Although it has thus far escaped systematic scrutiny, the problem of the unrecognized scientist has exerted at least a passing fascination for many observers of the scientific enterprise. The specter of the misunderstood revolutionary whose theory is later vindicated by the selfsame scientific establishment that initially slighted it possesses undeniable elements of high drama. Not surprisingly, there is a discernible tendency among those who have pondered the fate of such scientists to portray their often tragic fates in a romantic fashion. These writers frequently depict the plight of neglected scientists in a manner that "curries our moral indignation (Brannigan, 1979, p. 453)." The earnest seeker of truth is typically pictured in an heroic struggle against an authoritarian, self-assured scientific orthodoxy that clings to its outmoded dogma in the face of the new vistas championed by the heretic whom it conveniently ignores. Consider the despairing commentary offered by R. H. Murray (1925, p. 316) after reviewing numerous cases of 19th-century scientists whose work was initially either neglected or resisted by the reigning authorities:

Is there any punishment equal to that which in the name of Science and with the august authority of Science, has been inflicted upon Jenner and Simpson, Lyell and Helmholtz, Joule and Darwin, Pasteur and Lister, in some cases by ignoring their epoch-making ideas, and in other cases by fighting them to the death? Did any set of men so torture the body as scientists tortured the minds of these discoverers by bitterly criticising them?