Reddit mentions of Cathedrals of Science: The Personalities and Rivalries That Made Modern Chemistry

Wait, does unidan have his PhD now? Last I heard he was just a grad student. I'm being honest, I don't know. But I do know plenty of grad students with heads much, much bigger than their accomplishments. I would hesitate to call some professors "experts" so I don't think unidan should really be considered one either. That's just my two cents, though.

There's an excellent book on the recent (past 100 years or so) history of chemistry and it's surprisingly rich with drama. I bring it up because there's a theme running through the book that echoes what you mentioned. It details several examples of brilliant, famous chemists stepping very slightly outside of their own field and making complete fools of themselves because they didn't bother learning the fundamentals of the field they were stepping into. For example, multiple Nobel laureate chemist Linus Pauling stepping into biochemistry to solve the structure of DNA. People don't seem to realize that being brilliant in a specific area doesn't automatically make you brilliant in any other area, not even necessarily a closely related one.

Yeah, people never let their personalities or biases affect chemistry in any way

https://www.amazon.com/Cathedrals-Science-Personalities-Rivalries-Chemistry/dp/0195321340

One of my favorites is cathedrals is science. It is great read that really dives into the personalities and motives of the scientists behind many of the paradigm shifts during the golden age of physics and chemistry

You might be interested in this page. Once a prize is awarded, the Nobel committees don't take it back or adjust it. They are also more like lifetime achievement awards than is commonly supposed. The reviewers look into the overall contributions of a candidate, not just a particular piece of their work.

Here's one example of an award that wouldn't be deserved based on something that was wrong:

>The 1938 prize went to Enrico Fermi in part for "his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation". However, in this case, the award later appeared to be premature: Fermi thought he had created transuranic elements (specifically, hesperium), but had in fact unwittingly demonstrated nuclear fission (and had actually created only fission products—isotopes of much lighter elements than uranium). The fact that Fermi's interpretation was incorrect was discovered shortly after he had received his prize.

You may like this book, Cathedrals of Science, about the early history of physical chemistry. It discusses some of the early Nobel Chemistry prize awards and the personalities behind them.

There's a really good book about this dude and his feud with another renowned chemist, Walther Nernst, as well as some other history concerning people like Gilbert Lewis and Linus Pauling and Svante Arrhenius. It's my favorite science history book other than maybe Quantum Ten. It's called Cathedrals of Science by Patrick Coffey.

There is a good book that covers this: https://www.amazon.com/Cathedrals-Science-Personalities-Rivalries-Chemistry/dp/0195321340You might find a copy in your library.