An Argument for Scientific Creativity in Peripheral Contexts: The Case of Satyendra Nath Bose

In June 1924, Satyendra Nath Bose sent Einstein a short 4-page paper containing a new proof of Planck’s law. That proof involved two unusual moves—first, a consistent interpretation of blackbody radiation in terms of Einstein’s newly-proposed light quantum theory, and secondly, the use of a new statistics that counted such light particles as indistinguishable. With Einstein’s quick endorsement of those moves, the paper won Bose—until then completely unknown to the international scientific community—a lasting place in quantum theory. Yet, a second paper written shortly thereafter with very similar strategies on the interaction of matter and radiation remained largely ignored, and this is usually taken to be the result of Einstein’s adverse comments on the paper. Having thus shown up briefly on the scene of international science, Bose disappeared quickly from the stage of quantum theory, and for the rest of his life devoted himself primarily to the work of building a scientific community in India, adding new topics of research in crystallography and organic chemistry, in addition to his original domain of theoretical physics. He also carefully nurtured a generation of women students, who became important researchers later in life. Bose’s brief track records in quantum theory, and his two papers, taken together, thus offer us a window on to the world of peripheral science—the relatively unexplored region of scientific practice where we often see great creativity among people who were trained by somewhat unconventional methods, bypassing the usual channel of recognized mentors and institutions. If Bose indeed trained himself in such an unconventional manner, how did he do it? And having been able to do it once, why was he not able to replicate his success for a second time? Since many scientific communities in Asia and Latin America had gone through a similar peripheral phase, at least in the beginning, it is important to understand these processes, grasp their difficulties, but also see how such peripheral practices can often become the birthplace for great scientific ideas, ushering in new conceptual changes. And reflections on such processes can help us design an optimal practice for science in the 21st century.