I think   we have to  make a talent  one

It  is not possible to  make some one from  the scratch

Warm Regards

From my perspective, it depends. World is not simple and linear as it is governed by the complexity sciences. Human brain is more oriented towards the complexity science and I feel it as the amalgam of nature and nurture.

When I understand human, they are curious and communicative. These two are the foundations of being scientist. Might be they used to be under shadow due to various factors and social issues by which their capability is not well polished.

The greatest scientists are first musicians of the first order. Want to develop corpus collosums, creativity, cognitive and spatial IQ, overcome learning delays, critical thinking, collaboration, speedreading, expression, synthesization, etc.? Master a musical instrument and you'll soon be ready to tackle the sciences.   

Individual talent is a natural gift, my dear friend!

I believe scientists, as leaders, are both, born and made. They are intelligent and talented, and at the same time they are learned by experiments and interaction with other scientists. In fact, they benefit from other scientists' experiments and build on them.

To succeed, you need some "talent" (deep interest for the topic, a "nose" for understanding what is important, a "curious mind", ability to analyze information & make decisions fast, readiness to take risks) but you also need skills (e.g. for data collection/analysis, searching for the right articles/understanding what is important in your field & writing literature reviews based on these).

It is the Inquisitive nature of a person to search for "reasons of happenings".

This quest is right from from childhood and grows up when enough opportunity and resources are made available to motivate them in their search.

Very Few are born sharp; while others experiment and learn from failures.

Well, you may born with several talents, which might be genetically transferred your parents, but I don't think it's applicable for researchers. You"ll hardly hear any such story. The motivation for becoming a researcher  mainly comes from your academic performance and upbringing. You start loving some area and decide to work further in that domain. So, it all happens during course of your life, not from the beginning.

I think scientists are made, though there may be little inborn skills needed to be a good scientist. I have drawn my support from Henry Fayol, pertaining managers. Fayol said, "People are not born managers, but are made managers if principles are set." Hence Fayol setted the 14 principles of management, which are now applied worldwide................. The same may be applied for scientists.

I agree with Bin we may be born with special talents but that is not enough.

What is the definition of 'Scientists are born'? Scientists are obviously made during the course of development, but may have traits (e.g. mental states more or less linked to brain characteristics, personality profiles) that will favor or disfavor her/him to become a talented scientist?

Yes, definitely, both sides of the question are important. There's no use for natural talent, unless there is education and hard work, and above all, good communication to share experiences, to build a Scientist.

so, both born talent and built talent.

I've got the fortune to have one of my master that is a talent. 

He said me that research is an hard work, and that I've to work, as he did, night and day!

bye

I agree with all the opinions here. I just want to add  a third condition, a researcher is awaken. We try to find a researcher in all our students. If there is not a patology present some will be looking for answers from life since a very early age. For some, there is a need to teach him to think the world around him. And some others and I believe that the majority of us, there is a need for a discovery. Once he finds his way, a star is born.

I do think that scientists should be a leaders. Fine thread on similar issue is attached! Good article about is attached. "...Most agree that people become leaders in large part as a result ofmexperiences that help them learn how to be a leader...."

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_leaders_born_or_made/1

I think both nature (i.e. talents) and nurture (upbringing / education, hard working, persistency) are equally important. 

My personal opinion (not empirically studied) finding 2 more factors i.e. passion and perseverance are paramount important.  Because passion serves as a driver to push the person continues moving forward  / further & going deeper whereas perseverance serves as a motivator to influence the person stands up and continue the pursuit after facing repeated failures.

Regards,

Fung

Every scientist 'is made', but the top scientists 'are a little bit born'....

I have experienced that at the base there must be a creative spirit. This can be addressed to several directions: art or science. My conclusion is therefore that scientists are born a little and a little you will become.

Dear friends, I think the following thread is related to this one! Many good answers. I will be free to attach it.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_role_of_talent_in_exceptional_performance/1

We want more scientists? Start them young as musicians first---then, they will have the cognitive equipment to do the rest. 

Dear Max, I started to express my creativity as a musician before becoming a researcher. My first experience helped me in the second one.

No one can say that an amount of training will make any body a good researcher. At the same time, no body can say that a researcher whose character is not perseverent can be a good researcher.

Thus, a good researcher is both, born and made.

My larger point on the music aspect is brain development. Musical training early in life brings brain development not found in any other early activity. The corpus collosum develops faster and more sensitively, bringing interhemispheric continuity and more rapid communication, the frontal lobe area for creativity expands, eye-hand coordination, fine motor, and spatial abilities develop far beyond non-musicians, and at a scholarly level, early musicians lead in every field. Public schools that do not offer a high quality musical program in their core curriculum are consistently at the bottom in acadmic performance, while those with rigorous musical training are consistently at the top. Of course, we are speaking of early training K-12. The world annual math and science surveys between nations bear out these truths. Learning disabilities and developmental delays are overcome with musical training better than by any other approach in special education, yet in the UNited States it is utilized so little because of the stranglehold the leftwing teachers unions and bureaucracy of the United States Department of Education. Their favorite brainchild Common Core, pushed aggressively with our tax dollars and certain leftwing organizations, is bereft of musical training and heavy on dumbed down mathematics and hard sciences that would make any self-respecting educator blush with embarrassment. It produces drones for a totalitarian society, not innovative, creative, and critically acclaimed geniuses to take mankind to a higher level of knowledge. In every totalitarian or dictatorial movement, whether carried out by outright revolution or patient gradualism, always the modus operandi is to do away with the intellectual and independent thinkers of the population and press for conformity and lower intelligence. Music and the fine arts are always the first to disappear. 

A famous genetical expert of our country (Endre Czeizel) had presented an interesting study about number of high talents within our country during the time.

He found more factors:

The first is the family. In general, a talent musician's or mathematician's chidlren have ability to be good in these topics- but generally they are not as good as the parents. There are excepts, od course, but generally.

The other is, when a talent appears without any sign in a family. It is the most typical, but he found, that the type/number of schools is the main factors, because the number of talents within a country born in every year is the same, but the role of school to recognize them is the most essential. Development of their talent is also essential and mainly school dependent. In a  small country school where the teacher could not recognize or could not convince the parents tos end the child to develop his/her talent, will not give any  reseracher.

But it is valid for the scientist whose life is equal with the science and not only workers in science.

Be "Born or Made" they need to be scientists with "HEART"

There is an innate trait that we find in successful entrepreneurs, explorers, military men and women, musicians, and leaders in their field---it's called "fire in the belly". Scientists need it, too, or they end up just regurgitating what has already been discovered. 

The Cambridge Handbook on Performance

• All the superb performers had practiced intensively,
• studied with devoted teachers, and had been
• supported enthusiastically by their families throughout their developing years.

The amount and quality of practice were key factors in the level of expertise people achieved. Consistently and overwhelmingly, the evidence showed that they are always made, not born.  These conclusions are based on rigorous research that looked at exceptional performance using scientific methods that are verifiable and reproducible.

https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert

Dear friends, something about Einstein related to this thread. "We know Einstein was a genius, and we now know his brain was physically different from average. But this doesn't prove a cause-and-effect relationship. We need to examine the brains of other mathematical geniuses to see whether similar characteristics are present. Even if they are, it's possible that the bulked-up brains result from strenuous mental exercise, rather than in-born features that make genius possible."

http://www.cawthralibrary.com/OSSLT%20supoort/sectionfquestion.htm

Dear Ljubomir Jacić,

I believe it was not Einstein brain which made him different. But he made his brain different, And the change observed in his brain may have happened after his brain was taken out of his body. It is true that some people develop different physical characteristics either for their abnormal health condition or for some DNA changes. But I physical chanages are rare if compared to what our experience, expectative can do to the development of our ability to see our world differently.

I think Vilemar has it right. We see tremendous changes in the behaviors of children who have significant developmental delays when they are given musical and arts instruction. We can only surmise the neurological changes that occur, but the outward developmental behaviors are clear. Perhaps there might be a predisposition toward genius, but when musical training enters the picture (as it did with Einstein and just about every exceptional thinker we have examined) predispositions become developed dispositions.

All of us are born with some or other talent. The most important part is the time to recognize it or to be recognized.

Bhavesh, I agree, but our finding is that even those without a scintilla of musical talent still develop to a higher cognitive level when they develop musical skills. In this way, we can--like the Japanese and other nations--create better mathematicians and scientists if we institute music as core curriculum in the schools. The schools with the highest levels of music programs also have the highest academic performance over all. 

Dear Max Stanley Chartrand

Thank  you very much for sharing us your rich  experience 

Yes sir definitely there is an impact of many external factors on the development of human being.

Dear  Bhavesh Tiwari 

I think  the external  factors can  be positive or negative and I hope to  put them  in  the positive ones

So many different approaches and the answers to this question. Let me bring some good articles about in order to provoke further discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3314401/Scientists-are-born-not-made.html

http://thedogcomeswith.blogspot.rs/2011/07/are-scientists-born-or-made.html

http://io9.com/5961737/no-children-are-not-natural-born-scientists

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-09-19/scientists-are-born-not-madebusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/scientists-are-made-not-born.html?_r=0

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/all-kids-are-junior-scientists