Starting with the title - "unifiers" and "diversifiers" appear to be terms with definitions unique to the author. Except the author never bothers to define them.
This article seems to be a call to "praise" the lowly scientific tool developers and niche combers who don't get the credit they deserve.
This assertion is easy to refute by simply consulting a list of recent Nobel chemistry recipients:
Starting with the title - "unifiers" and "diversifiers" appear to be terms with definitions unique to the author. Except the author never bothers to define them.
This article seems to be a call to "praise" the lowly scientific tool developers and niche combers who don't get the credit they deserve.
This assertion is easy to refute by simply consulting a list of recent Nobel chemistry recipients:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/