I've always wondered if being a
scientist isn't closer to being an artist than most people think! What I mean is
that we have to be incredibly creative in our experimental designs and particularly
imaginative when we analyse data and need to find a meaning out of black and
I’ve always found that scientists despite their geekiness and
nerdy looks could be super creative.
When I was one of them (actually, I still am a scientist,
it’s a way of life really…), I would see countless videos of fellow scientists parodying
songs to depict the true life of lab researchers.
But of course, this goes completely against what we all know,
which is that the left brain is the analytical, practical, organised and
logical (i.e. Science) side; and the creative, passionate, arty part sits on
the right side of the brain.
How do we then explain why scientists spend hours and hours
pouring their hearts out and losing their minds over scientific enigmas if
there is no passion and poetic craziness involved?
is some truth to the left brain/right brain distinction, there is
undeniably a more complex relationship between both sides of our brain.
(If you have time to watch it, this is a very interesting video… and his voice is very
For example, on the
neuroscience of creativity, latest findings by neuroscientists have now
shown that the entire creative
process – from preparation to incubation to illumination to verification –
consists of many interacting cognitive processes (both conscious and
unconscious) and emotions.
Depending on the stage of the creative process, and
what you’re actually attempting to create, different brain regions from both
the right and the left side are recruited in large-scale
networks to handle the task.
So if we accept that science is not just the left side of
the brain and can be interlinked with the artistic potential of an individual,
could it be considered as a mean for influential creativity?
my own definition: “Influential creativity is about connecting with an
audience on a personal, emotional or practical level; it is about understanding
their lives, getting comfortable with them and letting them know that you are
there to make them feel better, or be better, or make them question themselves
by providing them with an emotion, an ideal, a service, or a product.“
I do think you could apply this definition to the concept of
science by saying: “Science is about connecting on a practical level,
understanding lives, and it is there to make us question ourselves by providing
us with both emotions and product i.e. knowledge.”
What do you think? Is it too farfetched?