The Invisible Revolution p.372-376

I found these pages pretty interesting, not only for the poor editing (see p.373 on John Nash) but because it points out some key flaws in the way we deal with history and discovery.  The point made here is that scientists continue to edit discovery to deal with what they believe as relevant and important.  We never get to see the ideas and discoveries that are discarded; "Science thus is portrayed by the texts as cumulative, linear, as if scientists built their understanding one brick, one discovery at a time." (p.373)  After commenting on this, it delves into the Nobel Prizes of Economics and the men who won them; such as: Robert Lucas, Robert Merton and Myron Scholes, John Nash, Joe Stiglitz, etc.  While acknowledging the men who won honors for economics, the author contrasts that to Romer who he says never sought public fame, and repeatedly turned down prestigious offers from MIT, University of Chicago, and possibly Harvard. "Romer was something of a stealth presence in the economics profession." (p.376)