Recently I was invited to write a comment for Nature, a knock on the door not heard often. I was specifically asked to discuss the place of scientific genius in the modern natural sciences. Having conducted research on the subject for more than three decades, and having followed current trends in the main disciplines of pure research—especially in physics and biology—I responded with a highly speculative “thought piece.” The editors did not like it. They wanted something more declarative than inquisitive. Accordingly, the essay went through several revisions, with increasingly more passages inserted by the editors. Even after the fifth version was accepted for publication, I received a galley with additional changes, including a rewritten title and summary—all in words not my own. I lodged a protest over the last-minute alterations, but to no avail. Indeed, even after I received the “final” version of the comment during the embargo period, the editors decided to make another dramatic change in the title without seeking my permission: the insertion of “After Einstein” as the main title. The resulting comment has provoked more controversy than anything else associated with my name ( Simonton, 2013). I have lost track of the number of times I had to inform irate scientists that I did not argue that Albert Einstein was the “last scientific genius.”

From: Simonton, D. K. (2014). Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual differences, and developmental antecedents: An integrative research agenda. Intelligence, 45, 66-73.