What makes a good scientist? Karl Fent as an example.

Despite the undoubted interest in assessing the performance and impact of scientists, there appears to be no generally accepted way of doing so. Their research papers can be assessed by various metrics, but these cover only one aspect of the activities of a scientist. In this paper I provide my own thoughts on many of the aspects I consider make up a good research scientist. However, these are my opinions only; they are often not supported by available quantitative, or even qualitative, evidence. I have then applied these criteria to one individual scientist, the ecotoxicologist Karl Fent. I show that he has contributed significantly to his chosen discipline in a number of distinct ways, through both his teaching and his research. I therefore conclude that he must be considered a very good scientist. In the current era of attempting to quantify and hence rank almost everything, an approach often driven by lack of trust, it is very clear that there is substantial scope in attempting to develop, then utilize appropriately, objective criteria that are informative of a scientist's contributions. Those criteria need to be much broader than the metrics currently available.