivation and future behavior ( Markus and Nurius, 1986 ). Students weigh their possible selves in constructing school identities, and these interactions between possible selves and academic identities mediate the potency of stereotype threat ( Steele, 1997 ; Oyserman et al. , 2006 ). Possible selves more specifically play an important role in the development of a science identity ( Hunter, 2010 ), and students’ “possible science selves” might help explain career choices in STEM ( Steinke et al. , 2009 ; Mills, 2014 ). Taken together, this implies students’ science identities and resistance to stereotype threat might be enhanced if they see their own their own possible selves reflected in STEM. This highlights a subtle but important difference between the concepts of role models and possible selves. Compared with featuring scientist role models that represent people students are expected to become more like , seeing one’s possible self in a scientist would involve seeing someone in science you already are like .

Goals and Scope of This Study

Given the evidence that counterstereotypical perceptions of scientists are important in diverse science classrooms ( Schinske et al. , 2015 ) and that viewing one’s possible selves in science might enhance science identity ( Hunter, 2010 ; Mills, 2014 ) and mitigate stereotype threat ( Oyserman et al. , 2006 ), we developed and evaluated a classroom intervention to introduce students to counterstereotypical examples of scientists. In evaluating the intervention, which we call “Scientist Spotlights” (see Methods ), we sought to explore the following four hypotheses.

Below we review the development of the Scientist Spotlight intervention, the study context, and our mixed-methods analysis of student essays and quantitative surveys to evaluate the intervention.

Development of Scientist Spotlights in a Diverse Community College Biology Classroom

We developed Scientist Spotlights as regular, out-of-class assignments both to introduce counterstereotypical examples of scientists and to assist in the coverage of course content while requiring little class/grading time. Featured scientists were selected to 1) present diverse perspectives on who scientists are and how science is done and 2) match the content areas being covered at the time of each assignment. In each Scientist Spotlight, students reviewed a resource regarding the scientist’s research (e.g., a journal article or popular science article) and a resource regarding the scientist’s personal history (e.g., an interview, Story Collider podcast, or TED Talk). Because these assignments included the review of materials that introduced course content to students, they replaced weekly textbook readings. One of the Scientist Spotlights assigned to students read as follows:

Ben Barres is a Stanford professor of neurobiology. He studies diseases related to signaling in the nervous system, and in particular the roles of supporting cells around neurons. Dr. Barres is also a leader in science equity and the effort to address gender gaps. He is uniquely positioned to address these issues, since he has presented both as a female and a male scientist at different times in his career.

View the Wall Street Journal article about Ben Barres by clicking here ( Begley, 2006 ).

Then, review Dr. Barres’ article in the journal Nature by clicking here ( Allen and Barres, 2009 )

(If you are interested in hearing more from Ben Barres, you can search for him on YouTube. He has some videos on his research and also on his experiences as a transgender person.)

After reviewing these resources, write a 350 word or more reflection with your responses to what you saw. You might wish to discuss:

What was most interesting or most confusing about the articles you read about Dr. Barres?

What can you learn about neuron signaling (action potentials, synapses, supporting cells) from these articles?

What do these articles tell you about the types of people that do science?

What new questions do you have after reviewing these articles?

The above example was assigned before a unit on neuron signaling and therefore assisted in the introduction of content in that area. The writing prompts were aimed at creating opportunities for metacognition ( Tanner, 2012 ). Prompts changed slightly from one assignment to the next, but the third prompt about the “types of people that do science” was always included. A photograph of the featured scientist was also included with each assignment. Students submitted responses to Scientist Spotlights through an online course-management system (Moodle), and submissions were scored only for timeliness and word count.

Study Design

We used a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent-groups design ( Shadish et al. , 2002 ; Trochim, 2006 ) to evaluate Scientist Spotlights in a Human Biology course at a diverse community college during the Fall 2013–Fall 2015 academic terms. Human Biology is a one-quarter lecture/lab general education course open to any student, but targeting transfer students and those with interests in human health careers. Students in five sections of Human Biology during that time period completed Scientist Spotlights on a weekly basis (hereafter “Scientist Spotlight Homework” students). Each Scientist Spotlight was worth 10 points, so the assignments ( n = 10) contributed a total of 100 points to the final course grade (865 points in the whole course). Efforts were made to attend to multiple axes of diversity when selecting scientists to feature, with special attention to the racial/ethnic diversity of students in these classes. Half of the weeks featured female scientists and seven out of 10 weeks featured at least one nonwhite scientist. Occasionally, more than one scientist was featured during a Scientist Spotlight assignment. Selected scientists represented diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, gender identities, interests outside science, paths to careers in science, temperaments, ages, sexual orientations, and countries of origin. Supplemental Material, part A, lists the names of individuals featured in Scientist Spotlights during this study. The full set of 10 Scientist Spotlight assignments, including readings and resources, is available by request to the corresponding author.

During the same time period, students in two sections of Human Biology did not perform Scientist Spotlights. Instead, those students completed comparable metacognitive online assignments (example in Supplemental Material, part B) based on popular science articles and journal articles compiled in a course reader (hereafter “Course Reader Homework” students). Although no explicit instruction regarding scientist stereotypes took place in these classes, three scientists were briefly discussed during lecture presentations. An African-American female scientist (Jewel Plummer Cobb), a white male scientist (Neil Shubin), and a Japanese male scientist (Masayasu Kojima) were all mentioned during class while highlighting certain research findings related to course content. Students saw photographs of all three scientists and watched brief videos featuring Dr. Cobb and Dr. Shubin but did not perform any individual/group work or metacognitive activities surrounding these scientists.

Quasi-experimental approaches, by definition, lack randomization in assigning participants to groups ( Shadish et al. , 2002 ; Trochim, 2006 ). As such, students self-selected into Human Biology course sections and the instructor (J.N.S.) selected sections in which to implement Scientist Spotlight versus Course Reader Homework. While nonrandom assignment to groups can limit researchers’ ability to infer causal connections between interventions and outcomes, quasi-experimental approaches can still provide robust and valuable insights and offer advantages over randomized experiments in certain contexts ( Shadish et al. , 2002 ). We attempted to ensure as much equivalence as possible between groups in that all classes adhered to the same curricular expectations, were taught at similar times of the day in similarly arranged classrooms, and used the same types of in-class activities. The same faculty member (J.N.S.) served as instructor for all of the course sections involved in this study, though one Course Reader Homework section was cotaught by another faculty member. We controlled for various student-level differences between groups during statistical analyses and used these “weighted means” in evaluating our hypotheses (see Methods and Supplemental Material, part E). It should be noted that, in the analyses that follow, we consider students as the experimental units. This was considered most appropriate in this instance, because Scientist Spotlights were designed to interact with individual students in different ways, raising interest in students as individual observations. We do, however, control for course section in analyses to account for trends based on grouping at the class level.

Student Population

This work was conducted at a large (∼22,000 students) California community college that is a designated Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–Serving Institution (AANAPISI). The majority (59%) of students come from low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) families and the majority (66.2%) indicate the educational goal of transferring to a 4-year institution. Approximately 20% of Human Biology students state the intention of majoring in biology. Forty-six percent of students report that Human Biology is the first college science class they have taken, and 13% of students report that Human Biology is the first science class they have ever taken at any level.

A total of 364 students initially enrolled in the five sections of Human Biology that completed Scientist Spotlight Homework ( x = 73 students per class). One hundred thirty-nine students initially enrolled in the Course Reader Homework sections ( x = 70 students per class). However, 26 students from Scientist Spotlight Homework classes and 13 students from Course Reader Homework classes dropped the course within the first 2 weeks of class, leaving 338 students as the final enrollment for Scientist Spotlight Homework sections and 126 students in Course Reader Homework sections.

The table in the Supplemental Material, part C, compares the demographic characteristics of students in these classes. We defined “underserved” racial/ethnic groups as those groups that have persistently entered STEM majors at lower rates compared with their prevalence on campus and experienced comparatively lower success rates in STEM classes. This included students identifying as Latino/a, Black, Native American, Filipino/a, Pacific Islander, and Southeast Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Indonesian). The majority of Scientist Spotlight and Course Reader Homework students identify as members of underserved groups (Supplemental Material, part C). Students in these Human Biology classes identified 25 different first languages spoken, with English, Spanish, and Vietnamese representing the most common first languages spoken.

Assessment of Scientist Stereotypes and Possible Science Selves through Short-Essay Surveys

In evaluating Scientist Spotlights, we used a mixed-methods approach in which we reviewed short-essay responses from students for context and themes and then coded student responses into categories for quantitative analysis. Two essay prompts were used. The first prompt was designed to address hypothesis 1 by eliciting students’ stereotypes of scientists. This prompt read, “Based on what you know now, describe the types of people that do science. If possible, refer to specific scientists and what they tell you about the types of people that do science” (hereafter “stereotypes prompt”). This prompt was described and its validity was explored by Schinske et al. (2015) . The second prompt was developed as an exploratory method for assessing students’ possible selves in science. That is, assessing whether students perceived scientists as reflecting their possible selves, and if so, what aspects of themselves they saw reflected in scientists (hypothesis 2). We chose to approach this topic by surveying the extent to which students could “personally relate” to scientists. The prompt consisted of the challenge statement: “I know of one or more important scientist to whom I can personally relate,” followed by a Likert scale including “agree,” “somewhat agree,” “somewhat disagree,” “disagree,” and “I don’t know.” Following the Likert scale, students were instructed: “Please explain your opinion of the statement” (hereafter “relatability prompt”). This prompt was developed and face validity was established through multiple quarters of testing in class and informal talk-aloud trials with students. Even though an “I don’t know” response was essentially the same as “disagree” when students responded whether they knew of one or more relatable scientists (see also Results ), we found it important to include an “I don’t know” option. Some students were more comfortable circling “I don’t know” than “disagree,” which sounded like a “wrong” answer to them.

These two prompts were printed on one side of a sheet of paper, so students had approximately half a sheet to respond to each prompt. J.N.S. provided the surveys to students on the first and last days of each Human Biology course, telling students, “I am very interested in students’ ideas about science and scientists, so I appreciate you taking 5–10 min to respond to these prompts. There are absolutely no right or wrong answers and there’s nothing I would like more than to see many different thoughts on the topic. Your responses will not be graded and will not be reviewed in connection with your name.” Though responses were not graded, students received five points (out of 865 course points) for participating and completing surveys. When looking for shifts in attitudes about scientists in these surveys, only papers from students who submitted both beginning- and end-of-course responses were considered. As preliminary results suggested students in Scientist Spotlight Homework classes were adopting new attitudes regarding scientist stereotypes and the relatability of scientists, we were interested in whether those shifts would be maintained over time. To assess these shifts longitudinally, J.N.S. sent an online survey that included the stereotypes and relatability prompts to Scientist Spotlight Homework students approximately 6 months after the end of class.

Analysis of Students’ Descriptions of Scientists

We anonymized and randomized student papers and followed the procedures of Schinske et al. (2015) to categorize responses to the stereotypes prompt. While reviewing student responses, we recorded the words, phrases, and names students used to describe scientists, and tallied the frequencies of those descriptions among the papers. Exemplar quotes were selected to represent the most common themes and provide context. Pseudonyms were used in place of student names to protect anonymity. Students’ descriptions of scientists were then coded as Stereotypes , Nonstereotypes , or Fields of Science . Following our previous work ( Schinske et al. , 2015 ), we defined Stereotypes as any widely represented descriptions of scientists matching stereotypes uncovered by Mead and Metraux (1957) . Nonstereotypes included less commonly used descriptions of scientists not reported in that previous work. Fields of Science included names of science fields or career types (e.g., biologist). We previously demonstrated that independent reviewers reliably code descriptions as Stereotypes (0.86 interrater correlation) and Nonstereotypes (0.89 interrater correlation; Schinske et al. , 2015 ). We recorded the number of descriptions from each category for each student, then converted those numbers into percentages out of total comments (e.g., percent of Stereotypes out of all comments) to partly control for differences in the lengths of responses between students.

Changes in the proportions of Stereotypes and Nonstereotypes were analyzed using repeated-measure analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA). Proportions of Stereotypes / Nonstereotypes acted as dependent variables, with time (beginning vs. end of course) and treatment (Scientist Spotlight Homework vs. Course Reader Homework) input as between-subjects factors. Gender, race/ethnicity (categorized as traditionally underserved vs. traditionally well served), and course section were used as covariates.

Analysis of Students’ Ability to Personally Relate to Scientists

We reviewed short-essay responses to the relatability prompt and transcribed each of students’ statements (e.g., “Don’t know any scientists,” “Relate to musician scientist,” “Relate to Rosalind Franklin”) into the top of a spreadsheet. As those statements reappeared in subsequent papers, we tallied the appearance of the statements in the spreadsheet. Exemplar quotes were selected to represent the most common themes and provide context for why students could or could not personally relate to scientists.

Changes in students’ relatability Likert-scale selections from the beginning to the end of the course, were analyzed using RM-ANCOVAs. Relatability Likert scores acted as the dependent variables, with time and treatment input as between-subjects factors. Gender, race/ethnicity, and course section were used as covariates.

Analysis of Student Interest in Science and Collection of Demographic Information

The exploration of hypothesis 3 required comparing shifts in students’ stereotypes of scientists and ability to relate to scientists to shifts in science interest. To monitor student interest, during the first and the last weeks of class, students completed an online survey (Supplemental Material, part D). The survey included eight quantitative items adapted from the Student Assessment of their Learning Gains Survey ( Seymour et al ., 2000 ), which were reshaped into the “Science Interest” scale. Students responded to prompts such as “Presently I am enthusiastic about this subject” on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “not at all” to “a great deal.” Supplemental Material, parts G and H, provide details regarding how the Science Interest scale was derived from these items. In separate questions, students indicated whether they were majoring in biology or another STEM field and whether they had taken previous science classes (Supplemental Material, part D). As we also wished to look for interactions involving student demographics, the final page of the surveys asked students to identify their gender and racial/ethnic identities and first spoken language. Students received five participation points (out of 865 course points) for completing these quantitative surveys.

Prior work suggested broader student outcomes, like grades and interest in science, relate to holding nonstereotypical views of scientists ( Schinske et al ., 2015 ) and developing possible science selves ( Steinke et al ., 2009 ; Mills, 2014 ). We therefore created categorical variables to distinguish students who exhibited these characteristics. Specifically, we compared end-of-course with beginning-of-course values to categorize students as either decreasing versus not decreasing in their proportion of Stereotypes , increasing versus not increasing in their proportion of Nonstereotypes , and increasing versus not increasing in relatability. The relationships between each of these categorical variables and Science Interest were tested in a 2 × 2 × 2 (categorical variable × stereotype change × time) RM-ANCOVA controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, course section, and past science class experience.

Analysis of Student Grades

Students’ course grades, expressed numerically (“A” = 4, “B” = 3, etc.), were included in analyses to explore correlations between Stereotypes , Nonstereotypes , relatability, and in-class achievement. As in tests for correlations involving interest in science, we used the categorical variables we generated for changes in Stereotypes , Nonstereotypes , and relatability in ANCOVAs to explore connections between those variables and course grades. These analyses controlled for gender, race/ethnicity, course section, and past science class experience.

All statistical analyses were performed in SPSS (SPSS for Windows, 19.0.0, IBM, Armonk, NY). To enhance clarity and readability, we present descriptive statistics and ANCOVA tables from our analyses in the Supplemental Material, parts E and F, rather than in the body of the article.

Hypothesis 1 Results: Scientist Spotlights Will Shift Students’ Descriptions of Scientists toward Nonstereotypes

Students’ weekly Scientist Spotlight responses suggested the assignments encouraged students to reflect on counterstereotypical examples of scientists while engaging with course content. Fernanda commented on her previous stereotypical ideas about scientists and discussed how Charles Limb counteracted those stereotypes by showing an interest in music and a life outside of science could contribute to a scientific career:

I was able to see scientists in a different perspective … I used to think scientists were mere geniuses who asked infinite, even unpredictable questions nobody had the time to research. I used to even think they were mere robots who ate, researched, and slept on a daily basis. Yet, they have a life of their own … I can tell Dr. Limb is a good musician whose love for the music stretched to his eagerness to learn about the brain.— Fernanda, a Latina student responding to the Scientist Spotlight on Charles Limb

Melissa noted that Raymond Dubois’s “humble beginnings” in an economically disadvantaged farming community represented a nontraditional path to science:

Dr. Dubois is such a unique person. He was born and raised to be a farmer, and didn’t have very much money or aspiration … He found science completely by accident and fell in love, and from such humble beginnings he became one of the country’s foremost experts in his field. It’s very impressive to see someone come from so traditionally unlikely a background and become so well-known for his work.— -Melissa, a white female student responding to the Scientist Spotlight on Raymond Dubois

Shifts toward counterstereotypical views of scientists were also apparent in beginning- and end-of-course surveys. Two hundred forty-five Scientist Spotlight Homework students and 84 Course Reader Homework students submitted both beginning- and end-of-course responses to the stereotypes prompt. This prompt stated, “Based on what you know now, describe the types of people that do science. If possible, refer to specific scientists and what they tell you about the types of people that do science.” Table 1 shows the most prevalent themes found in students’ responses at the beginning and end of the course for both Scientist Spotlight Homework and Course Reader Homework sections. Beginning-of-course responses consisted mostly of “positive” stereotypes of scientists ( Mead and Metraux, 1957 ). For example, Cynthia and Theresa voiced the common beginning-of-course opinion that scientists are highly intelligent/knowledgeable individuals:

People who are … very intelligent and can think outside the box [do science].— Cynthia, a white female Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Intelligent people also do science. People [who] are good at science and excel in math tend to be scientists, like Albert Einstein.— Theresa, a white female Course Reader Homework student

Shading and letters in parentheses denote categories of descriptions per Schinske et al. , 2015 : s/turquoise = Stereotype ; n/light green = Nonstereotype ; f/gray = Field of Science .

Matthew described scientists as innately curious:

I believe the types of people that do science are curious and doubtful. Scientists are innately curious and they question everything.— Matthew, a Vietnamese male Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Mei added a love of science as a possible inherent characteristic of scientists:

[Scientists] love science, at least the aspects that they work on … They know a lot in their field but they are still eager to learn more.— Mei, a Chinese female Course Reader Homework student

It appears that, at the beginning of the course, students largely identified scientists as having stereotypical, innate qualities, such as intelligence, proficiency in math, curiosity, and interest in their fields of study. Pamela similarly commented on scientists’ intelligence but also described one of the most common noninnate characteristics of scientists from the beginning of class. That is, scientists are people who do experiments or apply the scientific method:

[Scientists are] smart people that are crazy/confused. [They] study/research specific topics over long periods of time … create experiments and do labs.— -Pamela, a Black/Latina Scientist Spotlight Homework student

The stereotypes prompt asked students to name specific scientists to illustrate the types of people who do science. However, many students explicitly expressed a lack of familiarity with specific scientists at the beginning of the course. Albert Einstein was the most common specific scientist discussed by students, as exemplified by Theresa’s response presented earlier. Many students resorted to describing scientists simply as those individuals who participate in certain, named scientific fields or professions. For example,

The types of people who do science are teachers, professors, NASA workers, nurses, doctors, etc. NASA scientists use science to study space and the earth … Doctors use science to study the human body.— Carlos, a Latino Course Reader Homework student

By the end of the course, most students from Scientist Spotlight classes used Nonstereotypes to describe scientists ( Table 1A ). Tania reflected on the ways her views of scientists changed and stated that many scientists defy stereotypes of individuals in their fields. Rather, scientists are “normal people” like her:

Before I learned about scientists in this class, I thought scientists were like “nerds” or what they show in movies. The characters would be very geeky, had glasses, spoke monotone, and thought they were above everyone. However, through all the research I’ve done in this class, scientists are just normal people like myself. They love to learn new things, they have a life outside the laboratory, they are fun … My opinion of people that do science has completely changed thanks to this class.— Tania, a Filipina Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Felipe reported that people from diverse countries and socioeconomic backgrounds are scientists and that scientists did not all have an innate interest in the field from an early age:

The types of people that do science are all kinds of people. What I have learned through out this course is that it is possible to be a scientist under any circumstances, from poverty to being from a different country to having a stereotypical assumption about a person, for example a cheerleader. Anyone can be a scientist if they want to. One thing all scientists we learned about had in common was that they weren’t interested in science until something sparked their interest.— Felipe, a Latino Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Matthew agreed that scientists need not be initially interested in science, citing the example of Carl Djerassi:

The types of people that do science vary greatly. One scientist, Djerassi, in an interview said he had no interest in science as a kid, but he eventually grew up to be the scientist that created contraceptive pills for women.— Matthew, a Vietnamese male Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Maria more specifically called attention to the fact that race and sex are not determinants of an ability to be a scientist:

All types of people can do science … What I learned was that your background/sex/race doesn’t determine if you will become a scientist or not. It is all about the passion and love for knowledge that human beings have.— Maria, a Latina Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Cynthia, as well as Tania (noted earlier), pointed out that interests outside of science can be as important to scientists as an interest in science:

[Scientists] take their passion and often combine it with science. For example, the scientist that was looking at musician’s [ sic ] brains as they improvised music.— Cynthia, a white female Scientist Spotlight Homework student

The above responses made the argument that many different types of people, and perhaps all types of people, are scientists. Indeed, at the end of the course, the majority of students (55%) included descriptions of scientists fitting into at least one of the following categories: all types of people, not just one type of person, or go against stereotypes. The quotations from Cynthia and Matthew further demonstrated that, at the end of the course, many students had specific, counterstereotypical individuals in mind to inform their descriptions of scientists.

Matthew and Felipe pointed out that many scientists did not have an innate or early interest in science, and we no longer see references to scientists as especially intelligent in these exemplars. Given that we believe all of the scientists featured in Scientist Spotlights are very intelligent, we found it striking that “intelligent” and “smart” largely disappeared as ways to describe scientists ( Table 1A ). It appears that, while the featured scientists may still have been impressively smart, “intelligent” was no longer a significant defining feature of scientists in students’ minds. Rather, scientists were considered regular/normal people who happened to find their way to careers in science (responses of Matthew, Felipe, and Tania).

In contrast to the above findings from Scientist Spotlight students, Course Reader Homework students largely continued to use stereotypes and generalities to describe scientists at the end of the course ( Table 1B ). For example, Laila and Mei continued to describe scientists in terms of their special intelligence/knowledge:

People who work in science fields have absolutely incredible intelligence.— Laila, Indonesian female Course Reader Homework student

Scientists have to be up-to-date about research, medicine, diseases.— Mei, a Chinese female Course Reader Homework student

Carlos, like many other students in Course Reader Homework classes, continued to define scientists in nebulous terms through their fields/professions:

The types of people that do science are people that do astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, and geophysical science. There are NASA scientists that study space. Also there are scientists that study humans and their environment.— Carlos, a Latino Course Reader Homework student

Theresa reiterated the importance of curiosity from her beginning-of-course response:

All kinds of people do science, especially those who are really curious about a certain scientific topic. Men can be scientists as well as women … Albert Einstein is a very famous scientist.— Theresa, a white female Course Reader Homework student

Theresa and some other Course Reader Homework students did mention at the end of the course that all types of people do science, causing that description to increase in prevalence ( Table 1B ). It is interesting to note, however, that the remainder of Theresa’s end-of-course response was nearly identical to her beginning-of-course response—emphasizing curiosity and raising the same example of Albert Einstein. In other words, while a small number of Course Reader Homework students appear by the end of the course to be describing a more inclusive version of who does science, those students’ responses still lacked the specific examples and expanded descriptions of scientists we observed from Scientist Spotlight students.

In quantitatively analyzing these trends, an RM-ANCOVA revealed significant interactions between treatment and the use of Stereotypes , F (1,311) = 13.39, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.04, and Nonstereotypes , F (1,311) = 16.51, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.05. When looking solely at raw means, we observed all students using fewer Stereotypes at posttest, but Scientist Spotlight Homework students showed a sharper decrease, suggesting that the treatment produced a stronger decrease in Stereotype use. However, an analysis of weighted means to isolate the variability introduced by treatment condition from the variability introduced by race/ethnicity, gender, and course section, showed no significant differences in the decrease across groups. In terms of Nonstereotypes , both raw and weighted means show a significant increase among Scientist Spotlight students when compared with Course Reader Homework students ( Figure 1 and Supplemental Material, parts E and F). Therefore, when controlling for unequal group sizes and nonrandom assignment, our results suggested the completion of Scientist Spotlights was associated with increases in the use of Nonstereotypes in describing scientists.

Figure 1. Average percent of Nonstereotypes among descriptions of scientists at the beginning vs. end of the course for Course Reader Homework and Scientist Spotlight Homework classes. Graphs depict weighted means to control for unequal group sizes and nonrandom assignment of students to treatment. Error bars represent SE.

Hypothesis 2 Results: Scientist Spotlights Will Enhance Students’ Ability to Personally Relate to Scientists

Scientist Spotlight Homework submissions provided evidence of students encountering scientists to whom they could relate on a personal level. For example, Binh could relate to Flossie Wong-Staal and Juan Perilla because, like him, they were originally from outside the United States, albeit from countries different from his:

Another thing is scientists who are successful in the U.S. are not necessary [ sic ] born in the U.S. These scientists are both from another country but they’re really successful. It makes me more confident in becoming a scientist because no one in my family is a scientist and I’m not a U.S. citizen.— Binh, a Vietnamese male student responding to the Scientist Spotlight on Flossie Wong-Staal and Juan Perilla

On the other hand, Emily could relate to Charles Limb due to shared interests outside science:

I found this Ted Talk with Charles Limb incredibly interesting mostly because I am a musician myself who has been trained both classically and in jazz.— Emily, a white female student responding to the Scientist Spotlight on Charles Limb

Anthony found Agnes Day relatable due to their shared racial/ethnic identities and because of what she represents to people like him:

For my whole life I … wasn’t exposed to any scientist who was of African American descent. That, as a fellow African American, brought me joy as it shows that African Americans are no longer abiding to the negative stigma we have. She’s representing a powerful position for us and people have noticed her work. It gave me incentive to push for my own dreams and to succeed.— Anthony, a Black male student responding to the Scientist Spotlight on Agnes Day

Some of the resources students reviewed during Scientist Spotlights demonstrated that scientists experienced barriers, inequities, and marginalization or that science itself can include the study of social inequities (e.g., health disparities). These themes spurred many students, like Anthony, to connect with scientists through the lens of social justice. After learning about Ben Barres’s personal story and path in science, Maria discussed her views on gender equity in science and how that relates to her experience at her community college. She further compares what she learned about the biology content in this assignment (glial cells) with the plight of women in science:

The fact that there are considerably less women in science than men, is more of a socio-cultural problem, than a genetic or gender problem. Personally, I feel optimistic, yes we are the minority in science, and are paid less then men, and are discriminated against, but when I look around my community college I see many women succeeding, and unafraid to give the best of them[selves] … In a way glia cells are a little bit like the “women” of the nervous system; extremely important for the survival of the cells, form the majority of the nerve cells population, and are underestimated and perceived only as a “supporter” cell.— Maria, a Latina student responding to the Scientist Spotlight on Ben Barres

Gina responded to Agnes Day’s scientific work by proposing that the type of science that gets done might depend largely on the type of people doing the science. As a result, diversity in the sciences might be required in order to understand the importance of, and go on to pursue, certain research areas:

Dr. Day is one of the first to complete a study in cancer concerning the differences in race. If she was not African American I do not think that Dr. Day would understand the significance of her research … As a strong Black woman representing women and people of color in a White male driven field Dr. Day defies what I believed about people who do science. I wonder if the questions of science require diversity, collaboration and personal passions in order to be answered.— Gina, a Black/Native American female student responding to the Scientist Spotlight on Agnes Day

Beginning- and end-of-course responses to the relatability prompt additionally demonstrated distinct shifts in an ability to personally relate to scientists. Two hundred eight Scientist Spotlight Homework students and 86 Course Reader Homework students submitted both beginning- and end-of-course responses to the relatability prompt. The sample size for this prompt was smaller than that for the stereotypes prompt, since it took longer to develop and establish face validity for this prompt. As a result, it was only presented at both time points to four of the five sections of Scientist Spotlight students. The final relatability prompt stated: “I know of one or more important scientist to whom I can personally relate,” which was followed by a Likert scale and a space for qualitatively explaining the opinion selected. An “I don’t know” option was included in the Likert scale and was coded as “Disagree” based on the qualitative explanations provided by students selecting “I don’t know” (e.g., “I honestly only know of one [scientist] and I’m nothing like him”).

Only 35% of students in Scientist Spotlight Homework classes and 36% in the Course Reader Homework classes either agreed or somewhat agreed with the relatability prompt at the start of the course, indicating that students did not generally feel they could relate to scientists. Students’ beginning-of-course responses regarding their ability to relate to scientists fell into two main categories. First, as exemplified by the responses of Jesus and Evelyn, many students explicitly affirmed that they were unable to relate to scientists:

I Don’t Know. I truly am terrible at relating to people that are involved with science or math.— Jesus, a Latino Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Disagree. I don’t personally relate to any scientist as most of my friends and family members are not scientists.— Evelyn, a Chinese female Course Reader Homework student

Ademar and Beth clarified that this was often because students lacked familiarity with any actual scientists:

Disagree. I personally don’t know any scientist, and sometimes I cannot see myself having the personal qualities of a scientist.— Ademar, a Latino Course Reader Homework student

I Don’t Know. I’m not very familiar with scientists or their names and studies.— Beth, a Black/Latina female Course Reader Homework student

Second, among the few students who indicated at the beginning of the course they could personally relate to scientists, many, like Yvette, explained this was simply because they appreciated the types of work scientists did:

Somewhat Agree. I am knowledgeable of various scientists but I don’t feel personally relatable to them. I appreciate their work and what it has done to better inform us as a society.— Yvette, a Latina Scientist Spotlight Homework student

At end of the course, 79% of Scientist Spotlight Homework students agreed or somewhat agreed that they could personally relate to an important scientist. These students’ end-of-course explanations differed markedly from their beginning-of-course responses and included many details as evidence for relating to (or not relating to) scientists. Two main themes arose as reasons students related to scientists at the end of the course. First, many students found they could relate to scientists due to shared interests or personal qualities. Lauren described how she could relate to Charles Limb due to common interests surrounding music:

Agree. I relate the most with the neurologist/musician from the first scientist spotlight … because I am also a musician.— Lauren, a white female Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Jesus, on the other hand, related to Lawrence David due to a shared sense of humor, an interest in making others laugh, and a similar work ethic:

Somewhat Agree. I can relate to that one scientist who interacted with poop. I loved his sense of humor and drive to complete an experiment … I know that I can relate to him because I love being funny to make people smile and also am determined to work on things until I finish.— Jesus, a Latino Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Second, some students found scientists relatable if the scientists did not originally expect to enter a career in science. Yvette found she could relate to many of the scientists for this reason and further explains that she is similarly reconsidering her interest in studying science:

Somewhat Agree. In some of the spotlights some scientists felt that they didn’t always want to pursue a career in science and that it just happens. I’m starting to feel the same way. I’m not originally a science major but I feel that I could have a future in it if I find the right field.— Yvette, a Latina Scientist Spotlight Homework student

While a less common theme, seeing scientists with matching genders or races/ethnicities was important in making them relatable for some students, like Rachel:

Somewhat Agree. Although I might not be that interested in pursuing a career in science, being exposed to a wide variety of diverse scientists, I feel like I could go into this field if I wanted to. Many of the scientists we learned about were women and many were a race other than White. These are both characteristics I would use to describe myself.— Rachel, a Filipina Scientist Spotlight Homework student

Others, like Tammy, indicated that it made scientists more relatable to see they have encountered similar struggles or injustices in life:

Agree. I can relate the most to Ben Barres because of the obvious discrimination he received as a woman. Being the older sister of a very bright brother, I am often compared to him and overlooked for my intelligence. Unless it comes from him, my opinion is just that of a woman.— Tammy, a Black/Native American female Scientist Spotlight Homework student

As seen in earlier quotes, many students at the end of the course were able to name or describe specific scientists in their responses, suggesting greater familiarity. Of course, this familiarity did not always result in relatability. Amit simply could not envision himself having the same passion for science:

Disagree. In our scientist spotlights, all the scientists came from very different backgrounds. However, they all liked science very much. I can’t relate to that. I don’t have any particular disdain for science, but I don’t enjoy it. I do think it is very important, however.— Amit, an Asian Indian male Scientist Spotlight Homework student

This presented a barrier to finding scientists relatable, even when recognizing the featured scientists were very diverse. On the other hand, notable shifts in qualitative responses toward an increased ability to relate to scientists were sometimes observed even among students whose Likert-scale relatability selections did not change (e.g., Yvette, who selected “somewhat agree” at both the beginning and end of the course).

Only 43% of Course Reader Homework students agreed or somewhat agreed with the relatability prompt at the end of the course. End-of-course qualitative responses from these students were strikingly similar to their beginning-of-course responses, with many students, like Evelyn and Beth, using language identical to what they had written at the beginning of the course:

I Don’t Know. None of my friends or family members are scientists.— Evelyn, a Chinese female Course Reader Homework student

Somewhat Disagree. I am not very familiar with scientists.— Beth, a Black/Latina female Course Reader Homework student

Responses reiterated beginning-of-course themes that most students could not relate to, and did not even know of, any scientists. This was in spite of the fact that some scientists were introduced as part of certain lectures during Course Reader Homework classes (see Methods ).

Following an RM-ANCOVA, we observed an interaction between treatment × time for relatability Likert-scale ratings on the relatability prompt, F (1,276) = 8.49, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.03. Course Reader Homework students’ end-of-course relatability Likert scores did not differ significantly from their beginning-of-course scores, while Scientist Spotlight students’ end-of-course relatability scores were significantly higher than both their own beginning-of-course scores and Course Reader Homework participants’ end-of-course scores ( Figure 2 and Supplemental Material, parts E and F). Quantitative results therefore support the hypothesis that Scientist Spotlights increase students’ sense of relating to scientists.

Figure 2. Average relatability Likert-scale selections by students at the beginning vs. end of the course for Scientist Spotlight Homework and Course Reader Homework classes. Graphs depict weighted means to control for unequal group sizes and nonrandom assignment of students to treatment. Error bars represent SE.

Evidence Regarding Longitudinal Impacts of Scientist Spotlights on Stereotypes and Relatability

Fifty-seven Scientist Spotlight Homework students submitted a response to the stereotypes prompt 6 months after the end of their courses (17% response rate). Of those, 47 had submitted responses to the stereotypes prompt at all three time points (beginning of term, end of term, 6 months after class). Fifty-two students submitted a response to the relatability prompt 6 months after the end of their courses (15% response rate). Of those, 27 had submitted responses to the relatability prompt at all three time points. As the community college student population is in constant flux, with students transferring to 4-year schools or professional programs, moving between colleges, and entering and exiting school at various times due to work and family obligations, we were not surprised by the modest response rate to a survey 6 months after the end of class. In spite of these lower sample sizes, however, this 6-month follow-up subsample appeared to match the larger sample in terms of demographics. Three independent t tests for gender, race/ethnicity (traditionally underserved vs. traditionally well served), and condition demonstrated that gender, t (279) = −0.655, p = 0.513, and race/ethnicity, t (69.87) = 0.908, p = 0.367, were similar between the 6-month follow-up sample and the larger, original sample.

Six months after the end of class, students appear to have maintained the largely nonstereotypical ideas about scientists they displayed at the end of the course. Table 2 shows the most prevalent themes found in responses to the stereotypes prompt from students who submitted essays at all three time points. We additionally created word clouds to visually convey the full range of scientist descriptions at each time point (Supplemental Material, part I). Descriptions of scientists as representing many/all types of people remained the most common theme in the 6-month postclass responses. Students additionally continued to describe scientists as individuals who defy stereotypes, and the idea that scientists have “special intelligence” continued to be relatively rare. Fifty-seven percent of students included descriptions of scientists fitting into at least one of the following categories 6 months after the course: all types of people, not just one type of person, and go against stereotypes.

Shading and letters in parentheses denote categories of descriptions per Schinske et al ., 2015 : s/turquoise = Stereotype ; n/light green = Nonstereotype ; f/gray = Field of Science .

Three-way RM-ANCOVAs controlling for gender and race/ethnicity (Supplemental Material, parts E and F) showed that stereotypical descriptions dropped significantly at the end of the course and remained low 6 months later, F (2,78) = 4.36, p = 0.016, η 2 = 0.10 ( Figure 3a ). Nonstereotypical descriptions increased significantly at the end of the course and remained high 6 months later, F (2,80) = 5.97, p = 0.004, η 2 = 0.13 ( Figure 3b ). Relatability similarly increased at the end of the course and remained high 6 months later, though in this case the initial increase was detected at a p value of 0.083, F (2,46) = 2.63, p = 0.083, η 2 = 0.10 ( Figure 3c ). This was likely because of the smaller sample size available for the relatability prompt.

Figure 3. Average percent of Stereotypes (a), percent of Nonstereo­types (b), and relatability Likert-scale selections (c) in Scientist Spotlight students’ responses at the beginning of the course, end of the course, and 6 months following the end of the course. Error bars represent SE.

Hypothesis 3: Shifts in Scientist Stereotypes and Relatability of Scientists Will Correlate with Students’ Interest in Science

We calculated both beginning- and end-of-course Science Interest scores (Supplemental Material, parts G and H) for each student. To test the relationship between shifts in Science Interest and shifts toward majoring in STEM fields, we conducted a 2 × 2 (Science Interest × STEM major interest) RM-ANCOVA controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, course section, and prior science class experience. Values for STEM major interest came from the online survey item “I am majoring or plan on majoring in another Science or Math field” (Supplemental Material, part D). A significant interaction for Science Interest was found, F (1,216) = 10.39, p = 0.001, η 2 = 0.05, in which students whose Science Interest decreased or held steady showed a significant decrease in STEM major interest from pretest ( x = 3.70, SE = 0.16) to posttest ( x = 3.43, SE = 0.18), while students whose Science Interest increased reported more STEM major interest at posttest ( x = 3.34, SE = 0.16) than at pretest ( x = 3.74, SE = 0.18).

RM-ANCOVAs using the Science Interest scale (Supplemental Material, parts E and F) revealed that a decrease in the use of Stereotypes correlated with higher Science Interest at the end of the course, F (1,182) = 4.46, p = 0.036, η 2 = 0.02 ( Figure 4a ). We found a similar relationship between an increase in the use of Nonstereotypes and Science Interest that approached significance, F (1,182) = 3.32, p = 0.070, η 2 = 0.02 ( Figure 4b ). Science Interest additionally appeared to increase from beginning of course ( x = 3.287, SE = 0.076) to end of course ( x = 3.568, SE = 0.061) for students whose ability to relate to scientists increased, but this finding did not achieve statistical significance, F (1,184) = 2.10, p = 0.149, η 2 = 0.01. In total, these results provide partial support for the hypothesized relationship between shifts in scientist stereotypes/relatability and an interest in science/STEM majors.

Figure 4. Relationships between changes in Stereotypes (a) and Nonstereotypes (b) to changes in Science Interest from the beginning of the course to the end of the course.

Hypothesis 4: Shifts in Scientist Stereotypes and Relatability of Scientists Will Correlate with Course Grades

As a first step, we tested whether the treatment had an effect on course grades. A one-way ANCOVA, controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, course section, and previous science class experience, revealed that Scientist Spotlight Homework students earned significantly higher grades than Course Reader Homework students, F (1,279) = 6.68, p = 0.018, η 2 = 0.02 ( Figure 5a and Supplemental Material, parts E and F).

Figure 5. Average course grades (0 = “F,” 4 = “A”) for Scientist Spotlight Homework students vs. Course Reader Homework students (a) and for students whose proportion of Nonstereotype descriptions of scientists increased vs. did not increase (b). Error bars represent SE.

Additional analyses were limited to Scientist Spotlight Homework students to prevent confounds introduced by the treatment. One-way ANCOVAs suggested there was not a significant effect for the use of Stereotypes on grades, F (1,211) = 3.00, p = 0.085, η 2 = 0.01, but there was a significant effect of Nonstereotypes , F (1,211) = 6.68, p = 0.010, η 2 = 0.03. Students whose use of Nonstereotypes increased earned significantly higher course grades than those whose use of Nonstereotypes held steady or decreased ( Figure 5b and Supplemental Material, parts E and F). To test the relationship between relatability and course grade, we compared students whose relatability ratings increased, those whose relatability ratings decreased, and those whose ratings held steady. A one-way ANCOVA controlling for race/ethnicity, gender, course section, and science experience, suggested the grades of students whose ratings decreased ( x = 2.59, SE = 0.24) were lower than students whose ratings held steady ( x = 2.79, SE = 0.15) or increased ( x = 3.01, SE = 0.10). However, the difference between groups was not significant, F (1,171) = 1.65, p = 0.195, η 2 = 0.02. The finding of a correlation between an increase in Nonstereotypes and course grades therefore provided partial support for hypothesis 4.

Many reports have documented the shortfall in students graduating with STEM degrees in the United States and the urgent need to recruit a more diverse STEM workforce ( National Academy of Sciences, 2007 , 2011 ). Interventions with the potential to enhance students’ science identities and reduce stereotype threat could prove valuable in promoting interest and success in STEM ( Seymour and Hewitt, 1997 ; Brickhouse et al. , 2000 ; Hill et al. , 2010 , chap. 3; Beasley and Fischer, 2012 ). We developed and tested an intervention in the form of weekly homework assignments that were aimed at allowing students to see their possible selves in science and promoting counterstereotypical examples of who does science. In the following sections, we discuss the utility of Scientist Spotlights in light of our findings, factors that may influence the effectiveness of Scientist Spotlights, and our anticipated future directions in exploring Scientist Spotlights.

Scientist Spotlights Generated Shifts in Students’ Stereotypes of Scientists and Scientist Relatability

We used the stereotypes prompt to evaluate the impact of Scientist Spotlights on students’ stereotypes of scientists. When compared with a class performing a similar activity that lacked connections with diverse scientists, students who completed Scientist Spotlights adopted more nonstereotypical views of scientists ( Figure 1 ). These changes appeared to be sustained 6 months after the courses ended ( Figure 3 ) and were associated with higher course grades ( Figure 5 ). Reductions in stereotypical descriptions of scientists further correlated with increases in Science Interest ( Figure 4a ) and an enhanced interest in STEM majors.

We piloted the relatability prompt as a tool for examining students’ possible selves in a science context, making the case that explicitly asking students about their ability to personally relate to scientists would draw out descriptions of students’ possible selves in relation to scientists. While only 43% of Course Reader Homework students found scientists relatable at the end of the course, the vast majority (79%) of Scientist Spotlight students did ( Figures 2 and 4c ). These students discussed shared personalities and interests outside science as reasons for being able to relate to scientists, with some students also commenting on certain scientists’ nontraditional paths to gaining an interest in science. Many students used specific language such as “like me” or “I am also …” when describing why common interests or personal qualities caused them to relate to scientists after Scientist Spotlights. This suggested the relatability prompt might have functioned as intended in creating opportunities for students to reflect on their possible science selves.

These findings suggest Scientist Spotlights hold promise as a tool for enhancing students’ possible science selves and disrupting stereotypes of scientists in diverse classroom settings. Prior studies point to the importance of these shifts in forming a science identity, mitigating stereotype threat, and enhancing student interest and success ( Steele, 1997 ; Oyserman et al. , 2006 ; Steinke et al. , 2009 ; Hill et al. , 2010 , chap. 3; Hunter, 2010 ; Beasley and Fischer, 2012 ; Mills, 2014 ).

Scientist Spotlights Represent a Simple Means for Raising Issues of Diversity in STEM Classrooms

Faculty might feel particularly wary of adopting new activities that overtly approach issues related to race and diversity due to a lack of training in how to facilitate discussions in those areas ( Sue et al. , 2009 ). STEM faculty commonly cite course content expectations and concerns regarding time as barriers to implementing innovative teaching strategies ( Henderson and Dancy, 2007 ; Austin, 2011 ). Scientist Spotlights offer faculty an approach for openly addressing diversity in STEM classes while supporting content goals and requiring little grading or class time.

Because Scientist Spotlights are assigned as homework and are graded based on timeliness and word count, the activities consume only a negligible amount of instructor time during and outside of class. This is perhaps particularly the case when they are assigned through an online course management system that automatically displays word counts. After an initial investment of time to identify scientists to feature and compose assignment prompts, Scientist Spotlights become an easily sustainable class activity.

Additionally, by connecting diversity themes to course content through Scientist Spotlights, faculty are able to structure some of students’ content learning outside class. In this way, Scientist Spotlights assist faculty in meeting their content expectations, rather than taking time away from addressing content. This follows the best practices discussed by Chamany et al. (2008) , who recommend “strategically embedding social context into those topics that are traditionally reviewed in … biology courses.” Highlighting the struggles and inequities experienced by scientists like Ben Barres also opened up opportunities for students to engage with issues of social justice in science. Infusing course content with themes of equity and social justice has been promoted as a particularly impactful way to engage traditionally underserved and underprivileged populations of students in STEM ( Chamany, 2006 ; Chamany et al. , 2008 ). At the same time, these themes of equity and diversity were clearly contextualized within instructors’ comfort zone of course content, which might allay instructor reservations about raising such themes as part of a STEM class.

We predict that the strongest case for faculty adoption of Scientist Spotlights, and eventually adoption of more extensive diversity-related activities, might come from students themselves once faculty pilot Scientist Spotlights. Students in our sample responded so immediately and effusively to Scientist Spotlights, it appeared there was a great, unmet demand among students to approach science content through this lens. We predict that, if faculty see responses from their own students similar to those shown here, they will feel energized and empowered to become more deeply involved in addressing diversity. Scientist Spotlights might therefore represent an excellent introductory tool that could inspire further work on equity and diversity in STEM by science faculty.

Suggestions for Implementation

While Scientist Spotlights are relatively simple activities, successfully implementing them in a course likely depends in part on how an instructor chooses scientists to feature, writes the assignment prompts, introduces the assignments to the class, and reports back on students’ submissions. In the following sections, we elucidate some of the factors we feel assisted in achieving positive outcomes and reducing the potential for student resistance.

Possible Selves as a Framework for Selecting Scientists to Feature in Spotlights

We found the concept of possible selves to be helpful in identifying scientists to feature. Rather than looking for scientists to serve as role models that students should emulate, we sought out scientists with whom students might already have similarities; that is, scientists in whom students might see their possible selves. While gender/race/ethnic matching was important for some students, students more often cited shared personal qualities and outside interests as ways in which they saw themselves in scientists. Given that Human Biology primarily serves non–biology majors, it is not surprising that students also appreciated that not all scientists aspired to a science career at a young age and sometimes found science later in life. In consideration of the above, it is important to identify scientists for whom some sort of engaging biographical resource exists. It was in those biographical resources that students most directly encountered counterstereotypical information about scientists and found information that reminded students of themselves. We optimally hoped to find TED Talks, interviews, or podcasts featuring scientists telling their own stories in their own voices. However, we sometimes used printed interviews and biographical information, as in the example regarding Ben Barres (see Methods ). The Story Collider ( www.storycollider.org/podcasts ) proved a particularly rich resource for identifying biographical information regarding counterstereotypical scientists. The Story Collider website includes hundreds of 10- to 20-min-long, often funny or emotionally stirring autobiographical stories told by diverse scientists. The podcast descriptions can be searched for certain key terms through the website, which can be helpful in identifying scientists working in areas connected with course content.

Metacognition as a Design Feature of Scientist Spotlight Prompts

In terms of the assignment prompt itself and the regularity of the assignments, our work suggests that performing Scientist Spotlights regularly and including a metacognitive question about who does science assisted in achieving the outcomes we observed. Course Reader Homework classes included three references to scientists working in the fields being studied in class (see Methods ). Two of those scientists identified as people of color and all three had counterstereotypical qualities. Students were introduced to those scientists during class, saw pictures of the scientists, and watched short videos featuring two of the scientists. However, students did not engage in any individual or group activities regarding the scientists and were not asked to reflect on whether those segments of class impacted their views of scientists. Our results suggested these students did not substantially change their views of scientists. This suggests that going beyond simply mentioning/showing diverse scientists in class and moving to require regular work including metacognition about who does science might be key for stimulating larger changes in the ways students view scientists. Science faculty are increasingly aware that metacognition is necessary to drive lasting changes in students’ ideas and behaviors ( Tanner, 2012 ). We therefore propose that the prompt reading, “What do these resources tell you about the types of people that do science?,” might be important to include in every Scientist Spotlight assignment, even if the other writing prompts vary from one assignment to the next.

Instructor Talk as a Strategy for Securing Student Buy-In

Alongside content expectations and time limitations, fear of student resistance represents another of the main barriers to the adoption of new teaching strategies by faculty ( Henderson and Dancy, 2007 ; Seidel and Tanner, 2013 ). We encountered very little evidence of student resistance to completing Scientist Spotlights in these classes. Students completed Scientist Spotlights at very high rates, earned high scores, and seemed to find the assignments engaging and helpful. Students’ acceptance of Scientist Spotlights might partially relate to the flexibility students had to engage with either the course content part of the activity or the scientist biography part of the activity. Students were allowed to independently determine how much of their submissions focused on the “types of people that do science” prompt compared with the course content−related prompts. In this way, students could settle into their own comfort zones of discussing issues of content versus issues of diversity and scientist stereotypes.

The non–content language instructors use to frame new activities and debrief completed activities (“instructor talk”) might additionally play a large role in reducing student resistance and creating effective environments for applying innovative strategies ( Seidel et al. , 2015 ). While Scientist Spotlights are largely out-of-class activities, J.N.S. spent a small amount of class time at the start of the course establishing a classroom culture conducive to performing Scientist Spotlights and explaining his pedagogical decision to use these assignments. Specifically, he made clear his reasons for incorporating Scientist Spotlights into the course and his goals for the assignments, expressed that there were no “right” or “wrong” ways to respond, and noted that students could write about whatever parts of the assignments resonated most strongly with them each week. They need not strictly respond to each assignment prompt in equal amounts or in the order shown.

Following the first and second Spotlights, J.N.S. spent ∼5 minutes in class sharing anonymous student quotes to demonstrate how different students engaged with course content and reflected on their notions of scientists through the assignments. J.N.S. especially looked for quotes similar to Gina’s (discussed earlier) demonstrating the importance of the types of people who do science to the types of scientific questions that get pursued. This showed students in their own words that diversity is necessary to ensure diverse scientific questions are addressed and that it is important to understand who does science when considering what currently is and is not known about the topics studied in class.

Limitations

While quasi-experimental studies can represent a robust means of addressing education research questions, it is critical to explore alternate explanations for outcomes that might stem from the lack of random assignment to quasi-experimental groups ( Shadish et al. , 2002 ). Though the course sections we studied were equivalent in many respects, they differed slightly in student demographics, timing during the year, and lecture location. It is possible, for example, that differences observed between Scientist Spotlight Homework and Course Reader Homework groups were influenced by slight variations in student racial/ethnic or gender identities between those groups. This would confound our ability to attribute differences to our intervention. Similar scenarios could be proposed for differences in lecture locations or timing during the year. However, all lecture rooms were similarly appointed and neither treatment group was isolated to a single part of the year. The five Scientist Spotlight courses took place throughout the year (three Fall classes, one Winter class, one Spring class), while one Course Reader Homework class took place in the Fall and the other in the Spring.

Though differences between the courses appeared relatively subtle, we used statistical corrections to partition out variance introduced by demographics, course section differences, and the unequal sizes of quasi-experimental groups (i.e., lower number of Course Reader Homework students). The resulting “weighted means” were used in evaluating our hypotheses. These weighted means often differed substantially from means observed in our raw data (Supplemental Material, part E). This provided us more assurance that the differences we observed were due to the Scientist Spotlights but at the cost of variability that may have demonstrated a more robust effect. As a result, it might be argued that our results provide only conservative estimates of the impacts of Scientist Spotlights due to overly aggressive statistical corrections. That said, some researchers argue that statistical corrections are still insufficient to account for a lack of randomization, and issues with unequal group characteristics could confound the ability to make strong inferences ( Shadish et al. , 2002 ).

Other differences between our quasi-experimental groups included drop/fail/withdrawal (DFW) rates and the fact that one Course Reader Homework group was cotaught with a second instructor. From our results, it is apparent that 72% of Scientist Spotlight Homework students submitted both a beginning- and end-of-course stereotypes prompt essay, but only 67% of Course Reader Homework students did so. This might partially relate to differences in DFW rates between Scientist Spotlight and Course Reader Homework classes, effectively resulting in higher attrition in Course Reader Homework classes. Scientist Spotlight Homework classes had a 20% DFW rate compared with a 23% DFW rate in Course Reader Homework classes (for reference, the average DFW rate across all Human Biology classes at this college is 29%). It is also possible that Course Reader Homework students were less engaged in class, causing more of them to miss one of the days when a survey was scheduled. In either case, if the lower response rate among Course Reader Homework classes occurred disproportionately among students who shifted toward higher levels of Nonstereotypes /relatability, then attrition in those classes could partly account for differences observed between quasi-experimental groups. This scenario seems unlikely, however, given that our findings suggest students conveying higher levels of Nonstereotypes and relatability have increased success in class ( Schinske et al. , 2015 ; current study). It seems more likely that attrition could have masked larger differences between our groups by eliminating additional data points for Course Reader Homework students who did not shift in these variables.

It is also possible that the addition of a coteacher for one Course Reader Homework section influenced these differences between groups as well as our results. However, J.N.S. maintained control over relevant course assignments in all sections, and the cotaught section was equivalent to the others in terms of its curriculum expectations and types of class activities. Further, we included course section as a covariate in analyses to control for course-level differences. While we observed significant variation in dependent variables among students, we did not observe such variation between course section groups.

With regard to descriptions of scientists reported from student essays, our study did not seek to establish certain descriptions as “good” and others as “bad” in relation to enhancing success or interest in biology. While some studies have categorized certain scientist stereotypes as “positive” and “negative” ( Mead and Metraux, 1957 ), we did not explore students’ cultural evaluations of specific stereotypes and cannot conclude whether individual students view such associations positively or negatively. Further surveys and interviews would be necessary to evaluate the deeper meanings and relative importance of various descriptions within the Stereotypes and Nonstereotypes categories. It should additionally be noted that our results do not provide specific insights regarding the mechanism(s) behind the outcomes observed surrounding Scientist Spotlights. Future work could explore the roles of metacognition, stereotype threat reduction, identification of possible selves, and other factors as mechanisms underlying these results.

Other possible limitations involve our proposed assessment of students’ possible science selves and the nature of our survey activities more generally. We used the concept of “relatability” as a means of capturing possible selves, making the case that the prompt explicitly asked students about whether they could relate to a scientist they knew. This was an exploratory narrative approach, and whether it fully captures a student’s sense of their own potential talents and abilities as scientists is a question for further exploration. Our measure was also limited in its ability to capture how students thought of themselves in terms of the characteristics of scientists they named. A more precise measure of students’ sense of self-as-scientist could be helpful to expand upon and clarify the present findings.

Finally, results presented in this paper might not be broadly generalizable to all school settings. Qualitative studies have the strength of more deeply exploring student ideas but can lack the generalizability of some quantitative studies ( Johnson and Christensen, 2008 , pp. 441–442). We conducted our study in the unique environment of a large, diverse community college in the San Francisco Bay Area. One might anticipate different results or student reactions in less diverse settings in different parts of the United States. The types of exemplar quotes we report and the frequencies of themes we observed in students’ essays, therefore, might be specific to our student population and teaching context.

Future Directions

We envision multiple opportunities to extend this work in the future, ranging from further explorations of the present findings in Human Biology classes to dissemination of the intervention across new institutions and teaching contexts. In light of the limitations discussed in the previous section, pursuing study designs that match students to quasi-experimental groups or randomize participants could reveal further significant trends and more fully illuminate the impacts of the intervention. Assessing Scientist Spotlights in additional class contexts would assist in exploring the generalizability of our findings. We also believe further explorations of the relatability prompt and other measures that might evaluate students’ possible science selves could yield valuable insights into broadening participation in STEM. For example, while we observed intriguing trends connecting shifts in relatability to broader student outcomes, such as higher Science Interest and course grades, these trends did not achieve statistical significance. Further studies of relatability would assist in more fully illuminating its connections to these broader outcomes and clarifying its relationship to the broader concept of possible science selves.

Future studies might additionally more directly explore the impacts of Scientist Spotlights on stereotype threat or classroom equity gaps. That certain shifts related to Scientist Spotlights correlated with increased Science Interest and higher course grades is encouraging and raises interesting questions about how students of different genders and races/ethnicities experienced these outcomes. However, our unequal group sizes and the nonrandom distribution of students among conditions prevented us from drawing conclusions along these lines. Further, the trends we observed in Science Interest were in relation to shifts in stereotypes/relatability, not treatment effects. Observing treatment effects related to Science Interest might require more robust controls and might be assisted by studies exploring students’ sense of themselves as scientists in relation to Science Interest. Additional longitudinal data would also assist in understanding the enduring impacts of Scientist Spotlights. Longer-term follow-up data from both Scientist Spotlight students and control students would allow us to investigate how sustained shifts in stereotypes and relatability correlate with motivation and behavior in the future, specifically as they relate to pursuing and persisting in STEM majors.

Perhaps the most exciting extension of this work involves engaging additional faculty in the creation and deployment of Scientist Spotlights in new institutional and classroom contexts. Through our workshops and presentations at conferences, a wide array of faculty from diverse STEM (and non-STEM) fields have expressed interest in using Spotlights in class. The only somewhat time-consuming step in using Scientist Spotlights is the work done before the start of a course to select scientists, gather appropriate scientific and biographical resources regarding the scientists, and compose the assignment prompts. It might therefore be useful to nucleate a community of STEM faculty to build Scientist Spotlight modules for many different curricular areas. This could result in a database of ready-to-use assignments matching a wide range of content areas and could additionally build a strong community of STEM educators focused on issues of equity and diversity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We extend our appreciation to Kimberly Tanner, Jennifer Myhre, the monitoring editor, and three anonymous reviewers for providing valuable feedback with regard to this article and to Jahana Kaliangara and Monica Cardenas for assisting in processing and presenting preliminary data leading up to this study. J.N.S. thanks Sonya Dreizler, Veronica Neal, Mallory Newell, IMPACT AAPI, and the Equity Action Council at De Anza College for their support. The organizers of the Conference on Understanding Interventions That Broaden Participation in Science Careers kindly provided travel funding to support our presentation of preliminary findings from this work in a lunchtime plenary in 2015. IMPACT AAPI and the Office of Staff and Organizational Development at De Anza College have generously provided J.N.S. and A.S. with travel funds to present on Scientist Spotlights at national meetings.

• Allen NJ, Barres BA ( 2009 ). Neuroscience: glia—more than just brain glue . Nature 457 , 675-677. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Austin AE ( 2011 ). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education: a paper commissioned by the National Academies National Research Council Board on Science Education In: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072578.pdf (accessed 9 December 2015). Google Scholar
• Beardslee DC, O’Dowd DD ( 1961 ). The college-student image of the scientist: scientists are seen as intelligent and hard-working but also as uncultured and not interested in people . Science 133 , 997-1001. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Beasley MA, Fischer MJ ( 2012 ). Why they leave: the impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors . Soc Psychol Educ 15 , 427-448. Google Scholar
• Begley S ( 2006, July 13 ). He, once a she, offers own view on science spat . Wall Street Journal www.wsj.com/articles/SB115274744775305134 (accessed 9 December 2015). Google Scholar
• Brickhouse NW, Lowery P, Schultz K ( 2000 ). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities . J Res Sci Teach 37 , 441-458. Google Scholar
• Buck GA, Clark VLP, Leslie-Pelecky D, Lu Y, Cerda-Lizarraga P ( 2008 ). Examining the cognitive processes used by adolescent girls and women scientists in identifying science role models: a feminist approach . Sci Educ 92 , 688-707. Google Scholar
• Chamany K ( 2006 ). Science and social justice . J Coll Sci Teach 36 , 54. Google Scholar
• Chamany K, Allen D, Tanner K ( 2008 ). Making biology learning relevant to students: integrating people, history, and context into college biology teaching . CBE Life Sci Educ 7 , 267-278. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Cheryan S, Master A, Meltzoff AN ( 2015 ). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes . Front Psychol 6 , 49. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Davies PG, Steele CM ( 2009 ). Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science . J Pers Soc Psychol 97 , 1045. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Cheryan S, Plaut VC, Handron C, Hudson L ( 2013 ). The stereotypical computer scientist: gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women . Sex Roles 69 , 58-71. Google Scholar
• Cohen GL, Garcia J, Apfel N, Master A ( 2006 ). Reducing the racial achievement gap: a social-psychological intervention . Science 313 , 1307-1310. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Dee TS ( 2004 ). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment . Rev Econ Stat 86 , 195-210. Google Scholar
• DeWitt J, Archer L, Osborne J ( 2013 ). Nerdy, brainy and normal: children’s and parents’ constructions of those who are highly engaged with science . Res Sci Educ 43 , 1455-1476. Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg RG, Goldhaber DD, Brewer DJ ( 1995 ). Do teachers’ race, gender, and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the national educational longitudinal study of 1988 . Ind Labor Relat Rev 48 , 547-561. Google Scholar
• Fairlie RW, Hoffmann F, Oreopoulos P ( 2011 ). A Community College Instructor Like Me: Race and Ethnicity Interactions in the Classroom (No. w17381) , Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Google Scholar
• Gee JP ( 2000 ). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education . Rev Res Educ 25 , 99-125. Google Scholar
• Good C, Aronson J, Inzlicht M ( 2003 ). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: an intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat . J Appl Dev Psychol 24 , 645-662. Google Scholar
• Goodenow C ( 1993 ). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: relationships to motivation and achievement . J Early Adolesc 13 , 21-43. Google Scholar
• Henderson C, Dancy MH ( 2007 ). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: the influence of both individual and situational characteristics . Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 3 , 020102. Google Scholar
• Hill C, Corbett C, St Rose A ( 2010 ). Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics , Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. Google Scholar
• Hunter CW ( 2010 ). Identifying barriers and bridges in developing a science identity In: Doctoral Dissertation , Olympia, WA: Evergreen State College. Google Scholar
• Inzlicht M, Ben-Zeev T ( 2000 ). A threatening intellectual environment: why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males . Psychol Sci 11 , 365-371. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• James W ( 2005 ). The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1 , South Australia: eBooks@Adelaide, University of Adelaide, http://infomotions.com/sandbox/great-books-redux/corpus/html/principles.html (accessed 20 December 2015; original work published 1890). Google Scholar
• Johnson B, Christensen L ( 2008 ). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
• Karunanayake D, Nauta MM ( 2004 ). The relationship between race and students’ identified career role models and perceived role model influence . Career Dev Q 52 , 225-234. Google Scholar
• Markus H, Nurius P ( 1986 ). Possible selves . Am Psychol 41 , 954. Google Scholar
• Martin D ( 2015 ). Women in science: are portrayals on primetime television negative, and what are effects of exposure to such content In: Doctoral Dissertation , University of Missouri–Columbia. Google Scholar
• Marx DM, Ko SJ ( 2012 ). Superstars “like” me: the effect of role model similarity on performance under threat . Eur J Soc Psychol 42 , 807-812. Google Scholar
• Marx DM, Roman JS ( 2002 ). Female role models: protecting women’s math test performance . Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28 , 1183-1193. Google Scholar
• Maylor U ( 2009 ). “They do not relate to Black people like us”: Black teachers as role models for Black pupils . J Educ Policy 24 , 1-21. Google Scholar
• McIntyre RB, Lord CG, Gresky DM, Frye GDJ, Bond CF ( 2004 ). A social impact trend in the effects of role models on alleviating women’s mathematics stereotype threat . Curr Res Soc Psychol 10 , 116-136. Google Scholar
• Mead M, Metraux R ( 1957 ). Image of the scientist among high-school students . Science 126 , 384-390. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Mills LA ( 2014 , Ed. DG SampsonJM SpectorP Isaias , Possible science selves: informal learning and the career interest development process. In In: In: 11th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA) Proceedings , Lisbon: International Association for Development of the Information Society, 275-279. Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences ( 2007 ). Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences ( 2011 ). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation ( 2013 ). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013 (Special Report NSF 13-304) , Arlington, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd (accessed 9 December 2015). Google Scholar
• Oyserman D, Bybee D, Terry K ( 2006 ). Possible selves and academic outcomes: how and when possible selves impel action . J Pers Soc Psychol 91 , 188. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Phelan JE ( 2010 ). Increasing women’s aspirations and achievement in science: the effect of role models on implicit cognitions In: Doctoral Dissertation , New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Graduate School. Google Scholar
• Purdie-Vaughns V, Steele CM, Davies PG, Ditlmann R, Crosby JR ( 2008 ). Social identity contingencies: how diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions . J Pers Soc Psychol 94 , 615. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Reece JB, Urry LA, Cain ML, Wasserman SA, Minorsky PV, Jackson RB ( 2014 ). Campbell Biology , 10th ed. San Francisco: Pearson. Google Scholar
• Roeser RW, Midgley C, Urdan TC ( 1996 ). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: the mediating role of goals and belonging . J Educ Psychol 88 , 408-422. Google Scholar
• Schinske J, Cardenas M, Kaliangara J ( 2015 ). Uncovering scientist stereotypes and their relationships with student race and student success in a diverse, community college setting . CBE Life Sci Educ 14 , ar35. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Schneider JS ( 2010 ). Impact of undergraduates’ stereotypes of scientists on their intentions to pursue a career in science In: Doctoral Dissertation , Raleigh: North Carolina State University, http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/handle/1840.16/6184 (accessed 9 December 2015). Google Scholar
• Seidel SB, Reggi AL, Schinske JN, Burrus LW, Tanner KD ( 2015 ). Beyond the biology: a systematic investigation of noncontent instructor talk in an introductory biology course . CBE Life Sci Educ 14 , ar43. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Seidel SB, Tanner KD ( 2013 ). “What if students revolt?” Considering student resistance: origins, options, and opportunities for investigation . CBE Life Sci Educ 12 , 586-595. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Seymour E, Hewitt NM ( 1997 ). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences , Boulder, CO: Westview. Google Scholar
• Seymour E, Wiese D, Hunter A, Daffinrud SM ( 2000 ). Creating a better mousetrap: on-line student assessment of their learning gains In: Paper originally presented to the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Francisco, March 27, 2000. http://salgsite.org/docs/SALGPaperPresentationAtACS.pdf (accessed 20 December 2015). Google Scholar
• Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT ( 2002 ). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, http://impact.cgiar.org/pdf/147.pdf (accessed 13 December 2015). Google Scholar
• Steele CM ( 1997 ). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance . Am Psychol 52 , 613. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Steele CM, Aronson J ( 1995 ). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans . J Pers Soc Psychol 69 , 797. Medline ,  Google Scholar
• Steinke J, Lapinski M, Long M, Van Der Maas C, Ryan L, Applegate B ( 2009 ). Seeing oneself as a scientist: media influences and adolescent girls’ science career-possible selves . J Women Minor Sci Eng 15 , 279-301. Google Scholar
• Sue DW, Torino GC, Capodilupo CM, Rivera DP, Lin AI ( 2009 ). How white faculty perceive and react to difficult dialogues on race implications for education and training . Couns Psychol 37 , 1090-1115. Google Scholar
• Tanner KD ( 2009 ). Learning to see inequity in science . CBE Life Sci Educ 8 , 265-270. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Tanner KD ( 2012 ). Promoting student metacognition . CBE Life Sci Educ 11 , 113-120. Link ,  Google Scholar
• Trochim MK ( 2006 ). Quasi-experimental design In: www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasiexp.php (accessed 5 April 2016). Google Scholar
• Wyer M ( 2003 ). Intending to stay: images of scientists, attitudes toward women, and gender as influences on persistence among science and engineering majors . J Women Minor Sci Eng 9 , (1), www.dl.begellhouse.com/journals/00551c876cc2f027,588fd13a4ac98f5d,0772b1b83ebd7818.html (accessed 9 December 2015). Google Scholar
• Beyond performance, competence, and recognition: forging a science researcher identity in the context of research training 28 March 2024 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 11, No. 1
• A workshop to showcase the diversity of scientists to middle school students Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 48, No. 2
• Unpacking Racism Among Puerto Rican Scientists: Intersectionality of Colorism, Colonialism, and the Culture of Science 9 March 2023 | Journal of Latinos and Education, Vol. 23, No. 2
• Stereotypes and social evaluations of scientists are related to different antecedents and outcomes 8 March 2024 | Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 18
• Annotations of LSE Research: Enhancing Accessibility and Promoting High Quality Biology Education Research CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 23, No. 1
• Towards authentic purposes for student science writing using culturally relevant pedagogy 6 February 2024 | Cultural Studies of Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 1
• STEM Faculty Instructional Beliefs Regarding Assessment, Grading, and Diversity are Linked to Racial Equity Grade Gaps 23 January 2024 | Research in Higher Education, Vol. 14
• Measuring undergraduates’ understanding of the culture of scientific research as an outcome variable in research on CUREs Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 24, No. 3
• Jeremy L. Hsu ,
• Noelle Clark ,
• Kate Hill , and
• Melissa Rowland-Goldsmith
• Luanna Prevost, Monitoring Editor
• Centres for Teaching and Learning of the World’s Leading Universities: Best Practices Review 14 November 2023 | University Management: Practice and Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 3
• Fostering an Equity-Minded Student Success Culture in STEM Through Faculty Development
• Are there any “science people” in undergraduate health science courses? Assessing science identity among pre‐nursing and pre‐allied health students in a community college setting 19 September 2023 | Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 14
• Preparing the Next Generation for STEM: Adolescent Profiles Encompassing Math and Science Motivation and Interpersonal Skills and Their Associations With Identity and Belonging 3 May 2022 | Youth & Society, Vol. 55, No. 6
• Abby E. Beatty ,
• Emily P. Driessen ,
• Amanda D. Clark ,
• Robin A. Costello ,
• Sharday Ewell ,
• Sheritta Fagbodun ,
• Randy L. Klabacka ,
• Todd Lamb ,
• Kimberly Mulligan ,
• Jeremiah A. Henning , and
• Cissy J. Ballen
• Molly Bolger, Monitoring Editor
• Factors that predict adolescents' engagement with STEM in and out of school 23 May 2023 | Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 60, No. 9
• From sex to biology: the case for gender‐neutral language in science education 15 June 2023 | Immunology & Cell Biology, Vol. 101, No. 8
• Digging Deeper into Student–Teacher–Scientist Partnerships for Improving Students’ Achievement and Attitudes about Scientists The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 85, No. 7
• A Scaffolded Module to Improve Scientific Literacy by Engaging Students with Primary Literature Using the Instructor’s Research Experience Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 24, No. 2
• Dedicating, faking, and surviving: disclosing tensions in how three women university students negotiate collectively celebrated norms across European contexts 22 March 2023 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 45, No. 12
• Integrating evidence-based teaching practices into the Mammalogy classroom 26 February 2023 | Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 104, No. 4
• University student-led public engagement event: increasing audience diversity and impact in a non-science space Access Microbiology, Vol. 5, No. 8
• Women drive efforts to highlight concealable stigmatized identities in U.S. academic science and engineering 19 July 2023 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 18, No. 7
• I am a scientist: Overcoming biased assumptions around diversity in science through explicit representation of scientists in lectures 7 July 2023 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 18, No. 7
• Diversifying the ‘Great Economists’: An Assignment to Promote Inclusivity and Belongingness in Introductory Economics Courses 27 March 2023 | Review of Political Economy, Vol. 35, No. 3
• Reimagining journal clubs for inclusive scientific training Trends in Cell Biology, Vol. 33, No. 7
• Asian Americans in STEM are not a monolith Cell, Vol. 186, No. 15
• Doubling down on best practices: reflecting on teaching physiology during the COVID-19 pandemic Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 47, No. 2
• L’vannah Abrams ,
• Tess Carlson ,
• Mark Dieter ,
• Paulos Flores ,
• David Frischer ,
• Jolie Goolish ,
• Michelle La-Fevre Bernt ,
• Amber Lancaster ,
• Christopher Lipski ,
• Joshua Vargas Luna ,
• Lucy M. C. Luong ,
• Marlene Mullin ,
• Mia Janelle Newman ,
• Carolina Quintero ,
• Julie Reis ,
• Freja Robinson ,
• Allison James Ross ,
• Hilary Simon ,
• Gianne Souza ,
• Jess Taylor ,
• Katherine E. Ward ,
• Yvonne Lever White ,
• Emily Witkop ,
• Christine Yang ,
• Aliza Zenilman ,
• Eddie Zhang ,
• Jeffrey N. Schinske , and
• Kimberly D. Tanner
• Sehoya Cotner, Monitoring Editor
• Curing “GFP-itis” in Bacteria with Base Editors: Development of a Genome Editing Science Program Implemented with High School Biology Students The CRISPR Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3
• Improving biology faculty diversity through a co-hiring policy and faculty agents of change 15 May 2023 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 18, No. 5
• Scientist of the week: evaluating effects of a teacher-led STEM intervention to reduce stereotypical views of scientists in young children 15 July 2021 | Research in Science & Technological Education, Vol. 41, No. 2
• Effects of Data Nuggets on Student Interest in STEM Careers, Self-efficacy in Data Tasks, and Ability to Construct Scientific Explanations 27 June 2022 | International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Vol. 21, No. 4
• Kelsey J. Metzger ,
• Molly Dingel , and
• Ethan Brown
• Science faculty conceptions of equity and their association to teaching practices 18 December 2022 | Science Education, Vol. 107, No. 2
• Scientists in the Textbook 5 January 2023 | Science & Education, Vol. 22
• From Cancer Microenvironment to Myofibroblasts The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 85, No. 1
• The Drawing a Scientist Test (DAST): How Do Girls in the UAE Present Visual Characteristics of Female Scientists, and What Does This Mean for Gender Equity of Science Careers? 16 February 2023
• Characteristics and Recommendations for the Virtual Role Model Visit — Based on a Literature Review 23 December 2022 | Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 25
• The PULSE Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Rubric: a Tool To Help Assess Departmental DEI Efforts Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 3
• A Novel Undergraduate Seminar Course Celebrating Scientific Contributions by Scientists from Historically Marginalized Communities Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 3
• Cara Gormally and
• Austin Heil
• Supporting academic equity in physics through citation diversity 27 September 2022 | Communications Physics, Vol. 5, No. 1
• Resources to bring diversity, equity, inclusion, and respect into analytical chemistry classrooms 1 October 2022 | Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 414, No. 28
• Citation inequity and gendered citation practices in contemporary physics 6 October 2022 | Nature Physics, Vol. 18, No. 10
• Greek Upper Primary Grade Students’ Images About Science and Scientists: An Alternative Descriptive Piece of the Puzzle 2 September 2022 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7
• Austin L. Zuckerman and
• Stanley M. Lo
• Erin L. Dolan, Monitoring Editor
• Supporting biology education research at community colleges: Implementing and adapting evidence‐based practices 30 June 2022 | New Directions for Community Colleges, Vol. 2022, No. 199
• Supporting students’ career development: A call to action 30 June 2022 | New Directions for Community Colleges, Vol. 2022, No. 199
• Alison K. Varty
• Jenny McFarland, Monitoring Editor
• Miranda M. Chen Musgrove ,
• Savannah Nied ,
• Alyssa Cooley ,
• Lisa A. Corwin
• Tessa C. Andrews, Monitoring Editor
• Pandemic adaptations expand physiology educators community outreach Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 46, No. 2
• Six Principles for Embracing Gender and Sexual Diversity in Postsecondary Biology Classrooms 16 March 2022 | BioScience, Vol. 72, No. 5
• Geoscience Education Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) Science 13 May 2022 | Earth and Space Science, Vol. 9, No. 5
• AJEDI in Science: Leveraging Instructor Communities to Create Antiracist Curricula Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 23, No. 1
• Active Learning Strategies for Biodiversity Science 26 April 2022 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7
• Julie Dangremond Stanton ,
• Darris R. Means ,
• Oluwadamilola Babatola ,
• Chimezie Osondu ,
• Omowunmi Oni , and
• Birook Mekonnen
• Cynthia Brame, Monitoring Editor
• Effects of Diverse STEM Role Model Videos in Promoting Adolescents’ Identification 25 February 2021 | International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Vol. 20, No. 2
• Development and validation of an astronomy self-efficacy instrument for understanding and doing 28 February 2022 | Physical Review Physics Education Research, Vol. 18, No. 1
• Storytelling for Social Justice and Engagement: A Materials Science Class 8 September 2021 | Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 99, No. 1
• Why science education is more important than most scientists think 10 January 2022 | FEBS Letters, Vol. 596, No. 2
• Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 70, No. 3
• Integrative Organismal Biology, Vol. 4, No. 1
• PLOS Computational Biology, Vol. 18, No. 7
• Understanding Differences in Underrepresented Minorities and First-Generation Student Perceptions in the Introductory Biology Classroom Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 3
• Maurina L. Aranda ,
• Michelle Diaz ,
• Lorenzo Gastelum Mena ,
• Jocelyn I. Ortiz ,
• Christian Rivera-Nolan ,
• Daniela C. Sanchez ,
• Melissa J. Sanchez ,
• Allison M. Upchurch ,
• Carleigh S. Williams ,
• Stephanie N. Boorstin ,
• Laura M. Cardoso ,
• Matthew Dominguez ,
• Sarah Elias
• Elmer E. Lopez ,
• Ruby E. Ramirez ,
• Paola Juliet Romero ,
• Falina Nicole Tigress ,
• Jenee Alexandra Wilson ,
• Ryan Winstead ,
• Jason T. Cantley ,
• Joseph C. Chen
• Megumi Fuse ,
• Michael A. Goldman ,
• Brinda Govindan ,
• Peter Ingmire ,
• Jonathan D. Knight ,
• Sally G. Pasion
• Pleuni S. Pennings ,
• Ravinder N. M. Sehgal ,
• Patricia Tiongco de Vera ,
• Loretta Kelley ,
• Jeffrey N. Schinske ,
• Blake Riggs ,
• Laura W. Burrus , and
• Elisabeth Schussler, Monitoring Editor
• Taylor Gusler ,
• Amy Grilliot , and
• Clark Coffman, Monitoring Editor
• Am I getting through? Surveying students on what messages they recall from the first day of STEM classes 6 August 2021 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 8, No. 1
• Perceptions of scientists held by US students can be broadened through inclusive classroom interventions 10 May 2021 | Communications Earth & Environment, Vol. 2, No. 1
• Recommendations for an inclusive undergraduate plant science classroom 19 June 2021 | The Plant Cell, Vol. 33, No. 9
• Sara Odom ,
• Halle Boso ,
• Scott Bowling ,
• Sara Brownell ,
• Sehoya Cotner ,
• Catherine Creech ,
• Abby Grace Drake ,
• Sarah Eddy ,
• Sadie Hebert ,
• Avis C. James ,
• Justin R. St. Juliana ,
• Michele Shuster ,
• Seth K. Thompson ,
• Richard Whittington ,
• Bill D. Wills ,
• Alan E. Wilson ,
• Kelly R. Zamudio ,
• Min Zhong , and
• Anti-racist interventions to transform ecology, evolution and conservation biology departments 9 August 2021 | Nature Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 5, No. 9
• Professional development during a crisis and beyond: Lessons learned during COVID 31 August 2021 | New Directions for Community Colleges, Vol. 2021, No. 195
• How outdoor science education can help girls stay engaged with science 22 March 2021 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 43, No. 7
• Goggles and White Lab Coats: Students’ Perspectives on Scientists and the Continued Need to Challenge Stereotypes Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 22, No. 1
• Authentic insights into science: scientific videos used in out-of-school learning environments 25 March 2021 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 43, No. 6
• University attendance as science communication 10 May 2021 | International Journal of Science Education, Part B, Vol. 11, No. 2
• Harnessing Data for Inclusive Ecology Education: Building Programs to Move the Discipline Toward Systemic Change 1 February 2021 | The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 102, No. 2
• A. Kelly Lane ,
• Clara L. Meaders ,
• J. Kenny Shuman ,
• MacKenzie R. Stetzer ,
• Erin L. Vinson ,
• Brian A. Couch ,
• Michelle K. Smith , and
• Marilyne Stains
• Jennifer L Momsen, Monitoring Editor
• The Relevance of Radiochemistry: Perceptions of Future Radiochemists 1 December 2020 | Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 98, No. 2
• Cultivating inclusive instructional and research environments in ecology and evolutionary science 7 December 2020 | Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 11, No. 4
• Teaching between the Lines: Representation in Science Textbooks Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 36, No. 1
• “Beauty” premium for social scientists but “unattractiveness” premium for natural scientists in the public speaking market 7 October 2020 | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 7, No. 1
• Depression as a concealable stigmatized identity: what influences whether students conceal or reveal their depression in undergraduate research experiences? 4 June 2020 | International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 7, No. 1
• Scientist Spotlights: Online assignments to promote inclusion in Ecology and Evolution 8 October 2020 | Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 22
• Gender differences in the Australian undergraduate STEM student experience: a systematic review 3 February 2020 | Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 39, No. 6
• Katelyn M. Cooper ,
• Anna Jo J. Auerbach ,
• Jordan D. Bader ,
• Amy S. Beadles-Bohling ,
• Jacqueline A. Brashears ,
• Erica Cline ,
• Sarah L. Eddy ,
• Deanna B. Elliott ,
• Elijah Farley ,
• Linda Fuselier ,
• Heather M. Heinz ,
• Madison Irving ,
• Tanya Josek ,
• Stanley M. Lo ,
• Jeffrey Maloy ,
• Michelle Nugent ,
• Erika Offerdahl ,
• Juan Palacios-Moreno ,
• Jorge Ramos ,
• Joshua W. Reid ,
• Rachel A. Sparks ,
• Ashley L. Waring ,
• Mike Wilton ,
• Cara Gormally , and
• Sara E. Brownell
• A scientist like me: demographic analysis of biology textbooks reveals both progress and long-term lags 24 June 2020 | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 287, No. 1929
• Linking Scholarship and Practice: Narrative and Identity in Science 9 June 2020 | Frontiers in Communication, Vol. 5
• Karen G. Hales
• Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor
• Meeting the Needs of A Changing Landscape: Advances and Challenges in Undergraduate Biology Education 13 May 2020 | Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, Vol. 82, No. 5
• “I'm just not that great at science”: Science self‐efficacy in arts and communication students 29 November 2019 | Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 57, No. 4
• Perspective on coarse-graining, cognitive load, and materials simulation Computational Materials Science, Vol. 171
• Trends in Molecular Medicine, Vol. 26, No. 3
• Connecting Theory to Practice: Using Self-Determination Theory To Better Understand Inclusion in STEM Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21, No. 1
• First-Day Info Sheets: A Tool to Prompt Semester-Long Inclusive Teaching Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21, No. 1
• In a “Scientist Spotlight” Intervention, Diverse Student Identities Matter Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21, No. 1
• Benefits of a College STEM Faculty Development Initiative: Instructors Report Increased and Sustained Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21, No. 2
• Using a Student-Generated Mock Magazine Issue To Improve Students’ Awareness of Diverse Scientists Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, Vol. 21, No. 3
• Targeting the Achievement Gap: Strategies Toward Removing Inequities in Undergraduate Immunology Education 11 December 2019 | Frontiers in Immunology, Vol. 10
• Paul T. Le ,
• Leanne Doughty ,
• Amreen Nasim Thompson , and
• Laurel M. Hartley
• Leveraging undergraduate research to identify culturally relevant examples in the anatomy and physiology curriculum Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 43, No. 4
• Hidden Identities Shape Student Perceptions of Active Learning Environments 5 November 2019 | Frontiers in Education, Vol. 4
• Teach the Earth: Making the connection between research and practice in broadening participation 10 June 2019 | Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 67, No. 4
• Probing the National Geoscience Faculty Survey for reported use of practices that support inclusive learning environments in undergraduate courses 17 July 2019 | Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 67, No. 4
• Accelerating change: The power of faculty change agents to promote diversity and inclusive teaching practices 8 July 2019 | Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 67, No. 4
• Bryan Dewsbury and
• Cynthia J. Brame
• Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists 10 May 2019 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 14, No. 5
• Storytelling: A Natural Tool to Weave the Threads of Science and Community Together 12 March 2019 | The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 100, No. 2
• Towards a truer multicultural science education: how whiteness impacts science education 13 March 2018 | Cultural Studies of Science Education, Vol. 14, No. 1
• Structured learning environments are required to promote equitable participation 1 January 2019 | Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 1
• Pamela Pape-Lindstrom ,
• Sarah Eddy , and
• Scott Freeman
• Jeff Schinske,, Monitoring Editor
• Classic Lessons: What Kind of Person Becomes a Scientist? 27 September 2023 | Science Scope, Vol. 41, No. 8
• Evaluation of Effects of an Intervention Aimed at Broadening Participation in STEM while Conveying Science Content 30 October 2018
• M. Elizabeth Barnes and
• Kathryn E. Perez, Monitoring Editor
• Melinda T. Owens , and

Submitted: 15 January 2016 Revised: 11 June 2016 Accepted: 14 June 2016

© 2016 J. N. Schinske et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2016 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

Essay on Science in English for Children and Students

Table of Contents

Essay on Science in English: Science is a systematic and logical study of occurrences, events, happenings etc.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Science is the study that logically explains the round shape of earth; it explains the twinkling of stars; why light travels faster than sound; why hawk flies higher than a crow; why the sunflower turns to the sunlight etc. Science doesn’t provide supernatural explanations; rather it gives logical conclusion to every question. Science as a subject is extremely popular with students. It’s indeed an essential subject for aspirants who want to make their career in science and related fields.

Knowledge of science makes people more confident and well aware of their surroundings. One who knows science will not be scared of natural occurrences, knowing their origin and reason.

On the other hand science also plays a significant role in technological development of a nation and hence also in removing growth impediments like unemployment and illiteracy.

Long and Short Essay on Science in English

We have provided below short and long essay on science in English for your knowledge and information.

The essays have been wisely written to deliver to you the meaning and significance of science.

After going through the essays you will know what is science and its importance in our day to day life, also how science helps in the development of a country.

You can use these science essay in your school’s or college’s essay writing, debate or other similar competitions.

Science Essay 1 (200 words)

Science involves extensive study of the behaviour of natural and physical world. The study is conducted by way of research, observation and experimentation.

There are several branches of science. These include the natural sciences, social sciences and formal sciences. These broad categories have further been divided into sub categories and sub-sub categories. Physics, chemistry, biology earth science and astronomy form a part of the natural sciences, history, geography, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, social studies and anthropology are a part of the social sciences and formal sciences include mathematics, logic, statistics, decision theory, system theory and computer science.

Science has changed the world for good. There have been several scientific inventions from time to time and these have made life convenient for the human beings. Several of these inventions have become an integral part of our lives and we cannot imagine our lives without them.

Scientists worldwide continue to experiment and keep coming up with newer inventions every now and then with some of them bringing revolution worldwide. However, as useful as it is, science has also been misused by some, mainly by those in power, for fuelling an arms race and degrading the environment.

The ideologies of science and religion have not found any meeting ground. These seemingly contrasting ideas have given rise to several conflicts in the past and continue to do so.

Science Essay 2 (300 words)

Introduction

Science is a means to study, understand, analyze and experiment with the natural and physical aspects of the world and put them to use to come up with newer inventions that make life more convenient for the mankind. The observation and experimentation in the field of science is not limited to a particular aspect or idea; it is widespread.

Uses of Science

Almost everything we use in our daily lives is a gift of science. From cars to washing machines, from mobile phones to microwaves, from refrigerators to laptops – everything is an outcome of scientific experimentation. Here is how science impacts our everyday life:

Not just microwaves, grillers and refrigerators, gas stoves that are commonly used to prepare food are also a scientific invention.

• Medical Treatments

The treatment of several diseases and ailments has been made possible because of the advancement in science. Science thus promotes healthy living and has contributed in the increase of life span.

• Communication

Mobile phones and internet connections that have become an integral part of our lives these days are all inventions of science. These inventions have made communication easier and brought the world closer.

• Source of Energy

The discovery of atomic energy has given way to the invention and deployment of various forms of energies. Electricity is one of its main inventions and the way it impacts our everyday life is known to all.

• Variety of Food

The variety of food has also increased. Many fruits and vegetables are now available all through the year. You do not require waiting for a particular season to enjoy a specific food. The experimentations in the field of science have led to this change.

Science is thus a part of our everyday life. Our life would have been very different and difficult without the advancement in science. However, we cannot deny the fact that many scientific inventions have led to the degradation of the environment and have also caused numerous health problems for the mankind.

Science Essay 3 (400 words)

Science is basically divided into three broad branches. These include Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Formal Sciences. These branches are further classified into sub-categories to study various aspects. Here is a detailed look at these categories and sub categories.

Branches of Science

• Natural Sciences

As the name suggests, this is the study of the natural phenomena. It studies how the world and universe works. Natural Science is further categorized into Physical Science and Life Science.

• a) Physical Science

Physical science includes the following sub categories:

• Physics: The study of properties of energy and matter.
• Chemistry: The study of substances of which matter is made.
• Astronomy: The study of the space and celestial bodies.
• Ecology: The study of relation of organisms with their physical surroundings as well as with each other.
• Geology: It deals with Earth’s physical structure and substance.
• Earth Science: The study of Earth’s physical constitution and its atmosphere.
• Oceanography: The study of biological and physical elements and phenomena of the sea.
• Meteorology: It deals with the processes of the atmosphere
• b) Life Science

The following sub categories form a part of the life science:

• Biology: The study of living organisms.
• Botany: The study of plant life.
• Zoology: The study of animal life.
• Social Sciences

This involves the study of the social pattern and human behaviour. It is further divided into various sub-categories. These include:

• History: The study of events occurred in the past
• Political Science: Study of systems of government and political activities.
• Geography: Study of Earth’s physical features and atmosphere.
• Social Studies: Study of human society.
• Sociology: Study of development and functioning of the society.
• Psychology: Study of human behaviour.
• Anthropology: Study of different aspects of humans within present and past societies.
• Economics: Study of production, consumption and circulation of wealth.
• Formal Sciences

It is that branch of science that studies formal systems such as mathematics and logic. It involves the following sub-categories:

• Mathematics: The study of numbers.
• Logic: The study of reasoning.
• Statistics: It deals with the analysis of numerical data.
• Decision Theory: Mathematical study to enhance decision making ability when it comes to profit and loss.
• Systems Theory: The study of abstract organization.
• Computer Science: The study of experimentation and engineering to form basis for designing and use of computers.

The experts in various branches of science have continually been studying the subject deeply and experimenting with different aspects to come up with newer theories, inventions and discoveries. These discoveries and inventions have made life easier for us; however, at the same time these have also made an irreversible damage to the environment as well as the living beings.

Science Essay 4 (500 words)

Science is the study of structure and behaviour of different physical and natural aspects. Scientists study these aspects, observe them thoroughly and experiment before coming to a conclusion. There have been several scientific discoveries and inventions in the past that have proved to be a boon for the mankind.

Concepts of Science and Religion

While a logical and systematic approach is followed in the field of science to come up with new ideas and inventions, religion, on the other hand, is purely based on belief system and faith. In science, a thorough observation, analysis and experimentation is done to derive a result whereas there is hardly any logic when it comes to religion. Their view of looking at things is thus completely different from one another.

Conflict between Science and Religion

Science and religion are often seen at loggerheads due to their conflicting views on certain things. Sadly, at times these conflicts lead to disturbance in the society and causes suffering to the innocent. Here are some of the major conflicts that have occurred between the advocates of religion and the believers of scientific methodologies.

• The Creation of World

Many conservative Christians believe that God created the world in six days sometime between 4004 and 8000 BCE. On the other hand, the cosmologists state that the universe is as old as around 13.7 billion years and that the Earth emerged around 4.5 billion years ago.

• Earth as the Centre of the Universe

This is one of the most famous conflicts. The Roman Catholic Church regarded Earth as the centre of the universe. As per them, the Sun, Moon, stars and other planets revolve around it. The conflict arose when famous Italian astronomer and mathematician, Galileo Galilei discovered the heliocentric system wherein the Sun forms the centre of the solar system and the Earth and other planets revolve around it.

Unfortunately, Galileo was condemned as a heretic and put in house arrest for the rest of his life.

• Solar and Lunar Eclipse

One of the earliest conflicts occurred in Iraq. The priests there had told the locals that lunar eclipse was caused because of the restlessness of gods. These were thought to be ominous and aimed at destroying the kings. The conflict occurred when the local astronomers came up with the scientific reason behind the eclipse.

While the astronomers state a strong and logical reason about the occurrence of the solar and lunar eclipse, myths and superstitions surrounding the same still continue in various parts of the world.

• The Evolution of Species

Taking reference from the biblical book of Genesis, the conservative Christians believe that all the species of flora and fauna were created during the six days period when God created the world. The biologists, on the other hand, argue that the various species of plants and animals evolved over hundred and millions of years via the procedures of natural selection.

Apart from these, there are several other arenas wherein the scientists and religious advocates have contradictory views. Even though the scientists/ astronomers/ biologists have a backing for their theories most people deeply follow the religious views.

It is not only the religious advocates who often raise voice against the scientific methodologies and ideologies, science has also been criticized by many other sections of society because its inventions are giving way to various social, political, environmental and health issues. Scientific inventions such as nuclear weapons pose a threat to the mankind. Besides, the procedures of preparation as well as the use of most scientifically designed devices are adding to the pollution, thereby making life difficult for everyone.

Science Essay 5 (600 words)

There have been several scientific discoveries and inventions in the last couple of decades that have made life much easier. Last decade was no exception. There were quite a few significant scientific inventions that received appreciation. Here is a look at the 10 most remarkable recent scientific inventions.

Recent Scientific Inventions and Discoveries

• Control over Biomechanical Hand through Mind

Amputee Pierpaolo Petruzziello, an Italian who lost his forearm in an unfortunate accident, learned how to control a biomechanical hand connected to his arm by way of his thoughts. The hand connected to his arm nerves via electrodes and wires. He became the first person to master the art of making movements such as finger wiggling, grabbing objects and moving fist with his thoughts.

• Global Positioning System

Global Positioning System, popularly referred to as GPS, became commercially viable in the year 2005. It was embedded into the mobile devices and proved to be a boon for the travelers worldwide. Looking for directions while travelling to newer places couldn’t get easier.

• Prius – The Self-Driving Car

Google initiated the self-driving car project in the year 2008 and soon Toyota introduced Prius. This car does not have brake pedal, steering wheel or accelerator. It is powered by an electric motor and does not require any user interaction to operate. It is embedded with special software, a set of sensors and accurate digital maps to ensure that the driverless experience is smooth and safe.

Known to be one of the most noteworthy inventions of the decade, Android came as a revolution and took over the market that was earlier flooded with Symbian and Java powered devices. Most smart phones these days run on the Android operating system. It supports millions of applications.

• Computer Vision

Computer vision includes several sub-domains such as event detection, indexing, object recognition, object pose estimation, motion estimation, image restoration, scene reconstruction, learning and video tracking. The field encompasses techniques of processing, analyzing, acquiring and comprehending images in high-dimensional data from the actual world so as to come up with symbolic information.

• Touch Screen Technology

The touch screen technology seems to have taken over the world. The ease of operating makes for the popularity of the touch screen devices. These devices have become a rage worldwide.

• 3D Printing Technique

The 3D printing device can make a variety of stuff including kitchenware, accessories, lamps and much more. Also known as additive manufacturing, this technique creates three-dimensional objects of any shape with the use of digital model data from electronic data source such as Additive Manufacturing File (AMF).

Launched in the year 2008, Git Hub is a version control repository revision control and Internet hosting service that offers features such as bug tracking, task management, feature requests and sharing of codes, apps, etc. The development of GitHub platform started in 2007 and the site was launched in 2008.

• Smart Watches

Smart watches have been in the market for quite some time. However, the newer ones such as that launched by Apple have come with several added features and have gained immense popularity. These watches come with almost all the features of the smart phones and are easier to carry and operate.

• Crowd Funding Sites

The introduction of crowd-funding sites such as GoFundMe, Kickstarter and Indiegogo has been a boon for the creative minds. By way of these sites, inventors, artists and other creative people get a chance to share their ideas and receive financial help they require to implement the same.

Scientists worldwide observe and experiment continually to bring forth new scientific inventions, making life easier for people. They do not only keep coming up with newer inventions but also improvise the existing ones wherever there is a scope. While these inventions have made life easier for the man; however, the amount of environmental, social and political hazards these have caused are not hidden from you all.

Related Information:

• Essay on Science and Technology
• Paragraph on Wonders of Science
• Paragraph on Science
• National Science Day
• International Week of Science and Peace
• The National Council for Science and Technology Communication ( NCSTC ) is a scientific programme of the Government of India for the popularisation of science,

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Next Frontier? Philosophy in Space.

By Joseph O. Chapa

Dr. Chapa is a U.S. Air Force officer and the author of “Is Remote Warfare Moral?”

The window to apply to be a NASA astronaut — a window that opens only about every four years — closes this month, on April 16. Though I’ve submitted an application, I don’t expect to make the cut.

The educational requirements for the astronaut program are clear: Applicants must possess at least a master’s degree in a STEM field (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), a doctorate in medicine or a test pilot school graduate patch. Though I have a Ph.D., it’s in philosophy. (And though I’m an Air Force pilot, I’m not a test pilot.)

I hesitate to tell NASA its business. But I think its requirements are closing the astronaut program off from important insights from the humanities and social sciences.

Of course, the requirement for astronauts to have technical training makes some intuitive sense. NASA was founded in 1958 “to provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere.” Who better to solve flight problems than scientists and engineers? What’s more, NASA’s space missions have long conducted science experiments to learn how plant and animal life behaves in the far-flung emptiness between us and the moon.

But the need for STEM in space might be waning — just as the need for humanities and the social sciences waxes. After all, the “problems of flight” that once tethered us to this planet have largely been solved, thanks in no small part to all those scientist and engineer astronauts who blazed the trail to space.

By contrast, the future of our relationship with the cosmos — a colony on the moon? Humans on Mars? Contact with intelligent alien life? — will require thoughtful inquiry from many disciplines. We will need sociologists and anthropologists to help us imagine new communities; theologians and linguists if we find we are not alone in the universe; political and legal theorists to sort out the governing principles of interstellar life.

Naturally, some scholars can study these topics while still earthbound. But so can many of today’s astronauts, who often end up working on projects unrelated to their academic training. The idea behind sending people with a wider array of academic disciplines into the cosmos is not just to give scholars a taste of outer space, but also to put them in fruitful conversation with one another.

My own discipline, philosophy, may be better suited for this kind of exploration than some might think. To be sure, much philosophy can be done from an armchair. Descartes arrived at his famous conclusion, “I think, therefore, I am,” while warming himself by the fire and, as he noted, “wearing a winter dressing gown.”

But some of the greatest philosophical breakthroughs occurred only because their authors had firsthand experience with extreme and uncomfortable conditions. We might not have the Stoic philosophy of Epictetus had he not faced the hardship of slavery in Nero’s court. We might not have Thomas Hobbes’s “Leviathan” (and his principle of the “consent of the governed,” so central to the American experiment), but for his flight from the English Civil War. And we might not have Hannah Arendt’s insights on the “banality of evil” had she not attended the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a chief architect of the Holocaust.

Not all philosophers who want to learn what it means to be human in this vast and expanding universe need to experience living in space. But perhaps some of us should.

Throughout the history of Western philosophy, space has often served as stand-in for life’s deepest truths. Plato thought that the things of this world were mere images of true reality, and that true reality existed in the heavens beyond. What inspired admiration and awe in Immanuel Kant was not just the moral law within all of us but also the “starry heavens above.” The Platos and Kants of today are in a position to take a much closer look at those very heavens.

In general, the work of philosophy is to ask, “And suppose this proposition is right, what then?” When faced with a proposition — say, “The mind and body are separable,” or “One must always act to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number” — the philosopher takes another step and asks, “What are the implications of such a view?”

Though Earth has been our only home, it may not be our home forever. What are the implications of that proposition? What might that mean for our conception of nationhood? Of community? Of ourselves and our place in the world? This would be the work of space philosophers.

These days, unfortunately, the prestige of STEM continues to eclipse that of the social sciences and humanities. It seems unlikely that NASA will buck this trend.

That would be bad news for me, personally — but I think also for humanity at large. One day we may all echo Jodie Foster’s character in the sci-fi movie “Contact . ” When the mysteries of space-time were unfurled before her, all she could manage to say was, “They should have sent a poet.”

Joseph O. Chapa ( @JosephOChapa ) is a U.S. Air Force officer and the author of “Is Remote Warfare Moral?”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

10 lines on Scientist in English - Short essay on Scientist

Today, we are sharing ten lines essay on Scientist . This article can help the students who are looking for information about Scientist in English . This article is generally useful for class 1, class 2, and class 3 .

10 lines on Scientist in English

• A scientist is a person who discovers new things and makes new inventions.
• Many scientists gave many different important inventions to the world.
• Just as there are many branches of science, in the same way, there are many types of scientists.
• Scientists of chemistry do chemical inventions, such as the invention of any medicine, vaccine, chemical, etc.
• Scientists of physics make inventions in the field of space and many other areas.
• In the same way, scientists of biology do inventions related to trees, plants, and animals, medicals.
• Scientists do their work and tests in the lab.
• Scientists spend most of the day in their lab.
• The person who is interested in studying all the aspects of science, small and big, can become a scientist.
• The names of scientists who made important inventions become immortal, and their names are recorded on the pages of history forever.

Children in school, are often asked to write 10 lines about Scientist in English . We help the students to do their homework in an effective way. If you liked this article, then please comment below and tell us how you liked it. We use your comments to further improve our service. We hope you have got some learning on the above subject. You can also visit my YouTube channel that is https://www.youtube.com/synctechlearn. You can also follow us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/synctechlearn .

You might like

Post a comment, contact form.

John N. Williams

Why do I have to pay upfront for you to write my essay?

• Our process

Diane M. Omalley

Gombos Zoran

How do I place an order with your paper writing service?

• Individual approach
• Fraud protection