If scientists had logos

Reader Robin sent this, which I see is available all over the Internet. It’s sort of cool, and so we’ll end the day with this. I like Newton’s, Gödel’s, Feynman’s, and Einstein’s. But Watson and Crick, as well as Jane Goodall, are kind of a stretch. And I suppose someone will point out that “Darwin” implies a telological evolutionary progressivism!



  1. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 1:50 pm | Permalink


  2. BobTerrace
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Would the logo for PCC(E) be a selection of different species of coins?

  3. Posted July 14, 2016 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    The problem with the Watson and Crick one is that the double helix is going the wrong way (a classic mistake). This is left-handed Z-DNA. – MC

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted July 14, 2016 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

      WORTH IT

    • Filippo
      Posted July 14, 2016 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

      My most vivid (and enjoyable) memory from organic chemistry is the professor going through a rather detailed description of how Wallace Carothers (of Du Pont fame) created an “elegant” experiment to conclusively distinguish between the “levo” or “dextro” forms of a given molecule, inasmuch as they otherwise exhibit identical chemical properties.

  4. Posted July 14, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Nit that we mind seeing it again, it’s awesome, but, you posted it in 2014.


    But it’s still good B^)

  5. Hempenstein
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Nice to see Borlaug in there.

  6. Merilee
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 3:22 pm | Permalink


  7. Alexander
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    We could add SchrÖdinger, the Ö should be a cat seen from the back with its ears up.

    Any artists?

  8. Dave
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Bohr’s, Pauli’s, Heisenberg’s are really good too.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Should’ve made the “M” in Feynman into a set of bongos.

  10. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Lots of nits.

    Here is another, Einstein has the classical (really, newtonian) mistake E = mc^2 instead of the relativistic E_0 = mc^2.

    But I guess we can give it some poetic licence.

  11. gravelinspector-Aidan
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Not even ONE for Cantor?

    • Craw
      Posted July 14, 2016 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

      Ca to

      (Leave out every third letter.)
      But of course, *you can’t count* Cantor.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted July 15, 2016 at 5:19 am | Permalink

        Well, you can make a start…
        Excuse me, there is a little bird at the door needing to sharpen it’s beak.

        • Ned
          Posted July 15, 2016 at 7:23 am | Permalink

          C nt r

          Would be slightly closer (middle thirds)

  12. John Harshman
    Posted July 14, 2016 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Kind of annoying that Darwin gets a sort of linear scala naturae. There really ought to be a way to get a tree in there somewhere.

  13. Alex
    Posted July 15, 2016 at 2:17 am | Permalink

    Marie Curie and Jane Goodall once again competing for the “the one woman in science I can think of” spot… pity…

    • Glandu
      Posted July 15, 2016 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      The real pity is that our world did not let other talented ladies realize their full scientific potential.

  14. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted July 15, 2016 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    cThAaNrGlLeEsD dBaArNwKin

  15. Posted July 15, 2016 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    All of them great!

    Would have loved to have seen Kepler, Planck, Freud, Euclid, and this being a cat-loving forum, Schrödinger, naturally. 🙂

    Carl Kruse

  16. Posted July 15, 2016 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Nice, but who is Seibniz? 😉

  17. Morton Kaplan
    Posted July 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm | Permalink


    Sent from my iPhone


%d bloggers like this: