In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field ........

many people may believe that the statement holds but it appears misleading to me. I believe that significant contribution comes from sincere efforts and sincere efforts in turn are a yield of one's dedication to the field. Dedication in turn requires one's interest in the field and concentration in the work. I believe that this is one's own interest in the field, which acts as the root and causes one to delve into the field and that is what, which yields significant contribution. If we believe that the statement is true, then according to the statement past achivements are a necessary condition for any significant contribution, if that is the case then who caused past achivements. There must be something which had acted as a catalyst in the evolution of "past activities". If we dwell into this, then who caused the first significant contribution because there could be no past achievement for that to act as a catalyst. Significant contribution does not require achievements, but these are the achivements which comes from significant contribution. There are field, for example : IT, Physics, Nuclear and atomic science, Biotechnology, where inspite of efforts for years, no success was met, yet people kept on putting in their sincere and persistent effort. There was nothing to motivate Newton, Pascal, Pythogorous. There were no achievements to influence them, but there lived there dedication, the interconnection of their heart and mind with the field which influenced them. If we take the present example of nanotechnology, there are no past achievements in the field to motivate people but still people are trying dedicately to make significant contribution. Infact, Influencing by the past achievements surely motivates and accrues the efforts but it is the influencement within from oneself which plays the keyrole and stays till the end.