My purpose in this, the Claude Bernard Lecture, is to convince myself as well as my audience of something that is very difficult to demonstrate, the relevance of history in a culture of innovation. This is a puzzling and challenging point. Contemporary scientific culture is based on the cult of the newer and the unexpected, which are rightly considered to be better and more promising. In what way may the knowledge of the scientific past contribute to the understanding of present science and prepare young minds to be active investigators of nature? The practice of history may appear to be a withdrawal from reality, paving the way for a very bookish and progress–preventing view of the world, just as Aristotelian physics were for centuries. Natural science took a new start when scientists realized that they should learn from nature rather than from books. There are very sound reasons why science does not need history, and many prominent scientists have, at times, expressed reluctant opinions regarding the value of the history of science for the active scientist. ‘Science is revolutionary’, said Claude Bernard. This forceful statement may be interpreted as a final condemnation of history, and there is nothing to add to it, because it is simply true. Authors of major scientific revolutions like Darwin held similar views.
