It’s time to adopt a new perspective on whether scientists are appropriately respected today. The argument over whether scientists are under-appreciated is too focused upon the idea that we don’t understand their work, so can’t grasp its importance.

Yet a bigger problem is rarely considered: the impact of a scientist’s personality. More light needs to be shed upon them as human beings, not just as practitioners in esoteric fields that are inaccessible to the untrained. The Nobel Prizes have been announced for this year, and however fascinating the discoveries concerning the activation of innate immunity are, the story behind these accolades should be considered in greater depth.

Don’t just look at the Nobel Prize, look at the person holding it, because their work involves more than theorising and doing experiments. Their journey counts. Scientists are too often seen in one dimension: their contribution to our comprehension of the natural world is all that is considered meaningful. Valuing a scientist in their field only in terms of successfully proving various hypotheses is tragically unsophisticated.

It is important for the progression of knowledge that we do not persist in such simplicity. We need to pay more attention to scientists as people because it is a scientist’s attitudes and ambitions as much as their investigations that shape the landscape of knowledge.

The work of Frederick Hopkins elucidates this. In 1929 he won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Today this is the achievement for which he is most celebrated by our society, but the man himself needs equal attention. He had the determination and single-mindedness required to set up biochemistry as a distinct scientific study in Cambridge, a feat fraught with bureaucratic obstacles. He cemented a discipline through resourcing the funds and researchers necessary, and in doing so laid the foundations for one of the world’s best biochemistry departments.

If anyone forgets: it was here that Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, and any biochemist would gladly whisk them over to the Cavendish Laboratory and make them lick the commemorative plaque. The importance of biochemistry as a subject is rarely debated now. This isn’t due to Hopkins’ actions as a scientist, but as a person. Had he not won a Nobel Prize in 1929, would his name still be on the building in the Downing Site?

This not to say we shouldn’t honour individuals for their scientific achievements. Admiring people from any field for progress in their profession is important whether they are a sportsman, politician, or artist. Yet in other areas we are more aware of the effect of personality on their work.

The public look at an MP’s persona for they understand that this will affect their political views. It is almost intuitive that an artist’s temperament influences their art. Similarly, we need to think more broadly about what a scientist’s ‘work’ is. Teaching, leadership and perseverance are as intrinsic to the shaping of what is discovered in the laboratory as accuracy and precision.

When conducting trials or tests a disinterested attitude is crucial, but thinking that the people in laboratories are relentlessly neutral is ridiculous. It’s more nuanced than that, and the scientific community does and must consist of headstrong, imaginative people with an enterprising spirit.

Changing our outlook is important. Many are aware that research is often funded by biased parties, and as such findings are questioned accordingly. But the output is definitely a function of the scientist’s inclinations as well as those of businessmen - we must look at both parties.

Given the power science wields in our modern world, we cannot ignore this. A once-yearly celebration of science is not enough –we must also assess the politics and personalities behind its formation.