• love of science: Love of science is a greater spur to productivity than any manager can offer.
Love of science, love of discovery, and enthusiasm for science are contagious; they are nurtured by
scientific interactions. Most scientists are inclined to be somewhat forgiving of weaknesses in those
colleagues who passionately love science.
If you were beginning a career again, would you pick the same type of work? The answer to this question was ‘yes’ for 86-91% of physical scientists, 82-83% of lawyers and journalists, 41-52% of those in skilled trades (printers, autoworkers, and steelworkers), and only 16-21% of those in unskilled trades (assembly-line steelworkers and autoworkers) [Blauner, 1960]. Jobs with the highest levels of worker satisfaction are those that are esteemed by society, that allow both personal control of decisions and unsupervised work, and that involve teams [Blauner, 1960]. Scientific careers provide all of these.
I learned how atypical the scientist’s job satisfaction is when I told my half-brother, who was an insurance salesman, that I love my work; he laughed and told me not to bullshit him. Sometimes the exhilaration with science is so overpowering that I break out in a silly grin. Then I remember, consciously or unconsciously, the scientist’s distrust of sentimentality. I transform the grin into a knowing smile and dryly remark, “It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it; don’t they?”
• above-average intelligence: This characteristic is almost essential, but a scientist with only average intelligence can succeed by excelling in the other traits of scientists. Genius is not required. Among those with an IQ > 120, IQ shows little relation to either scientific innovation or productivity [Simonton, 1988]. Genius without the other needed qualities is insufficient for scientific success.
Srinivasa Ramanujan was a mathematics genius in 19th-century India. He was rich enough to receive a high school education, a few books, and live as a scholar. Yet for most of his life he was completely cut off from virtually all mathematics literature and knowledge. He worked on his own, and mathematicians are still deciphering and applying his work [Gleick, 1992d]. How much more could he have accomplished as part of the science community? How many geniuses never see a book?
Most of us equate IQ scores with intelligence, but IQ scores predict success in school, not in life. Career and family success is forecast more successfully with tests that model constructive thinking, problem solving, and persuasion, with and without emotional distractions. In contrast, IQ tests evaluate specific types of verbal and mathematical ability. They do not evaluate how well these will be applied to the often ambiguous and open-ended problems of real life, where ability to react to crises and manage one’s emotions are just as essential as IQ [Goleman, 1992a].
• imagination: Imagination is necessary for insight and even for the everyday problem solving that is intrinsic to most science. Almost all scientists are unusually imaginative, but the unimaginative can produce valuable science in the form of careful hypothesis testing. Individuals who have imagination but lack a critical attitude can be cranks; they cannot be scientists. When imagination is combined with both will and a vision of what is achievable, the result can be formidable: “We choose to go to the moon” [J. F. Kennedy, 1960 speech].
• desire to improve: “Boredom could be an important stimulus to evolution among the animals” [Calvin, 1986], because it leads to trials of a variety of different behaviors. Like curiosity, dissatis -
