2008 Woodie Awards
Creating Science
Professor Steven Rice: Biology Department
Issue date: 10/25/07 Section: Sci/Tech
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Like many faculty, I harbor closet interests that rarely get expressed on campus. For example, I enjoy sitting down quietly in the evening and drawing silly cartoons that make fun of my family, friends and, of course, the dog, who remains my ultimate anti-hero. I get to relax, reflect on the day's happenings, and stretch my creative legs.
I am not alone. Many of my colleagues also lead seemingly dual lives where they engage with science during the day and music or creative arts at night. Ask Profs. Olberg about percussion, Fleishman about pumpkin carving and LoGiudice to sing you a show tune. These folks don't abandon their creativity when they come to work; instead they exercise it regularly when designing, problem-solving, fabricating and synthesizing during the course of their research. The scientific process is a deeply and inherently creative one. It is only recently that I have begun to feel this way about my own research and to recognize that we fail to provide sufficient opportunities for science students to develop this appreciation for themselves.
No, no, don't give me that "left brain, right brain" thing about how science and math exercise one half of the brain and the arts and humanities the other. Although this distinction may help organize patterns of behavior and localize their origin to specific regions of the brain, overemphasizing this dichotomy leads to trouble. That is, it encourages us to identify with one set of traits to the exclusion of the other, with either rationality or creativity, order or spontaneity, objectivity or subjectivity, logic or intuition.
In practice, our pursuits draw upon each of these. They also blend comfortably together in scientific research as, I would argue, they also combine in art, music or poetry. I do not contend that all activities allow for equal expression of these traits, nor would I argue that we all possess an aptitude for them to an equal degree. Instead, I suggest that such divergent pursuits share a need for practitioners with left-right brain synergy-those capable of tapping creative, intuitive, analytical and quantitative approaches. Indeed, we should celebrate the similarities of the thinking process undertaken by people in different fields rather than emphasize their differences. Creativity, like analysis, is intellectual common ground.
I am not alone. Many of my colleagues also lead seemingly dual lives where they engage with science during the day and music or creative arts at night. Ask Profs. Olberg about percussion, Fleishman about pumpkin carving and LoGiudice to sing you a show tune. These folks don't abandon their creativity when they come to work; instead they exercise it regularly when designing, problem-solving, fabricating and synthesizing during the course of their research. The scientific process is a deeply and inherently creative one. It is only recently that I have begun to feel this way about my own research and to recognize that we fail to provide sufficient opportunities for science students to develop this appreciation for themselves.
No, no, don't give me that "left brain, right brain" thing about how science and math exercise one half of the brain and the arts and humanities the other. Although this distinction may help organize patterns of behavior and localize their origin to specific regions of the brain, overemphasizing this dichotomy leads to trouble. That is, it encourages us to identify with one set of traits to the exclusion of the other, with either rationality or creativity, order or spontaneity, objectivity or subjectivity, logic or intuition.
In practice, our pursuits draw upon each of these. They also blend comfortably together in scientific research as, I would argue, they also combine in art, music or poetry. I do not contend that all activities allow for equal expression of these traits, nor would I argue that we all possess an aptitude for them to an equal degree. Instead, I suggest that such divergent pursuits share a need for practitioners with left-right brain synergy-those capable of tapping creative, intuitive, analytical and quantitative approaches. Indeed, we should celebrate the similarities of the thinking process undertaken by people in different fields rather than emphasize their differences. Creativity, like analysis, is intellectual common ground.
Be the first to comment on this story