Home
Mobile version
spiked plus
About spiked
What is spiked?
Support spiked
spiked shop
Contact us
Advertising
Summer school
Top issues
Abortion
Arab uprisings
British politics
Child abuse panic
Economy
Environment
For Europe, Against the EU
Free speech
Jimmy Savile scandal
Nudge
Obesity
Parents and kids
Population
USA
View all issues...
special feature
The Counter-Leveson Inquiry
other sections
 Letters
 Review of Books
 Monthly archive
selected authors
Duleep Allirajah
Daniel Ben-Ami
Tim Black
Jennie Bristow
Sean Collins
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
Frank Furedi
Helene Guldberg
Patrick Hayes
Mick Hume
Rob Lyons
Brendan O’Neill
Nathalie Rothschild
James Woudhuysen
more authors...
RSS feed
survey

abc def ghi jkl mno pqrs tuv wxyz index
Survey home
First thoughts
Final thoughts
Survey responses
RSS feed
Michael Baum
Gustav Born
K Eric Drexler
Marcus du Sautoy
Harold Kroto
Paul Lauterbur
Leon Lederman
Bernard Lovell
Sophie Petit-Zeman
Ingo Potrykus
Jack Pridham
Simon Singh
Jack Steinberger
Gareth Leng
professor of experimental physiology at the Centre for Integrative Physiology at the University of Edinburgh, and former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Neuroendocrinology


One man and one book inspired me to take up science.

  • The man was one of my university lecturers, the professor of mathematics Chris Zeeman. Every lecture he gave at Warwick University, where I studied for my first degree, it was a privilege to be there. He had this gift of developing an argument so clearly and logically that every step was obvious and inevitable, and yet again and again he would lead you over a cliff. There would be a gasp from the audience, and Zeeman would pause and twinkle. He showed that complex processes can have simple explanations, and that there is a beauty in these explanations. Mathematicians appreciate this beauty, but so do we all, given the chance.
  • The book was The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by the philosopher Karl Popper, which had the same combination of clarity of thought with passion. As Popper says: ‘Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument for grasping her. And we must hazard them to win our prize. Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game.’ This is the game that I wanted to play.

See Gareth Leng‘s website.