If scientists had logos

There are some clever ones here; my favorites are Newton, Gödel, Darwin, and Feynman:

image

p.s. I don’t know who the clever person is who should get credit for these logos, but if anybody knows tell us in the comments.

UPDATE: Reader Don Bilgren, in the comments, identifies the designer as Kapil Bhagat, who made these logos for a National Science Day in India.

 

h/t: Merilee

61 Comments

  1. Posted August 7, 2014 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Love Newton and Darwin.

    • Posted August 7, 2014 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

      My fave is Einstein.

      (For just a split second I thought to myself “this must be some Scottish scientist I’ve never heard of”.)

      • Posted August 8, 2014 at 4:57 am | Permalink

        (For just a split second I thought to myself “this must be some Scottish scientist I’ve never heard of”.)

        LMAO! That made my morning!

  2. Posted August 7, 2014 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    Coyne (insert image of coin with fresh cherries and felid daguerreotype).

  3. Posted August 7, 2014 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Glad to see Norman Borlaug get a well deserved shout-out. That man saved a lot of people from starvation.

    • Josephine
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      Don’t tell the anti-GMO crowd.

      • Posted August 7, 2014 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        I don’t anticipate that being too much of a problem. The anti-GMO crowd and I are not exactly simpatico.

    • Hempenstein
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      Also glad to see Borlaug among the logos, and further glad that someone else is as well.

  4. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    I also like the Goodall one. But I did not get Godel until I looked him up.

    • Mark Sturtevant
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      Oh, and if one could suggest edits: The Darwin one should start with comic sans and progress up to, I dunno, maybe calligraphy.

      • Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

        Or runes, uncial, black letter, serif, humanist (!), …

        /@

        • Posted August 8, 2014 at 12:07 am | Permalink

          Like this.

          /@

          • Posted August 8, 2014 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

            But all of those suffer the same fault as the well-known procession of hominids: evolution as progress. How about something using a circular family tree, or a family bush with Darwin as one of its fruit?

            • Posted August 8, 2014 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

              Ah! Quite so. And since I made that point on the post about the Mashable video, I should’ve known better!

              /@

            • Thanny
              Posted August 9, 2014 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

              Evolution does produce progress. As time goes on, the number of possible designs that evolution can explore goes up. That includes more complex designs, which are by definition earlier designs plus something else.

              Filling in larger and larger portions of design space via including more and more complex designs is a type of progress, by definition.

              The mistake you’re making is assuming that progress, as a concept, entails moving toward some predetermined ideal. It does not. It entails only moving in some direction, and covering ground not previously covered. Because of how evolution works, it does mean progressing towards something better, but only better for reproducing under the prevailing circumstances.

              • Posted August 9, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

                I like your comment a lot. Evolution evidences a progression toward more diversity and complexity, rare counterexamples not withstanding. The mistake often made is confusing progress with teleology.

  5. M Janello
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Hey, you forgot one:

    (Yes, I made this. Yes that is the modern domestic cat family speciation tree. Of course it is.)

    Here is the image link if the above doesn’t work:

    http://imgur.com/evCjGJC

    • Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Awesome!

      /@

    • Scott Woody
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

      They’re wonderful, thanks for the images and for the link to attribution.

      • M Janello
        Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

        Just to be clear, I made the one I linked to, but not the one on the main page.

    • Torbjörn Larsson, OM
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

      Appropriately, the cats sits in the ceiling.

      Nice!

    • Posted August 7, 2014 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

      Nice!

    • docbill1351
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

      Kink stole it. All by himself. I no can haz helpd.

    • Diane G.
      Posted August 8, 2014 at 12:22 am | Permalink

      Brilliant!

    • Posted August 8, 2014 at 2:38 am | Permalink

      Excellent! Thanks a lot!

      • M Janello
        Posted August 8, 2014 at 7:59 am | Permalink

        You’re welcome! Your website gives me a great deal of enjoyment, and I’m glad to have provided a bit in return 🙂

    • Posted August 8, 2014 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

      Excellent, and it could have “I think” above as per Darwin’s own early diagram.

  6. Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Gauκ1κ2

    [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature ]

    Carηot

    [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle ]

  7. Posted August 7, 2014 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Superb. My fave is the Gödel one.

  8. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    I understand all of these except the one with the Greek letters and I’m not even sure to whom it refers.

    • Posted August 7, 2014 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

      It’s Democritus & it shows atoms. I feel I’m ripping of Ben by identifying him because I’ve heard Ben talk about him a lot in other posts. 🙂

    • David Evans
      Posted August 8, 2014 at 12:53 am | Permalink

      I have my doubts about the inclusion of Democritus. I think his atomic theory counts as philosophy, not science – he had, as far as I know, no evidence for it. And he certainly didn’t visualise his atoms in that way, as nuclei with orbiting electrons!

      • Posted August 8, 2014 at 9:26 am | Permalink

        The evidence in favour of ancient atomism is conceptual, not “visualizable” – though there is a suggestion that motes of dust may have played a role.

        Should he be included? Where does one draw the dividing line?

  9. Posted August 7, 2014 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Like a dumbass, I commented on the picture. I said the following but now I think I really do need a nap:

    OMG I read “logos” as the Greek logos (λόγος) then I wondered why Democritus had flowers in his name. I need to take a nap!!

    • Draken
      Posted August 8, 2014 at 2:49 am | Permalink

      Yeah, until I read the comments I thougt he’d invented the Flowerpower.

  10. J Smith
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    Anthony Benedetto the great.

  11. Posted August 7, 2014 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    I saw this post as a challenge, so here is a logo for you: http://listofx.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/coyne.jpg

    • docbill1351
      Posted August 7, 2014 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

      Brilliant! I love the Bigfoot sighting at the end!

    • Posted August 8, 2014 at 2:34 am | Permalink

      That is truly superb!

      • Friendlypig
        Posted August 8, 2014 at 5:29 am | Permalink

        What big ears you have!

      • Posted August 8, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

        Thank you! There were no monkeys or photographers involved in making of this image, so feel free to use it.

  12. Don Billgren
    Posted August 8, 2014 at 3:12 am | Permalink

    The designer is Kapil Bhagat, made for a National Science Day in India

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/typography-meets-science-graphic-design-kapil-bhagat_n_2900864.html

    Or his tumblr:

    http://bhagatkapil.tumblr.com

    Gödel rules!

  13. Robert Seidel
    Posted August 8, 2014 at 5:11 am | Permalink

    One more, since we’re at it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/113231223@N05/14672142090/

  14. Posted August 8, 2014 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Kind of surprised no-one (so far) mentioned liking the Pauli logo. Maybe you have to be a chemist, or especially in NMR.

  15. Posted August 8, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    A little late, but here are two ideas 🙂 https://www.dropbox.com/sc/z627rbu8b4oaso6/AAD0kDkvIqofYOi7jNyh8u8ba

    • Diane G.
      Posted August 8, 2014 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

      Very cool! My gosh this web-site is full of talent!

  16. OGee
    Posted August 8, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Clever, but sadly Watson and Crick’s DNA appears to be twisting the wrong way.

    • Diane G.
      Posted August 8, 2014 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

      What a catch!

  17. Schrief
    Posted August 8, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    I’m too thick to understand the Goedel one 😦

    • Diane G.
      Posted August 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      “In 1931 and while still in Vienna, Gödel published his incompleteness theorems…”

      (Wikipedia)

  18. prateeklala
    Posted August 9, 2014 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Hi Jerry,

    Thanks for posting this! In fact the poster above is a mash-up of two different artists: the first six are indeed by Indian graphic designer Kapil Bhagat. The remainder are my designs from last year. If you or your readers are on Facebook, they can visit “LalaLand Graphics” for the full set of 175 scientist logotypes I’ve put together so far.

    Hope you enjoy them!

    Prateek Lala, MD
    Toronto, Canada


%d bloggers like this: