Scientists and the language of creativity

[Editor]

Really short notice, but perhaps someone might have a chance to think about this before tomorrow night GMT, at which point I'll be one of the panelists in an even called 'Lost In Translation', discussing the following question:

"What is the language of creativity, for scientists? And what difference does place, or geographical position, make for this discourse? What are the global differences?"

I've prepared something, but am interested to hear other ideas that I might be able to throw into the mix.

The more I thought about it, the more came to the conclusion that scientists the world over are more similar than they are different in terms of how they do science and communicate it. There are definitely local variations but - on the whole, the same meme has spread perniciously.

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Phwoar. Can't contribute, but sounds fascinating.

[amy c.]

>blinks<

What does this mean, language of creativity?

I have a crush on Horace Judson, btw.

amy

[frogfactory]

What on earth is a 'language of creativity'?

Oh, and Lost In Translation was an unspeakably overrated, train crash of a film.

[hedge]

I would suppose that our language of creativity is all the stuff we try to slip into papers that we aren't supposed to: the speculations and extrapolations that aren't backed by data, the metaphors. This happens a lot more in talks where you have more leeway to use analogies. Some speakers use famous paintings or poems to make points which can be ten times better than a dry diagram.

I think it's interesting that this is what is formally squelched.

[Editor]

Hedge, I had thought that too. But you've put it more clearly than my notes.

I find it interesting, and telling, that people can't even think about scientists communicating creatively without making a joke about it (see above). As if they are mutually exclusive elements, never to co-exist in the same universe.

[frogfactory]

I seem to recall a New Scientist article on just that a couple of weeks ago - I assume it was based on something more scholarly. An article on how scientific articles fail to communicate effectively because they shy away from 'colourful' language.

But that doesn't sound anything like what the OP was asking so I'll shush.

Oh, and 'language of creativity' doesn't suggest 'creative methods communication' to me at all. Creativity is the germative process of idea formation and development, no?

But in terms of fun with language, how about all those wacky drosophila and zebrafish mutant names (which a lot of hard boiled geneticists seem to hate)?

[dave]

I don't think that scientists are particularly creative in general, especially compared to engineers or artists. Every now and again someone will come up with a creative idea, for example screening with a whole genome RNAi library, and then thousands of other scientists just do the same thing again and again, perhaps in other systems but it's basically the same.

I think that creativity should be encouraged in science because scientists are generally quite conservative. They tend to stick to established ways of doing things and interpreting things. This is usually a good strategy to get good solid work that will be respected by peers and get published but they might be missing out on something more exciting.

I think that there is a difference between countries in the way that the occasional flash of creativity is expressed and received. Different countries are more open to different sorts of creativity. I'm inevitably going to get bogged down in stereotypes here, but one example might be that in Britain, individual eccentrics that lock themselves away in room with a weird piece of equipment are more tolerated, whereas in the US, someone with a hugely ambitious scheme costing millions of dollars might be well received. But that's getting into dangerous terrority so I'll stop.

[tideliar]

There's a big broohahhah raging over here with the NIH budget being frozen. The question is: are more junior PIs missing out on the chance of funding? And, are more creative (and therefore risky) ideas being stiffled for the continued safe funding of safety.

On another topic, Dave is right about this too. I remember microarrays become de rigeur a few years ago. Everyone was doing something with a microarray just because some toff had a good idea. So many papers getting published that were nothing more than technique and another screen for the effects on X of modulating Y

[challenge]

So many papers getting published that were nothing more than technique and another screen for the effects on X of modulating Y

Hm, there are interesting things to be said about this, especially in the light of funding. (Personally, I do think you are more likely to get funding for something that is considered 'safe' yet still 'new', i.e. using an established technique to find 'new' things). Granted,sometimes it is interesting to use certain techs in newer fields although there has to (should?) be a new hypothesis or/and some kind of practical reason for 'screening' [as an example] again and again.

Although, and I am the first to always say this, sometimes the most fascinating results come from those "screenings with really not much thought behind" - I agree it's not that often though. Maybe more like the needle in the haystack.... but the needle can be a very shiny object... and very very important... lots of hay to go through though. Maybe it would be more interesting and better for the world to invent new needles and pins rather?!

[amy c.]

I'm inevitably going to get bogged down in stereotypes here, but one example might be that in Britain, individual eccentrics that lock themselves away in room with a weird piece of equipment are more tolerated, whereas in the US, someone with a hugely ambitious scheme costing millions of dollars might be well received. But that's getting into dangerous terrority so I'll stop.

thus demonstrating the point. Do you think that's true, you others who actually do the stuff -- do you see that different shows of creativity are tolerated better in different places?

Again, you know, I'm reading the Judson book, and there's a good long chunk with Linus Pauling...the quotes from the other scientists seem to cast scientific creativity in terms of making connections that others were too cautious or simply not imaginative enough to make. Here's a quote, starting with a quote about Pauling from Seymour Singer:

"'I don't think there has ever been anybody doing great science whose ego has not been involved very, very deeply. It's just one of the things that make science so competitive. But the competitiveness is just a wart on science. The questioni is, how deeply is the man involved? If the objectivity goes, you get nothing but some kind of personal vision. That's the difference between science and religion. I was there. What Linus did, with his ego drive, was to insist that from his data on crystal structures of simple molecules, he could extrapolate. For example, that the peptide bond had to be planar. So he went ahead and imposed these restrictions. The length of the bond between the carbon and nitrogen atoms was much shorter, according to the x-ray data, than if the bond were single. So it had to have substantial double-bond character. So it had to be flat. Pauling, to begin with, has enormous physical intuition.' That, I had learned, is the highest praise. 'But what was astonishing about Pauling, and what makes him great, was that he was willing to move to a concept on the basis of certain data whose relevance was not clear to others. Only Linus showed the willingness to take the inductive leap. Then, once he had the idea, he pushed it. The history of science shows that that, in itself, is perfectly justified -- yet it's the same egocentricity that led him to collect thousands of signatures of scientists on a petition to ban nuclear testing.'
"I now asked Pauling what he thought about that. He shrugged. 'Well, maybe there's something to it.' He paused. 'I would say that I probably think more about problems than other people do.'
"(Later when I quoted Pauling's remark to Perutz, he laughed and laughed, and then asked, 'But didn't Linus also tell you that he has got more imagination than other people? Because, you know, it's true, he has.')"

[Mad Dan Eccles]

I tend to take the view that grant-funding (or not) stifles creativity.

And bosses who want to keep you on track *cough*.

[scurry_imperial]

"What is the language of creativity, for scientists?..."

Would be interested to hear how the 'language of creativity' was defined/discussed in your event.

But the discussion on creativity in this thread has taken a different direction that I'm interested to pursue a little further. I agree to some extent with Dave but - as I think he concedes - he has got bogged down in stereotypes. Britain a nation of nutty professors? Bah - humbug!

For sure there are plenty of scientists who get involved in 'me too' studies which are a re-run of a initial breakthrough. And minds with the scope of Pauling, as Amy C. points out, are rare indeed. But the landscape is more complex and colourful than these extremes might suggest. I have to say that I am aware of scientific creativity on an almost daily basis; much of it is on a small scale perhaps - we can't expect flashes of true genius every day - but I would contend that scientists are every bit as creative in their commitment to their craft as artists or engineers. You only have to attend a half-decent conference to come across gob-smacking examples of the creative approach.

@Challenge/MDE - The question of whether funding agencies stifle creativity is indeed a thorny one. I have bemoaned their evident lack of risk-taking on more than one occasion when it has affected me personally. But paradoxically, I find that writing grant applications is the activity that demands the greatest creativity from me - and I don't mean that I just make stuff up!

[hedge]

I'm with scurry on the everyday creativity of me and my peers. I think it's easy to forget the little things. Most of my creativity is taken up by finding experimental solutions to reagents/equipment/services we can't afford!

[Editor]

The event went well - I shared the panel with a jewelry designer, a writer and a film maker, and it was interesting to compare how we all think and behave in our professions. The audience (non-scientists, all: I took a show of hands) seemed fascinated to be told that science can be a creative endeavor, both through execution as well as interpretation.

One of the things I emphasized was that when we communicate science with our peers, it starts out very creatively and becomes more and more sucked dry. Chatting in the bar with a colleague, you are free to speculate, use analogies, have wild ideas. These are tempered the further down the road you travel: talking about the theory at lab meeting; at joint lab meetings; on your poster; in a talk. By the time you get to formal publication, it's all beaten back into this stilted formal language that is almost completely stripped of speculation and flights of fancy.