This topic has evolved wonderfully. As someone deeply entrenched in the culinary field it's difficult to interpret the opinions of others on my profession. I wouldn't attempt to comment on the genius of a neuropsycologist inspite of my fascination with the field because without being a part of it, you can't reflect on it honestly. I don't mean this as a jab but as an observation, there's elements that can be commented on of course but understanding is impossible. No chef will ever match the accomplishments of a scientific genius because the goal, or intended outcome is not the same. Albert Einstein was trying to understand the theory of all universal elements. A chef tries to create a wonderful experience for someone, and most honestly wonderful meals are those that give us a greatest sense of self. Grant Achatz plays with these notions using nuances that humans can relate to. Peanut butter and jelly thrown around. Heston Blumenthal uses the absurdity of breakfast for dessert which resonates strongly in English society. To try and compare the two concept's is absurd. Albert Einstein changed the way we look at the world. Feran Adria has changed the way food is though about. He took concepts that had never before been imagined and interpreted them in a way as to be understood by the common man. Escoffier couldn't have fathomed faux caviars, hot cold consommes or dehydrated olive oils and now the ideas are becoming passe. To call Escoffier a culinary genius is correct. To state that the buck stops there is ignorant. That being said, to be a genius chef is redundant. To cook great food is truth. "The ones who want to be writers read the reviews, the ones who want to write don't have the time to read reviews." -william faulkner (thank you iGoogle quotes). If you want to be an incredible Chef realize that this means cooking truthful food you believe in. Do that and all else follows.