• Question: Would you consider yourself as a stereotypical mad scientist or just a normal person in a normal job?

    Asked by elmo97 to Andrew, Emma, Marianne on 14 Jun 2010 in Categories: .
    • Photo: Andrew Maynard

      Andrew Maynard answered on 14 Jun 2010:

      Hi Elmo97,

      How about a suppressed, far from stereotypical mad scientist?

      Actually, I would consider myself a normal person in a great job – I sometimes can’t believe my luck that I’ve ended up being paid to do what I enjoy.

      (I should also add that I have a friend who will be mad at me for talking about “normal” people, as everyone’s special/unique in some way!).

    • Photo: Marianne Baker

      Marianne Baker answered on 14 Jun 2010:

      Hehe. I’m rarely a stereotypical mad scientist (though I realise my photo suggests otherwise; we were just messing about a bit there!).

      I suppose I’m a bit nerdy; I like video games, quizzes and think science is great, but I’m not a speccy, spotty, socially-inept strange person (as scientists seemed to be portrayed by American TV shows!).

      Science is just another career – a good one – but no more worthy of a demeaning stereotype than any other, I don’t think.

    • Photo: anon

      anon answered on 14 Jun 2010:

      I think I’m not the mad scientist-type. I think you have to be really smart to get away with being a wee bit eccentric and I suspect I just don’t have what it takes.

      Did you know about the Nobel prize winning doctor who swallowed a glass of bacteria to prove a point? An Australian chap called Barry Marshall was convinced that a bug called Helicobacter pylori caused stomach ulcers but no-one believed him. He drank the bug and developed early symptoms of ulcers (he took antibiotics to prevent the ulcers). Now antibiotics are prescribed to everyone who gets ulcers and has the bug.

Comments