337Science, William Whewell warned in 1834, is disintegrating like “a great
empire falling to pieces.” The Master of Trinity College at Anglican Cam-
bridge, Whewell was particularly concerned about the endless subdivision
of the physical sciences. One striking result of the loss of “all traces of
unity” could be seen “in the want of any name by which we can desig-
nate the students of the knowledge of the material world collectively.”
Whewell reported that “this diffi culty was felt very oppressively” by the
members of the recently founded British Association for the Advancement
of Science, who could fi nd no “general term” to “describe themselves with
reference to their pursuits.” A series of terms was considered and discarded
by the leading fi gures in the association. “Philosophers” was “too wide
and too lofty”; “savans” was “rather assuming,” besides being French; and
undignifi ed compounds based on the experimental and observational
methods of science, such as “nature- poker” or “nature- peeper,” were “in-
dignantly rejected.” Whewell mentioned one more suggestion, which
came from “some ingenious gentlemen,” who proposed, “by analogy with
‘artist,’ they might form ‘scientist,’” but this too “was not generally palat-
able.”^1 The unnamed “ingenious” gentleman was Whewell himself, and
this was the fi rst appearance of the word “scientist” in print.
Whewell’s new coinage “scientist” made its public debut in a review
of Mary Somerville’s On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences (1834).
Whewell had nothing but praise for the book, despite the gender of the
author and her intention that it be “a popular view of the present state of
CHAPTER 13Science and the Public
Bernard Lightman