Scientists and Jesuits, Gypsies and Jews Much recent discussion in the pages of Science, as well as elsewhere, has carried the implication that scientists should become more mature citizens, by conforming more to the customary behavior of other citizens. Among the hidden assumptions is the idea that conformity is nearly always in the direction of maturity, and that becoming more like other human beings means that one is truly more humane. The assertion is frequently made these days that

more »

... ts are human beings. Is this so? I've watched scientists for 20 years, and my observation is that nearly all are human. Of course, as always, the exceptions are important. But going further, these days it is frequently claimed that scientists are more or less like other human beings. I haven't found this to be true in the case of good scientists. Why should it be true? Or if they are not like others, why should we try to change them? Why should not distinctive occupations make us distinctively different? We would like our Einsteins to be brains and to be citizens, but do they have to be Rotarians? As a matter of fact, the Einstein was a citizen. But I find it ridiculous to imagine him at Rotary meetings wearing a button, "Call me Al." My thesis is that outstanding people in any occupation are not like the average man or like each other; I think this is particularly true and as important for the scientist as it is for the artist. A case can be made that there are very few occupational or ethnic groups which are really quite different today and which are continuing an ancient and different tradition. Let's look a little at "the different ones." They include a motley bunch of tribes, from mathematicians to merchant mariners. What groups, tribes, or subcultures have the following traits: that they are a definite in-group, that their special