science really is only for the rich, huh?

choosing science is quite a noble undertaking. funnily enough, the word noble fits in both of its most common meanings: noble as in virtuous, honourable, and intellectually admirable, and noble as in belonging to a class of people whose wealth is, presumably, sufficient to sustain such intellectual pursuits. the irony is almost too convenient. one would think the pursuit of knowledge, a supposedly universal human endeavour, would be accessible to anyone with a functioning brain and an insatiable curiosity. alas, one would be mistaken.

i pity the life of the modern scientist, who must navigate an endless labyrinth of laboratory equipment, research grants, overpriced chemicals, and machines that cost more than the average person's entire existence. no, really! the raw chemical elements constituting a human body are often estimated to be worth a mere $100-$200 USD. the irony that we can call chemicals overpriced while calling a human body underpriced is a distinctly first-world problem. imagine being composed of relatively inexpensive matter, only to discover that understanding said matter requires equipment worth several thousand dollars. nature, it seems, offers rather affordable raw materials but charges an arm and a leg for the instruction manual.

perhaps the unfortunate scientist is best exemplified by charles goodyear, who devoted much of his life to improving natural rubber. rubber, in its original form, was a rather temperamental substance, prone to becoming sticky in the heat and brittle in the cold. goodyear spent years experimenting in an attempt to remedy these deficiencies, enduring financial hardship, repeated failures, and even imprisonment for debt. his efforts eventually led to the development of vulcanisation, a process that made rubber considerably more durable and commercially useful. it's nice that in the end, a discovery of such consequence went on to earn its discoverer a comfortable existence. except no, fuck no, quite the contrary: goodyear died deeply in debt in 1860, having spent substantial resources fighting to protect his patents from infringement. he was, in many respects, an embodiment of per aspera ad astra, but without the ad astra. it's a sad and peculiar fate, to devote one's life to a discovery that would transform an industry, only to find oneself financially ruined by the very circumstances surrounding its creation. the man had helped make rubber invaluable to the world without ever quite managing to make his own life financially secure.

well, maybe there are no fruits left on the ground beneath the tree of nature. just maybe, humanity has already gathered the low-hanging fruit, exhausted the most accessible discoveries, and now finds itself staring upwards at branches that can only be reached through considerable effort. maybe we really do have to climb the tree in order to obtain more fruits. scientific progress cannot forever depend on casual observations and happy accidents; at some point, the pursuit of knowledge demands increasingly sophisticated instruments, years of painstaking experimentation, and a rather unfortunate amount of funding.

except, yet again, no, fuck no, the story isn't that simple, the relationship between scientific achievement and financial reward has always been a rather... uncertain one. wealth may enable discovery, but discovery does not guarantee wealth; a fortune may purchase the means to investigate nature, but it cannot purchase the certainty of a successful result. the universe, in this respect, is an extraordinarily indifferent institution. throughout history, scientific institutions have often favoured people who could afford to become scientists.

of course, there are exceptions, but let's just go through a few eras:

1. ancient (c. 3000-600 BCE):
   • imhotep, privileged
   • thales, wealthy
2. classical (c. 600BCE-500CE):
   • archimedes, royal support
   • aristotle, privileged
3. medieval (c. 500-1500 CE):
   • al-biruni, institutionally supported
   • ibn al-haytham, financially unstable at times
4. renaissance (c. 1400-1600):
   • copernicus, relatively secure
   • vesalius, connected to royalty
5. scientific revolution (c. 1540-1700)
   • newton, comfortable and wealthy (later in his life)
   • galileo, mixed
6. enlightenment (c. 1680-1800)
   • lavoisier, very wealthy
   • euler, comfortable
7. industrial/classical science (c. 1800-1900)
   • darwin, wealthy
   • maxwell, privileged
8. modern scientific (c. 1900-1945)
   • einstein, modest earlier, comfortable later
   • planck, comfortable
9. atomic/spage age (c. 1945-1970s)
   • oppenheimer, privileged
   • feynman, comfortable
10. biotechnology/information age (c. 1970s-2000)
    • sanger, comfortable
    • berners-lee, comfortable

across the list, the majority of the most influential scientists from each era have been comfortable when it comes to matters of money. so what are we to make of this rather depressing little pattern? not much, if we insist on the comforting fiction that science is a pure meritocracy in which curiosity alone opens doors. rather a lot, if we notice that the doors are frequently opened by inherited comfort, institutional patronage, a tolerant spouse, a convenient patent, or the kind of childhood that does not end at fourteen in a factory. money does not buy scientific genius, thank god, or the wealthy would have discovered everything by now and be insufferable about it. but money buys the time to be curious, the leisure to fail, the laboratory in which failure is at least measurable, and the social cushion that makes a decade of inconclusive experiments sound like "promising research" rather than "what exactly are you doing with your life?"

the modern arrangement... doesn't exist. it's still the same patronage. a prince who funded a philosopher expected flattery, perhaps a clever machine, and the occasional horoscope; a funding committee expects deliverables, impact statements, a timeline, and a cv. the scientist, in turn, is expected to be a project manager of the unknown, which is a bit like being asked to herd cats and then graded on how neatly they line up. of course, some cats line up beautifully, and those are the ones we photograph for the brochure. the rest are described as "not a good fit."

to be fair, science is honourable, yes; it is also expensive, and the honourable pursuit has a nasty habit of selecting for people who can afford to be honourable without starving. the phrase "independent researcher" is almost an oxymoron, unless the independence in question is financial independence, in which case it is less a job title than a hobby. the lone genius toiling in obscurity is a lovely story, but obscurity is much easier to tolerate when someone else is paying the rent. faraday was a bookbinder's apprentice; einstein worked in a patent office; these exceptions are real, and they are also exceptions, which is precisely what makes them useful to the myth. the myth says anyone can do it; the list says anyone can do it, provided anyone has a patron, a pension, a spouse, a stipend, or an unusual tolerance for uncertainty.

in conclusion... no there's no conclusion go fuck yourself