casandra on Jan 13 2010, 04:18 PM said:

If it's controversy you're after, then look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson

Leonardo da Vinci..definitively a very smart guy.

Mendel because he followed the scientific method perfectly. A great example of a good scientist.

Other favourites, in no particular order:
Alfred Wallace (No-one remembers him, but his paper was presented at the same time as Darwin's)
Pasteur
Einstein (he was a cool guy)
Niels Bohr
Pauli
Feynman (not least for his sharp wit)
Planck
Rutherford
Davey
Brahe (grumpy grumpy man)
Hooke
Tesla
Cavendish (totally crazy)
Rosalind Franklin (the peson who's data missed out on a Nobel, when watson, crick and wilkins got one)
The Curies
Edward Drinker Cope ('cause he was just awesome)

Stephen Hawking belongs on the list...

and there is only one Madame C....

I had the chance to listen to two outstanding scientists at the ASCB meeting this december.

Peter Walker (Unfolded protein response). This guy found a kinase that can homooligomerize and gain an RNAse activity!

Rudofl Jaenish. First guy ever (with help of Beatrice Mintz) to create a transgenic mouse. Nowadays, he routinely reprogramms differentiated cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). When you're off to nothing good..

bob1 on Jan 15 2010, 01:21 AM said:

Was this meant ironically?
His results or better what he made out of it was questioned later and at least "confirmation bias" seems a good description of "this".
Wikipedia gives a quite good summary of the concerns on his results:

"Mendel's experimental results have later been the object of considerable dispute.<6><8> Fisher analyzed the results of the F2 (second filial) ratio and found them to be implausibly close to the exact ratio of 3 to 1.<9> Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud — reproduction of his experiments has demonstrated the validity of his hypothesis — however, the results have continued to be a mystery for many, though it is often cited as an example of confirmation bias. This might arise if he detected an approximate 3 to 1 ratio early in his experiments with a small sample size, and continued collecting more data until the results conformed more nearly to an exact ratio. It is sometimes suggested that he may have censored his results, and that his seven traits each occur on a separate chromosome pair, an extremely unlikely occurrence if they were chosen at random. In fact, the genes Mendel studied occurred in only four linkage groups, and only one gene pair (out of 21 possible) is close enough to show deviation from independent assortment; this is not a pair that Mendel studied."

For the references:
Carlson, Elof Axel (2004). "Doubts about Mendel's integrity are exaggerated". Mendel's Legacy. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-087969675-7.
Hartl, Daniel L.; Fairbanks, Daniel J. (1 March 2007). "Mud Sticks: On the Alleged Falsification of Mendel's Data". Genetics 175 (3): 975–979.
Fisher, R. A. (1936). Has Mendel's work been rediscovered? Annals of Science 1:115-137.

I like Shawn McClelland (but then I am biased).

Ground breaking epigenetic and translational regulatory stuff Although he hasn't quite figured out the politics and stuff, he (hopefully) will become a great scientist if he meets the right people, etc.

Fred Sanger. Hated writing up (preferred to do the experiments), and never won a prize or award as a student, and still won 2 Nobel Prizes...