On Science and History

Scientific history, or the history of science, is a rather obscure and underrated topic and it is this disregard that is a cause of the increasing disinterest in the sciences, something that's caught my attention and caused grief. In the words of Auguste Comte "To understand a science it is necessary to know its history". I wouldn't deem it "necessary", however I do believe that being aware of the past is immensely beneficial especially when it comes to inculcating a sense of curiosity and learning among all those in the scientific community, from students to scientists.

The  most frequent encounters we've had (and have) with the history of science are the trifling introductory paragraphs to chapters in textbooks (be it school or undergrad ones) that talk about the persons behind the discovery of the concept under discussion. I'm certain that most of you have entirely omitted the section primarily because it doesn't fall under the "scope of the syllabus". However, there is a sound reason as to why these facts have been incorporated into science apart from filling pages and simply stating who pioneered these ideas. It is to understand the causes and consequences of the facts presented, their impact on present-day life and to learn from the mistakes of our predecessors. The progression of science determines what and how much we are capable of knowing at any point and helps identify what lies ahead in store for us.

In a quixotic world, we'd have achieved this. But we haven't and hence the remark "history repeats itself"  continues to hold true.

Scientific history can be made a valuable tool to impress and elicit active participation from students at a classroom level. In a lot of ways, history answers the hows and whys of science. How someone comes up with an idea gives an insight into the working of such beautiful minds. As an aspiring pharmacist, I came across one of the earliest pioneers of drug discovery, a Swedish fellow named Carl Scheele, a pharmacist, posthumously credited with the discovery of a number of elements and compounds of pharmaceutical importance like citric aid, tannic acid, lactic acid, glycerine and cyanide. Unfortunately, Scheele loved sniffing and tasting everything around him, an idiosyncrasy that cost him his life (it was uncertain as to what killed him, he also identified hydrofluoric acid, mercuric compounds and phosphorus and had probably inhaled and swallowed a little of everything). What we stand to learn from Scheele is to have an undying thirst for exploring but playing it safe to an extent. It also occurred to me that in this age, as we face a dearth of new drugs in the face of antibiotic resistance, perhaps such unconventional approaches will result in the next breakthrough for the "miracle drug".

My fascination for knowing the past of science led me to read "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson (recommended by a professor), a brief (nevertheless, thoroughly entertaining) "science for dummies" A to Z of the history of astronomy, physics, geology and biology to name a few. The book is ideal if you would like to dabble in all the sciences without delving into the nitty-gritties of the matter.

Be it science in history or history in science, one cannot discretely separate the two fields. Their borders transcend on numerous level and for a more wholesome learning, it is fruitful to amalgamate the two. There is so much more to scientific history, but I guess that can make up a blog by itself!