Say 鈥渃elebrity鈥� and most people think of movie stars or pop singers. But at 快猫短视频 we believe that scientists can be celebrities too. In an attempt to redress the balance, we have done our own study, bringing C. P. Snow鈥檚 鈥渢wo cultures鈥� head to head in a test of star status.
We thought a fair measure of a celeb鈥檚 standing would come from the number of hits they got on Googie, the internet search engine. Our method was to key in a single monitor 鈥� 鈥淓lvis鈥� say 鈥� on the assumption that real stars don鈥檛 need two names. This approach has some obvious drawbacks. First, it eliminates any Smiths, Browns or Bloggses, but that can鈥檛 be helped. Besides, we suspect the burden of an ordinary name is enought to prevent anyone attaining true greatness. Secondly, not all the hits for 鈥淢adonna鈥�, say, will refer to the great lady herself. But when you鈥檙e talking millions, a few runs for the other blessed virgin don鈥檛 count for much.
These reservations aside, the results are intriguing. With only a little dubious Googling, the scientits come out on top overall, and have the highest single entry (see Graphic). With an astounding 15 million plus hits, 鈥淔ord鈥� is on a par with 鈥淛esus鈥� and a third of the way to achieving 鈥淕od鈥� 鈥� like ratings. To give the artists their due, their team probably has greater depth, although the nature of artistic celebrity seems a lot more fickle.
Advertisement
There are lessons to be learned. Our advice for any scientist aspiring to stardom is, first die. Also,if you can鈥檛 spawn one of the world鈥檚 largest car companies, then at least have an SI unit or a few Institutes named after you. As for artists: gaze on Britney鈥檚 works, ye mighty, and despair!