Month: December 2015

Isaac Newton was Autistic, or Not

Isaac Newton was Autistic or Not

A cottage industry has developed around placing long-dead geniuses at various points on the Asperger’s spectrum. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are the most frequent victims of this particular form of retrospective diagnosis. Recently and without any apparent reason, the Orange Country Register joined the fun with the article “Six of the world’s great minds may have been autistic, professor says.” Along with Newton and Einstein, the OC Register adds Darwin, Jefferson, Michelangelo, and Warhol (ok, not a “long-dead” genius but dead all the same).

The OC Register’s article adds little, except maybe a medicore interpretation of one iconic portrait of Newton (admittedly, even this version is better than I could produce, which is why I don’t paint portraits of anybody).
The OC Register’s article adds little, except maybe a medicore interpretation of one iconic portrait of Newton (admittedly, even this version is better than I could produce, which is why I don’t paint portraits of anybody).

These articles raise various questions in my mind: What do we learn from this? What do we learn about the person? What do we learn about the condition? What do we learn about the past? What do we learn about the present? Why do we bother? But I don’t actually spend much time on those questions because I always get stuck on the previous question: How do we know? Retrodiagnosing any condition or disease or illness is fraught with difficulty, e.g., lack of evidence, misleading information,[1] inconclusive results. The impediments seem even more significant when trying to interpret a mental condition that requires intensive and sustained clinical observation, especially when the evidence is drawn from biographical information. Oliver Sacks worried about this problem,[2] as did Glen Elliott.[3] Unfortunately, the OC Register omitted the qualifications that Sacks, Elliott, and even Simon Baron Cohen (the expert cited in the article) had expressed elsewhere.

I confess: I don’t really understand why people bother retrodiagnosing illnesses of any sort. I suppose if the point is to destigmatize conditions today, that is a worthwhile goal. But I’m not convinced that retrodiagnosing people from centuries back is the most appropriate, defensible, or effective way to accomplish that goal.

Speaking of things I don’t really understand: I don’t understand why the OC Register didn’t cite its sources. Or why the OC Register thought it was ok to borrow so much from various people and not give them credit. And by “borrow” I mean quote or closely paraphrase to the extent that would prompt a discussion about plagiarism if a student here at Haverford did it.

A quick look at some of the sources the OC Register seemed to have used for its article. Maybe there’s a different source, that traces back to these. If so, it would have been helpful if the OC Register had cited that intermediate source.
A quick look at some of the sources the OC Register seemed to have used for its article. Maybe there’s a different source, that traces back to these. If so, it would have been helpful if the OC Register had cited that intermediate source.

It seems clear that the OC Register article was based on an article in the New Scientist from back in 2003, “Einstein and Newton showed signs of autism,” and a post at Autism Mythbusters, “Famous Autistic People” (which does give URLs for its sources).

I “understand” that we are in a “sharing economy” (or some such expression), but that does not justify plagiarizing (even if accidentally) other people’s work. Even by the loose standards of citation that seem to rule the internet, the OC Register seems to have committed some sort of mistake here.


  1. I say misleading because observations are always made within a particular theoretical framework that a) makes a particular phenomenon worth noting and recording, b) gives meaning to that phenomenon, and c) provides the language and criteria used to record that phenomenon. And rarely are any of those issues stable over time, even and most problematically when they seem to be.  ↩

  2. Sacks made this point at the end of his article “Henry Cavendish: An early case of Asperger’s syndrome?” Neurology 57 (2001). He was convinced that there was sufficient biographical information in Cavendish’s case to suggest a link. But was quite skeptical of a claims for Einstein and Newton, whose eccentricities he chalked up to “a devouring or isolating capacity” inherent in genius itself. The original is behind a paywall.  ↩

  3. Elliott raised his concerns in the New Scientist version of this article, which the OC Register borrowed freely from but without the careful qualifications. See “Einstein and Newton showed signs of autism.”  ↩

Maria Wants Her Sextant Back

Buried in Haverford’s Special Collections is a brief letter from Maria Mitchell to E.D. Cope.[1] When she wrote to Cope, Mitchell was a senior member of the scientific community. She was director of Vassar College’s observatory, where she was also professor of astronomy. On October 1, 1847, when she was 29, she had discovered a comet,[2] which discovery brought her considerable fame (and a gold medal from the King of Denmark). Following her discovery she was elected the first woman fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She spent the next two decades working for the U.S. Nautical Almanac Office computing ephemerides for Venus, was appointed to the American Philosophical Society in 1865, and in the same year she became the first female faculty member at Vassar College when it opened. By any measure, Mitchell was an accomplished scholar.

The first building completed at Vassar College was the observatory, long called the Maria Mitchell Observatory. Read more about it here, which is where I got the image.
The first building completed at Vassar College was the observatory, long called the Maria Mitchell Observatory. Read more about it here, which is where I got the image.

Cope too was an accomplished scholar, though his area of expertise was paleontology rather than astronomy. Although he had taught briefly at Haverford College, he didn’t seem to enjoy teaching, complaining that the students required too much time and attention, and so retired. His irritation was not limited to students and their incessant questions. When he left Haverford and moved into Philadelphia (his adjoining townhouses still stand at the corner of 21st and Pine St.) he became so annoyed by the herding of livestock down his street, that he wrote to the mayor demanding that the city outlaw it. The mayor’s response was polite but dismissive. He said he would look into it.

When Mitchell wrote to Cope in 1881, she had a very specific request: she hoped he would return her sextant.

Maria Mitchell’s letter to E. D. Cope asking him to return her sextant if he finds it in a box of James Orton’s things.
Maria Mitchell’s letter to E. D. Cope asking him to return her sextant if he finds it in a box of James Orton’s things.

1881 Nov 7
Observatory of Vassar College
Po’keepsie

Prof. Kope
Dear Sir,
A gentleman named Heath, who called on me yesterday, tells me that the boxes of the late Professor Orton are likely to reach your hands.
I lent Prof. Orton a valuable sextant which I hope may be found in the collection sent to you. May I trouble you, if it is among them, to send it to me by Express.
Yours,
Maria Mitchell

Apparently, Mitchell had loaned her sextant to Professor Orton. She was probably referring to James Orton, who in 1867 had borrowed various instruments from the Smithsonian for his expedition up the Amazon and into the Andes and then in 1869 had introduced natural history instruction to Vassar College.[3] in the 1870 Orton made two other trips to the upper Amazon and the Andes.

Mitchell’s sextant probably resembled this one, perhaps even with a nice mahogany case. 19th-century sextant’s are readily available for reasonable prices. Bamford’s auctioned this one a couple years ago.
Mitchell’s sextant probably resembled this one, perhaps even with a nice mahogany case. 19th-century sextant’s are readily available for reasonable prices. Bamford’s auctioned this one a couple years ago.

Orton’s interests in zoology and his explorations of the Andes seems to have linked Cope’s paleontology to Mitchell’s astronomy. Orton, who had a history of borrowing astronomical instruments, probably borrowed Mitchell’s sextant for one of his later trips to the Andes. We can imagine Orton exploring the Amazon jungle and the Andes using Mitchell’s sextant to chart his way. Then, after he died, Cope had arranged to acquire some of Orton’s material related to his zoological work. Apparently, Mitchell suspected that in one of those boxes Cope would find her valuable sextant.

Unfortunately, we don’t know if Mitchell ever received her sextant or even if Cope replied—unfortunately, Haverford’s collection of Cope letters doesn’t include any of his responses. Maybe the observatory at Vassar College has Mitchell’s sextant now on display with other historically significant instruments.[4]


  1. This letter is in the collection of E. D. Cope letters, which includes letters from all sorts of interesting people, including a letter from Ernst Haekel. To find other letters in the collection, see the Edward Drinker Cope Papers finding aid. If you want to read more about Cope, see these posts.  ↩

  2. Known for years (and probably still in various circles) as “Miss Mitchell’s Comet,” it is formally identified as C/1847 T1.  ↩

  3. Orton was apparently a supporter of coeducation and wrote a text based on his experiences teaching natural history at Vassar: Liberal Education of Women. He also wrote Comparative Zoology, Structural and Systematic, based on Agassiz’s functional approach to zoology.  ↩

  4. Haverford College used to have some 19th-century instruments, including sextants. But the college recently sold them. In a strange denial of expertise, the astronomer at the time didn’t consult with the historian of science (me) before deciding we no longer needed the instruments and deciding to sell them (the proceeds were used to support public programs at the observatory, if I recall correctly). We have lost the chance to learn anything more about those instruments.  ↩