During Isaac Newton’s “miracle year” of 1666 during Cambridge’s temporary closure, he made several transformational breakthroughs in science and mathematics. This time spent working independently saw Newton develop the foundations of Calculus, conduct experiments into the diffraction of light, and establish the basis for a theory on gravity (published later in 1687 as Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica). What made his work so groundbreaking was that it unified mathematics, physics, and astronomy into a singular coherent system.
An issue later emerged whereby a fellow contemporary, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, claimed to have also developed Calculus, independently of Newton’s research. After Leibniz appealed to the Royal Society to investigate, Newton, then serving as the club’s president, used his institutional power to shape the outcome of the trial. Further, Newton helped draft the Society’s report which accused Leibniz of plagiarism, all the while pretending to be an impartial ruling. Even after Leibniz’s death in 1716, Newton continued to advocate for priority as founder of Calculus. This shows a different side of Newton, one that could be highly competitive, and willing to exert authority to influence the institution in order to protect his reputation.
During his time with the Royal Mint, Newton pursued the accusation of William Chaloner, an infamous counterfeiter. Newton was relentless in his investigation, gathering the necessary evidence that led to the eventual conviction and execution of Chaloner, despite his plea for leniency. Here again, we see Newton was capable of tireless persistence and harshness in pursuing his enemies.
Overall, Newton may be considered a mixed role model. His intellect was without question, even with his continued interest in alchemy and the occult, and did much to define what we call modern science. But geniuses are people too, and some of his conduct reminds us that scholarly greatness does not necessarily equate to sound ethical behavior. The controversy with Leibniz speaks to a degree of arrogance and an inability to collaborate. So, this would seem to go against some of our norms of science, namely communism and disinterestedness.