scientific creativity essay

The science behind creativity

Psychologists and neuroscientists are exploring where creativity comes from and how to increase your own

Vol. 53 No. 3 Print version: page 40

• Neuropsychology
• Creativity and Innovation

Paul Seli, PhD, is falling asleep. As he nods off, a sleep-tracking glove called Dormio, developed by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, detects his nascent sleep state and jars him awake. Pulled back from the brink, he jots down the artistic ideas that came to him during those semilucid moments.

Seli is an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences and also an artist. He uses Dormio to tap into the world of hypnagogia, the transitional state that exists at the boundary between wakefulness and sleep. In a mini-experiment, he created a series of paintings inspired by ideas plucked from his hypnagogic state and another series from ideas that came to him during waking hours. Then he asked friends to rate how creative the paintings were, without telling them which were which. They judged the hypnagogic paintings as significantly more creative. “In dream states, we seem to be able to link things together that we normally wouldn’t connect,” Seli said. “It’s like there’s an artist in my brain that I get to know through hypnagogia.”

The experiment is one of many novel—and, yes, creative—ways that psychologists are studying the science of creativity. At an individual level, creativity can lead to personal fulfillment and positive academic and professional outcomes, and even be therapeutic. People take pleasure in creative thoughts, research suggests—even if they don’t think of themselves as especially creative. Beyond those individual benefits, creativity is an endeavor with implications for society, said Jonathan Schooler, PhD, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Creativity is at the core of innovation. We rely on innovation for advancing humanity, as well as for pleasure and entertainment,” he said. “Creativity underlies so much of what humans value.”

In 1950, J. P. Guilford, PhD, then president of APA, laid out his vision for the psychological study of creativity ( American Psychologist , Vol. 5, No. 9, 1950). For half a century, researchers added to the scientific understanding of creativity incrementally, said John Kounios, PhD, an experimental psychologist who studies creativity and insight at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Much of that research focused on the personality traits linked to creativity and the cognitive aspects of the creative process.

But in the 21st century, the field has blossomed thanks to new advances in neuroimaging. “It’s become a tsunami of people studying creativity,” Kounios said. Psychologists and neuroscientists are uncovering new details about what it means to be creative and how to nurture that skill. “Creativity is of incredible real-world value,” Kounios said. “The ultimate goal is to figure out how to enhance it in a systematic way.”

Streaming Audio

Creativity in the brain.

What, exactly, is creativity? The standard definition used by researchers characterizes creative ideas as those that are original and effective, as described by psychologist Mark A. Runco, PhD, director of creativity research and programming at Southern Oregon University ( Creativity Research Journal , Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012). But effectiveness, also called utility, is a slippery concept. Is a poem useful? What makes a sculpture effective? “Most researchers use some form of this definition, but most of us are also dissatisfied with it,” Kounios said.

Runco is working on an updated definition and has considered at least a dozen suggestions from colleagues for new components to consider. One frequently suggested feature is authenticity. “Creativity involves an honest expression,” he said.

Meanwhile, scientists are also struggling with the best way to measure the concept. As a marker of creativity, researchers often measure divergent thinking—the ability to generate a lot of possible solutions to a problem or question. The standard test of divergent thinking came from Guilford himself. Known as the alternate-uses test, the task asks participants to come up with novel uses for a common object such as a brick. But measures of divergent thinking haven’t been found to correlate well with real-world creativity. Does coming up with new uses for a brick imply a person will be good at abstract art or composing music or devising new methods for studying the brain? “It strikes me as using way too broad a brush,” Seli said. “I don’t think we measure creativity in the standard way that people think about creativity. As researchers, we need to be very clear about what we mean.”

One way to do that may be to move away from defining creativity based on a person’s creative output and focus instead on what’s going on in the brain, said Adam Green, PhD, a cognitive neuroscientist at Georgetown University and founder of the Society for the Neuroscience of Creativity . “The standard definition, that creativity is novel and useful, is a description of a product,” he noted. “By looking inward, we can see the process in action and start to identify the characteristics of creative thought. Neuroimaging is helping to shift the focus from creative product to creative process.”

That process seems to involve the coupling of disparate brain regions. Specifically, creativity often involves coordination between the cognitive control network, which is involved in executive functions such as planning and problem-solving, and the default mode network, which is most active during mind-wandering or daydreaming (Beaty, R. E., et al., Cerebral Cortex , Vol. 31, No. 10, 2021). The cooperation of those networks may be a unique feature of creativity, Green said. “These two systems are usually antagonistic. They rarely work together, but creativity seems to be one instance where they do.”

Green has also found evidence that an area called the frontopolar cortex, in the brain’s frontal lobes, is associated with creative thinking. And stimulating the area seems to boost creative abilities. He and his colleagues used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to stimulate the frontopolar cortex of participants as they tried to come up with novel analogies. Stimulating the area led participants to make analogies that were more semantically distant from one another—in other words, more creative ( Cerebral Cortex , Vol. 27, No. 4, 2017).

Green’s work suggests that targeting specific areas in the brain, either with neuromodulation or cognitive interventions, could enhance creativity. Yet no one is suggesting that a single brain region, or even a single neural network, is responsible for creative thought. “Creativity is not one system but many different mechanisms that, under ideal circumstances, work together in a seamless way,” Kounios said.

In search of the eureka moment

Creativity looks different from person to person. And even within one brain, there are different routes to a creative spark, Kounios explained. One involves what cognitive scientists call “System 1” (also called “Type 1”) processes: quick, unconscious thoughts—aha moments—that burst into consciousness. A second route involves “System 2” processes: thinking that is slow, deliberate, and conscious. “Creativity can use one or the other or a combination of the two,” he said. “You might use Type 1 thinking to generate ideas and Type 2 to critique and refine them.”

Which pathway a person uses might depend, in part, on their expertise. Kounios and his colleagues used electroencephalography (EEG) to examine what was happening in jazz musicians’ brains as they improvised on the piano. Then skilled jazz instructors rated those improvisations for creativity, and the researchers compared each musician’s most creative compositions. They found that for highly experienced musicians, the mechanisms used to generate creative ideas were largely automatic and unconscious, and they came from the left posterior part of the brain. Less-experienced pianists drew on more analytical, deliberative brain processes in the right frontal region to devise creative melodies, as Kounios and colleagues described in a special issue of NeuroImage on the neuroscience of creativity (Vol. 213, 2020). “It seems there are at least two pathways to get from where you are to a creative idea,” he said.

Coming up with an idea is only one part of the creative process. A painter needs to translate their vision to canvas. An inventor has to tinker with their concept to make a prototype that actually works. Still, the aha moment is an undeniably important component of the creative process. And science is beginning to illuminate those “lightbulb moments.”

Kounios examined the relationship between creative insight and the brain’s reward system by asking participants to solve anagrams in the lab. In people who were highly sensitive to rewards, a creative insight led to a burst of brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, the area of the brain that responds to basic pleasures like delicious food or addictive drugs ( NeuroImage , Vol. 214, 2020). That neural reward may explain, from an evolutionary standpoint, why humans seem driven to create, he said. “We seem wired to take pleasure in creative thoughts. There are neural rewards for thinking in a creative fashion, and that may be adaptive for our species.”

The rush you get from an aha moment might also signal that you’re onto something good, Schooler said. He and his colleagues studied these flashes of insight among creative writers and physicists. They surveyed the participants daily for two weeks, asking them to note their creative ideas and when they occurred. Participants reported that about a fifth of the most important ideas of the day happened when they were mind-wandering and not working on a task at hand ( Psychological Science , Vol. 30, No. 3, 2019). “These solutions were more likely to be associated with an aha moment and often overcoming an impasse of some sort,” Schooler said.

Six months later, the participants revisited those ideas and rated them for creative importance. This time, they rated their previous ideas as creative, but less important than they’d initially thought. That suggests that the spark of a eureka moment may not be a reliable clue that an idea has legs. “It seems like the aha experience may be a visceral marker of an important idea. But the aha experience can also inflate the meaningfulness of an idea that doesn’t have merit,” Schooler said. “We have to be careful of false ahas.”

Boosting your creativity

Much of the research in this realm has focused on creativity as a trait. Indeed, some people are naturally more creative than others. Creative individuals are more likely than others to possess the personality trait of openness. “Across different age groups, the best predictor of creativity is openness to new experiences,” said Anna Abraham, PhD, the E. Paul Torrance Professor and director of the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development at the University of Georgia. “Creative people have the kind of curiosity that draws them toward learning new things and experiencing the world in new ways,” she said.

We can’t all be Thomas Edison or Maya Angelou. But creativity is also a state, and anyone can push themselves to be more creative. “Creativity is human capacity, and there’s always room for growth,” Runco said. A tolerant environment is often a necessary ingredient, he added. “Tolerant societies allow individuals to express themselves and explore new things. And as a parent or a teacher, you can model that creativity is valued and be open-minded when your child gives an answer you didn’t expect.”

One way to let your own creativity flow may be by tapping into your untethered mind. Seli is attempting to do so through his studies on hypnagogia. After pilot testing the idea on himself, he’s now working on a study that uses the sleep-tracking glove to explore creativity in a group of Duke undergrads. “In dream states, there seems to be connectivity between disparate ideas. You tend to link things together you normally wouldn’t, and this should lead to novel outcomes,” he said. “Neurally speaking, the idea is to increase connectivity between different areas of the brain.”

You don’t have to be asleep to forge those creative connections. Mind-wandering can also let the ideas flow. “Letting yourself daydream with a purpose, on a regular basis, might allow brain networks that don’t usually cooperate to literally form stronger connections,” Green said.

However, not all types of daydreams will get you there. Schooler found that people who engage in more personally meaningful daydreams (such as fantasizing about a future vacation or career change) report greater artistic achievement and more daily inspiration. People who are prone to fantastical daydreaming (such as inventing alternate realities or imaginary worlds) produced higher-quality creative writing in the lab and reported more daily creative behavior. But daydreams devoted to planning or problem-solving were not associated with creative behaviors ( Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , Vol. 15, No. 4, 2021).

It’s not just what you think about when you daydream, but where you are when you do it. Some research suggests spending time in nature can enhance creativity. That may be because of the natural world’s ability to restore attention, or perhaps it’s due to the tendency to let your mind wander when you’re in the great outdoors (Williams, K. J. H., et al., Journal of Environmental Psychology , Vol. 59, 2018). “A lot of creative figures go on walks in big, expansive environments. In a large space, your perceptual attention expands and your scope of thought also expands,” Kounios said. “That’s why working in a cubicle is bad for creativity. But working near a window can help.”

Wherever you choose to do it, fostering creativity requires time and effort. “People want the booster shot for creativity. But creativity isn’t something that comes magically. It’s a skill, and as with any new skill, the more you practice, the better you get,” Abraham said. In a not-yet-published study, she found three factors predicted peak originality in teenagers: openness to experience, intelligence, and, importantly, time spent engaged in creative hobbies. That is, taking the time to work on creative pursuits makes a difference. And the same is true for adults, she said. “Carve out time for yourself, figure out the conditions that are conducive to your creativity, and recognize that you need to keep pushing yourself. You won’t get to where you want to go if you don’t try.”

Those efforts can benefit your own sense of creative fulfillment and perhaps lead to rewards on an even grander scale. “I think everyday creativity is the most important kind,” Runco said. “If we can support the creativity of each and every individual, we’ll change the world.”

How to become more creative

1. Put in the work: People often think of creativity as a bolt of inspiration, like a lightbulb clicking on. But being creative in a particular domain—whether in the arts, in your work, or in your day-to-day life—is a skill. Carve out time to learn and practice.

2. Let your mind wander: Experts recommend “daydreaming with purpose.” Make opportunities to let your daydreams flow, while gently nudging them toward the creative challenge at hand. Some research suggests meditation may help people develop the habit of purposeful daydreaming.

3. Practice remote associations: Brainstorm ideas, jotting down whatever thoughts or notions come to you, no matter how wild. You can always edit later.

4. Go outside: Spending time in nature and wide-open spaces can expand your attention, enhance beneficial mind-wandering, and boost creativity.

5. Revisit your creative ideas: Aha moments can give you a high—but that rush might make you overestimate the merit of a creative idea. Don’t be afraid to revisit ideas to critique and tweak them later.

Further reading

Creativity: An introduction Kaufman, J. C., and Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, 2021

The eureka factor: Aha moments, creative insight, and the brain Kounios, J., & Beeman, M., Random House, 2015

Creativity anxiety: Evidence for anxiety that is specific to creative thinking, from STEM to the arts Daker, R. J., et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 2020

Predictors of creativity in young people: Using frequentist and Bayesian approaches in estimating the importance of individual and contextual factors Asquith, S. L., et al., Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts , 2020

Recommended Reading

Contact apa, you may also like.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2019

Learning scientific creativity from the arts

• Johannes Lehmann 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Bill Gaskins 4 , 5  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  96 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

25k Accesses

21 Citations

58 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Examining scientific creativity through the lens of artistic practice may allow identification of a path towards an institutional environment that explicitly values and promotes transformative creativity in science. It is our perception as an artist and natural scientist that even though creativity is valued in the sciences, it is not institutionally promoted to the same extent it is in the arts. Acknowledging creativity as acts of transformation and central to scientific pursuit, actively utilizing chance and failure in scientific experimentation, are critical for step changes in scientific knowledge. Iterative and open-ended processes should be modeled after insights from a range of practices in the visual, performing and media arts. Successful institutional implementation requires training through a long-term process of unlearning and learning, organizing interactions to critique results, designing experiments to contain trial and error, and building common and individual spaces that promote chance encounters across disciplines and with non-academic sectors. As a natural scientist and an artist, we call for bringing such a transformative creative approach into scientific practice as a guiding principle for organizational and cultural development of the university.

Introduction

Comparing the arts and sciences, not everyone may think of natural science as a creative endeavor in comparison to artistic practice. For the longest time, science was rather associated with discovery of what is already there than actual creation (Barasch, 1985 ). It is telling that the word ‘creativity’ only appeared about one hundred years ago (Whitehead, 1978 ) and for the most part stayed in the realm of artistic production, despite the close relationship of art and science noted by many contemporary scientists (Root-Bernstein et al., 2008 ). Even Goethe considered his scientific theory of colors (Fig. 1 ) his greatest achievement, not his poetry, illustrating how close artistic and scientific pursuit may align. Yet in natural science, you are taught the answer, in arts, the questions, process and material production. From our point of view as an artist and a natural scientist, we strongly argue that close observation of artistic creativity (Collingwood, 1937 ), defined as ideas and actions that transform laws, principals, materials, and thoughts both of the artist and the audiences, can be informative for scientific progress. Important lessons about educating for and promoting creativity in the sciences can, in our experience, be learned from studying the creative process in the arts. The following comments collate our thoughts from an artistic and natural science point of view.

Goethe’s theory of color and diffraction of light. Even though J.W. von Goethe is known today mainly as a literary author, he conducted basic science throughout his life and considered himself as much a scientist as a novelist and poet (reproduced from von Goethe ( 1810 ); image in public domain)

Framing the issue

Both arts and sciences rely on a foundation of mastering methods and conceptual tools that require familiarity with the norm in order to question it. As much as a visual artist has to comprehend and engage the histories of visual, cultural, conceptual and social questions of the past and present, and deal with fundamental laws and skills governing the conception, production and reception of visual art, the scientist must have a basis in, for example, statistical methods, chemical reactions or ecological theory. Both artist and scientist must then synthesize their aptitude beyond just art or science, beyond following rules and relying on imitation to become creative. Key is often a conceptual advance rather than a sole focus on the physical product itself. This can be thought of as the “transformative moment”. Even appropriation and placing known objects into new contexts can develop original thoughts, exemplified by Sturtevant’s copies, Duchamp’s ready-mades, or the Post World War II explorations in spontaneous musical compositions in BeBop based on standard tunes raised by Charles Parker. But simply copying what has been done before, without arriving at new insights, is neither creative nor transformative. One may argue it does not even constitute practicing art or science at all.

Relying on cognitive skills, conceptual tools, the knowledge of precedents and processes, along with the merger of intention and intuition guide ‘what-if’ questions, and are important assets in the toolbox of transformative artistic creativity. Common in art but rarely practiced in the natural sciences—and a critical aspect for a creative spark—is the ability to make associations between or blend (Turner, 2014 ) disparate parts of knowledge and experimental evidence. This is called the art of intelligent perception (Bohm, 1976 ). We agree that the degree or probability of creativity in science relies to a certain degree on personal aptitude (Feist, 1998 ), as well as acquired knowledge and skills with important insights for teaching creative inquiry (Mumford et al., 2010 ; Scheffer et al., 2017 ) and developing creative potential during a career (Mumford et al., 2005 ). In addition, as we argue below, the probability of creativity in natural science is a direct function of a broad range of situational attributes that can be manipulated. These situational attributes are in our opinion not sufficiently considered by natural scientists and science administration for promotion of creativity. Similarly, the explicit nurture of creativity is all-too-often absent in scientific pursuit and its education even after a long history of studies examining scientific practice including aspects of creativity (De Bono, 1973 ; Latour and Woolgar, 1979 ). We do not intend nor are we qualified to advance the scholarship on creativity from a psychological or philosophical point of view or provide an in-depth overview of the associated literature (e.g., DeHaan, 2011 ; Lehrer, 2012 ; Turner, 2014 ). Rather, by insisting on an important responsibility of scientific institutions to provide the organizational foundation for individual creativity, we intend to move this discussion on the framework of artistic creativity to the center of the academic discourse also for the natural sciences.

Entry points for organizational support of creativity

Here we discuss lessons for scientific creativity that may be gleaned from an observation of artistic creativity through an organizational lens. Even though creativity can in many cases be an individual pursuit, it is also relevant to groups and networks, and includes audiences and stakeholders. Most mechanisms that promote scientific creativity possess both individual and organizational dimensions to varying extents and we consider these jointly for the purpose of our discussion. From our art and natural science perspective, we propose to prioritize the following six entry points for promoting scientific creativity: acknowledging creativity as an essential asset; recognizing chance in identifying new directions; constantly critiquing one’s own research, as well as each other’s; trial and error to accelerate discovery; allowing mental space to reflect on scientific results or plans; and value creativity to a greater extent in your own work, in the work of your advisees and your institution. These entry points for the natural sciences are discussed below and compared to the arts.

Creativity—that is, developing original ideas and concepts—is the basis of artistic practice. But as with art, natural science requires creativity and individuals, as well as institutions must acknowledge the pivotal importance of creativity as a defining feature of scientific advancement. It is not, as Kant ( 1790 ) put it, a matter of learning and copying methods to arrive at a scientific advance alone. As with art, so does science require creativity. Natural scientists must approach their inquiry with the same rigor and expectation for novelty as artists do, which in our experience is not sufficiently the case despite longstanding investigations into scientific innovation in general (Knorr-Cetina, 1981 ). Recognizing that natural science requires creativity, we can appreciate that artistic practice may even provide a template for creativity not only for scientific practice by faculty (Hoffmann, 2012 ) but also by technical staff in many natural science disciplines (Wylie, 2015 ). We therefore suggest that an artist’s viewpoint may provide researchers and research organizations with a template to advance creativity in the natural sciences. Making creativity a primary measure of success by considering it a significant evaluative metric concurrent to publication records and other assessments would add structural support for creativity in science. The natural sciences could then also be called a creative profession.

Chance has often been quoted as an important factor in promoting creativity. The apparent chance “discovery” of photography by the artist Louis Daguerre resulted from accidental spillage of mercury in a cabinet storing silver-plated copper plates revealed the latent image on a plate. Similarly in science, Wilhelm Röntgen discovered x-rays in 1895 when a chemically treated screen placed in the laboratory started to glow by exposure to a shielded cathode lamp; and Alexander Fleming observed in 1928 that staphylococcus was inhibited when a petri dish was accidentally left on the laboratory bench, leading to the development of modern antibiotics. Allowing for chance to occur in natural science, or even promoting and recognizing valuable chance results, is anything but trivial. Most scientific experiments are designed and taught to reduce chance to allow only certain questions to be answered, meaning that today’s scientist is often ill prepared to utilize unexpected results. On recognizing chance, Louis Pasteur famously remarked during a lecture at the University of Lille in 1854 that “in the fields of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind”. A scientific study too often develops along the script outlined in a proposal, rather than changing direction—as in many artistic processes—when the second step is fully dependent on how the first step turned out. Funding in the sciences and reporting should be built on promoting chance rather than measuring success strictly by compliance with a plan. Scientific proposals may lead to more important science, if the transformative possibilities of a question were valued to a greater extent than simply meeting the presumed or already-demonstrated feasibility of the experiment.

In art, self-critique and critiquing by peers often occurs during the entire creative process. Each brush stroke is evaluated, each move in a dance routine scrutinized as part of the process of creation—meaning work can be improved in the moment. In the sciences, success or failure of an experiment is all too often evaluated only after weeks, months or even years of work, when it is too late to change direction or repeat the study in a different way. Critiquing in the sciences typically comes at the end of a long process, and often in the form of cursory comments that either lead to the acceptance or rejection of a publication or proposal. A more creative approach in science would include having a continuous opportunity for feedback built into the scientific process, to allow for course correction in the research that could result in a different experimental design or even changing the question.

A heuristic approach in art allows many iterations to get the line in an artist’s drawing just right. Egon Schiele purportedly drew like a maniac and threw most drawings in the fireplace if he did not like them. Today we judge his creativity from the superb works that have survived which are the result of many iterations of trial and error. In comparison, scientific experiments are usually expected to give an answer at first attempt with no time to perform another one, making trial and error a long-term process in the sciences. Error is therefore not seen as a practical intermediate step sufficient for reaching immediate scientific insights or essential for reaching a creative goal. Creativity could be promoted by starting with shorter and more varied experiments where the vast majority are expected to ‘fail’, but lay groundwork for selecting the most promising next step. Concrete modifications in how natural science is organizationally supported and practiced may include: consideration of the time and space allocated to trial and error; expectation by graduate, tenure or hiring committees to demonstrate failure, as well as to reward iterative research rather than unidirectional experimentation; and high-risk project funding for outcomes that are not already prescribed but the result of open-ended exploration for at least part of the study to allow unrestricted creativity.

The subconscious or “inspiration”, the proverbial kiss by the artist’s muse, is described as the mainstay of artistic creativity. In science, this may translate into the scientific reflection necessary to examine data, sketch out a proposal or plan an experiment. Mental or ‘empty’ (Scheffer et al., 2017 ) space where scientific creativity is strongest is not all that different from a focused state of mind containing irrational elements or intuition (Popper, 1935 ). Mental space to reflect on scientific results or plans is typically not given any priority in the sciences but scientific progress is assumed to be a mechanic outcome of planned daily activities. Providing that mental space requires organizational and individual effort. Individual preparation may include establishing cues for switching off and then on again, taking breaks, allowing time to develop an idea and formulate responses in meetings, utilizing open-ended discussion opportunities, and avoiding distraction. Many of these techniques are commonly encouraged in creative visual art, design, music and performance industries, yet have not been focused on natural scientists. Organizationally, the restructuring of infrastructure could provide space for creative exchange and offer opportunities for structured critiques; create common areas to allow for spontaneous conversation and promote shared space between colleagues who work on diverse issues, in an effort to promote discussion.

Within the arts, creativity—as we define it here—is valued and supported as critical to both the process and outcome of artistic production. In the natural sciences, creativity is not explicitly valued by scientific institutions and therefore not perceived as desirable by the scientist. Often, questioning the norm necessary to create new processes and products is seen as being detrimental to an institution, requiring risk-taking and courage (Scheffer et al., 2017 ; Segarra et al., 2018 ). The number of publications, their citations, and the prestige of a journal typically remain more important than the transformative process and outcome of the scientific product. Ideally all these metrics—as well as the ensuing uptake by industry or impact on society—should be a reflection of creativity, but it is not assessed or valued in and of itself. The scientific reward structure does not address this lack of recognition head-on. A change in attitude by the scientist will only be achieved through an incentive structure and value system that encourages transformative creativity above everything else. The extent to which a scientist makes associations across disparate areas of study, and the blending or merging of ideas, may serve as a starting point for developing metrics of creativity, possibly through the diversity of institutional affiliations of authors. The diversity of methods and experiments used to create new knowledge may also manifest itself in longer scientific articles that develop a story rather than snapshot solutions.

It may turn out that creativity defies easy quantification in the natural sciences, as ideological, corporate and political circumstances challenge the unambiguous assessment of creativity of the scientific product. Valuing and incentivizing creativity in the natural sciences may mean supporting the mechanisms that we do recognize to enhance creativity, rather than by concentrating on learning creativity itself (Bohm, 1968 ).

Blending ideas may still require the solitude of traditional reading of the scientific literature, but unregulated interactions with colleagues and ensuing chance encounters may provide greater opportunities to foster a creative spark than meticulously planned research, for as much knowledge as the scientist may possess. Valuing creativity will certainly include many priorities that some institutions have already set for themselves, such as allowing increased physical proximity between disciplines that are targeted for collaboration. Yet key is to organize the incentive and support structure through the lens of how to promote creativity. When designing institutional structures, one may want to recognize that creativity is likely not the outcome of a universally applicable method that can be enforced but a highly individual path to be explored. From our own experience as artist and natural scientist, infusing lessons from artistic creativity into this planning process will enrich the outcome.

Promoting creativity in the natural sciences with artistic practice in mind

Many proposals have been made over the past decades about how to advance creativity for industrial and professional innovation that include institutional and individual methods (De Bono, 1973 ; Couger, 1996 ; Hemlin et al., 2004 ). Here we utilize the above-mentioned entry points that have emerged from an observation of artistic practice and briefly highlight three key organizational strategies that may promote individual and collective creativity in the natural sciences. The following strategies merely serve as an illustration of starting points from our point of view and of what is in some cases already practiced, and will require more space than is available here.

Train respectful critique; a “working memory” (Baddeley, 1992 ) to recognize chance discoveries; reaching a mental space of heightened perception; and a state of mind that is accepted or even expected of the artist, when in fact, the creative scientist is literally dreaming up new realities. Such training is a long-term educational process, of unlearning and learning, not a short-term instruction, and may involve starting from either observation or theory. Art practice, intent and question may then ignite new dimensions of thinking in the sciences (Bohm, 1969 ) and open up avenues for art-science instruction (Gurnon et al., 2013 ) also as part of integrated science-technology-engineering-arts-mathematics (STEAM) programs (Bequette and Bequette, 2012 ; Segarra et al., 2018 ).

Organize regular interactions between scientists to critique processes and results; and experiments to contain trial and error. An institutionalization of future-orientation as explored at the Center for Science and the Imagination of Arizona State University (Selin, 2015 ) builds on broad institutional support and individual engagement. These approaches also require an environment of trust to share insights and an environment of respect for creativity. A Co-Lab connecting artists and scientists may test assumptions about critique in unexpected ways, and may promote needed risk-taking (Segarra et al., 2018 ). The arts may be particularly effective partners for deep collaboration by providing “trading zones” that are divorced from disciplinary constraints (Brown and Tepper, 2012 ).

Build common and individual spaces that promote chance encounters across disciplines and with non-academic sectors, and that allow for the mental space to generate the creative spark. Few of these suggestions are new in their respective fields, but little is applied in academic education (DeHaan, 2011 ) or practice in the natural sciences.

Finally, to leverage insight from artistic creative practice it will be necessary to depart from considering natural science as the antithesis of art, and to recognize that art and science share many basic requirements and techniques that promote creativity. We urge academic institutions and individual scientists to take on this debate with the sincerity that it requires.

Baddeley A (1992) Working memory. Science 255:556–559

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bequette JW, Bequette MB (2012) A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Educ 65(2):40–47

Article   Google Scholar  

Barasch M (1985) Theories of art. New York University Press, New York

Google Scholar  

Bohm D (1969) On the relationships between science and art. In: Hill A (ed.) Data: directions in art, theory and aesthetics, an anthology. Faber and Faber, UK, p 33–49

Bohm D (1968) On creativity. Leonardo 1:137–149

Bohm D (1976) The range of imagination. In: Sugerman S (ed.) Evolution of consciousness, studies in polarity. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, p 51–68

Brown AS, Tepper SJ (2012) Placing the arts at the heart of the creative campus. Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Washington, DC

Collingwood RG (1937) The principles of art. Oxford University Press, London

Couger D (1996) Creativity and innovation in information systems organizations. Boyd & Fraser, Danvers

De Bono E (1973) Lateral thinking: creativity step by step. Harper, New York

DeHaan RL (2011) Teaching creative science thinking. Science 334:1499–1500

Feist GJ (1998) A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 2:290–309

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

von Goethe JW (1810) Zur Farbenlehre. Cotta, Tübingen, Germany

Book   Google Scholar  

Gurnon D, Voss-Andreae J, Stanley J (2013) Integrating art and science in undergraduate education. PLOS Biol 11:e1001491

Hemlin S, Allwood CM, Martin BR (2004) Creative knowledge environments. Creat Res J 20:1996–1210

Hoffmann R (2012) Reflections on art in science. In: Talasek JD, Quinn A (eds) Convergence: the art collection of the national academy of sciences. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, p 85–87

Kant I (1790) Kritik der Urteilskraft. Lagarde and Friederich, Berlin and Libau, Germany

Knorr-Cetina KD (1981) The manufacture of knowledge. Pergamon Press, Oxford

Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

Lehrer J (2012) Imagine how creativity works. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston

Mumford MD, Connelly MS, Scott G, Espejo J, Sohl LM, Hunter ST, Bedell KE (2005) Career experiences and scientific performance: A study of social, physical, life, and health sciences. Creat Res J 17:105–129

Mumford MD, Antes AL, Caughron JJ, Connelly S, Beeler C (2010) Cross-field differences in creative problem-solving skills: a comparison of health, biological, and social sciences. Creat Res J 22:14–26

Popper K (1935) Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Springer, Berlin, Germany

Root-Bernstein R, Allen L, Beach L, Bhadula R, Fast J, Hosey C et al. (2008) Arts foster scientific success: avocations of Nobel, National Academy, Royal Society, and Sigma Xi Members. J Psychol Sci Technol 1:51–63

Scheffer M, Baas M, Bjordam T (2017) Teaching originality? Common habits behind creative production in science and arts. Ecol Soc 22(2):29

Segarra VA, Natalizio B, Falkenberg CV, Pulford S, Holmes RM (2018) STEAM: using the arts to train well-rounded and creative scientists. J Microbiol Biol Educ 19(1):19.1.53

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Selin C (2015) Merging art and design in foresight: making sense of emerge. Futures 70:24–35

Turner M (2014) The origin of ideas. Oxford University Press, London

Whitehead AN (1978) Process and reality: an essay on cosmology. Gifford Lectures delivered in the University of Edinburgh during the Session 1927–28. The Free Press, New York

Wylie CD (2015) ‘The artist’s piece is already in the stone’: constructing creativity in paleontology laboratories. Soc Stud Sci 45:31–55

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Johannes Lehmann

Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Institute for Advanced Studies, Technical University Munich, Garching, Germany

Department of Art, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Bill Gaskins

Photographic & Electronic Media, Lazarus Graduate Center, Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore, MD, 21212, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Lehmann .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lehmann, J., Gaskins, B. Learning scientific creativity from the arts. Palgrave Commun 5 , 96 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0308-8

Download citation

Received : 04 March 2019

Accepted : 31 July 2019

Published : 27 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0308-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Advertisement

Teaching scientific creativity through philosophy of science

• Paper in Philosophy of Science in Practice
• Open access
• Published: 26 November 2021
• Volume 11 , article number  110 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Rasmus Jaksland   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9531-9994 1  

6345 Accesses

3 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

There is a demand to nurture scientific creativity in science education. This paper proposes that the relevant conceptual infrastructure with which to teach scientific creativity is often already included in philosophy of science courses, even those that do not cover scientific creativity explicitly. More precisely, it is shown how paradigm theory can serve as a framework with which to introduce the differences between combinational, exploratory, and transformational creativity in science. Moreover, the types of components given in Kuhn’s disciplinary matrix are argued to indicate a further subdivision within transformational creativity that makes explicit that this most radical type of creativity that aims to go beyond and thus to transform the current paradigm can take many different directions. More generally, it is argued that there are several synergies between the topic of scientific creativity and paradigm theory that can be utilized in most philosophy of science courses at relative ease. Doing so should promote the understanding of scientific creativity among students, provide another way to signify the relevance of paradigm theory, and more strategically be a way of reinforcing the place of philosophy of science in science education.

Similar content being viewed by others

Nurturing Scientific Creativity in Science Classroom

Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking in Science Education

The Mona Lisa - A Prototype for Multidisciplinary Science Education

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

There is a demand to nurture innovation and creativity in higher education. The European Union, for instance, lists among its four priorities for action in higher education the aim of “[e]nsuring [that] higher education institutions contribute to innovation” (European Commission 2017 , COM/2017/0247 final:4). This, they qualify, entails that “[a]ll forms of higher learning should aim to equip students with the ability to understand new concepts, think critically and creatively and act entrepreneurially to develop and apply new ideas” (European Commission 2017 , COM/2017/0247 final:8). Footnote 1 While this is high-level policy, Sybille Reichert ( 2019 , 24) found in a survey among nine universities across Europe that concrete initiatives were taken at all institution to promote innovation as part of their degree programs. Thus, at least in the European Union, the expectation to cover innovation shapes individual courses and this expectation will likely find its way to philosophy of science courses as well; perhaps especially if the courses are integrated within science programs. Footnote 2 The present paper, however, proposes that philosophy of science should welcome this challenge to cover topics such as creative thinking and the development of new ideas among the elements of innovation emphasized by the European Commission. Footnote 3 Scientific discovery and creativity are after all central themes to philosophy of science already (see Schickore ( 2018 ) for a survey). But philosophy of science courses are also specially well equipped to relate what creative thinking is because most philosophy of science courses already include an infrastructure with which to do so, as this paper argues. Furthermore, it is found that there are several synergies between the topic of scientific creativity and the traditional elements of a philosophy of science curriculum, paradigm theory in particular. Finally, by their relation to innovation, covering these themes may be a way to reinforce the relevance and place of philosophy of science within science education.

The argument, in brief, is this: When Margaret Boden ( 1991 ) – and with her many other researchers on creativity (e.g. Sternberg 2003 ; Schunn and Klahr 1995 ) – defines creativity as the generation of new ideas, the typology of novelties is explicated relative to a background framework of assumptions and practices. In science, one way of capturing such background frameworks is through scientific paradigms which are already introduced with some care in most philosophy of science courses, either through their original exposition by Thomas Kuhn ( 1970 ) or through later iterations such as those due to Howard Margolis ( 1993 ) and Paul Thagard ( 1992 ). The claim to be defended here is then that in philosophy of science courses the conceptual framework of paradigm theory broadly construed can double as an infrastructure with which to elucidate – and compared to Boden’s exposition, elaborate upon – what scientific creativity involves including the insight that not all creativity is the same. Furthermore, the Kuhnian disciplinary matrix can serve to signify that there are different dimensions along which scientific creativity can play out. The benefit, however, is mutual. Boden’s insistence that ideas that preserve the background framework can nevertheless be creative serve to reinforce the point that also non-revolutionary science can qualify as creative. Likewise, Boden’s category of combinational creativity that combines multiple frameworks suggests a type of scientific creativity that is next to incomprehensible at least on Kuhn’s version of paradigm theory. As such, the present paper can be read as exploring some advantages in bringing together typologies of creativity and paradigm theory.

It is, however, relevant at this point to emphasize that only a limited perspective on creativity is covered when the focus is on typologies of creativity and how they can be explicated through paradigm theory. The literature on scientific discovery and creativity within the philosophy of science is rich and importantly has much more to say about how creativity is achieved and not just what it is. The limitations of the present approach to creativity will be discussed further in section 4 which also provides a concrete proposal for how to integrate the teaching of paradigm theory and scientific creativity. Before that, section 2 introduces paradigm theory, Boden’s three types of creativity, and discusses their potential synergies. Section 3 focuses on transformational creativity and employs Kuhn’s disciplinary matrix to introduce a subdivision within this type of creativity that is not identified by Boden.

2 Paradigm theories and types of creativity

Several authors have noted that Kuhn’s construal of scientific research as relative to a paradigm already implies a proto-typology of scientific creativity (e.g. Sternberg 2003 ; Simonton 2004 ; Pope 2005 ; Andersen 2013 ). Thomas Nickles ( 2011 ) develops this Kuhnian account in more detail. According to Nickles, Kuhn’s central insight about creativity consists in the rejection of the view that creativity requires divergent thinking, i.e. that creativity is an “unconventional, imaginative activity that disregards established rules to strike out in new directions” (Nickles 2011 , 209). In Kuhn’s paradigm theory, most research does not involve divergent thinking but takes the form of “normal science” that solves puzzles whose character and admissible solutions are set by the paradigm, though often without the paradigm giving the puzzles or their admissible solutions explicitly. Kuhn (e.g. 1970, 38) therefore insists that puzzle-solving is far from a trivial activity. This leads Nickles to the proposal that normal science, on Kuhn’s view, should be considered creative despite its largely convergent character. Normal science with its focus on (esoteric) details is after all what produces the anomalies that, according to Kuhn, eventually bring about the major changes of a scientific revolution. Kuhn, in other words, implicitly distinguishes between two types of creativity: “The more modest sort of creativity involves working within a guiding framework that defines the research enterprise in that particular specialty area and thereby makes esoteric research intelligible. The divergent sort generates a new defining framework that sends the field in a different direction” (Nickles 2011 , 211).

Boden’s distinction between exploratory, transformational, and combinational creativity is one influential typology of creativity – or typology of ways creative ideas can be “surprising” (Boden 2018 , 181) – in the literature (see Gaut and Kieran 2018a for some recent discussions). Footnote 4 Boden develops this distinction on the general background of what she calls a “conceptual space” which is explicated as a “disciplined way of thinking that is familiar to (and valued by) a certain social group” (Boden 1991 , 4). Footnote 5 Examples include the styles and genres observed in esthetic undertakings and the theoretical background of scientific work. Boden then introduces exploratory creativity in the following way: “Whatever the size of the space, someone who comes up with a new idea within that thinking style is being creative in the […] exploratory sense” (Boden 1991 , 4). The conceptual space does not come equipped with a specification of what it includes and its content therefore remains to be explored. As Boden argues, such exploration “is creative, for in exploring its home-territory it discovers many formerly unexpected locations and it also changes the maps it inherits” (Boden 1991 , 75). Changing the maps does not, however, involve a change to the conceptual space itself (this comes about through transformational creativity as introduced below). Rather, it is a change to our expectation of what the conceptual space contains.

Making a direct reference to Kuhnian puzzle-solving, Boden qualifies that “[e]xploration is involved even in non-revolutionary scientific research” (Boden 1991 , 75). Indeed, the connection between Kuhnian puzzle-solving and exploratory creativity is rather straightforward: Both activities are restricted by an existing framework, and thus instances of largely convergent thinking, but they are still argued to be creative since the framework rarely gives specific instructions for process or outcome. Just like a conceptual space dictates the established “style” in a general context, so, too, does the paradigm within a scientific discipline. As Boden also indicates, exploratory creativity in science can thereby be introduced as those instances of normal science that find “unexpected locations” in the conceptual space that a paradigm provides for. Footnote 6 Sintonen ( 2009 ) makes the related suggestion that Boden’s conceptual spaces can be modelled by Thagard’s ( 1992 ) conceptual systems account of paradigms and scientific revolutions where the concepts of the background framework form a network of nodes with links between them that changes over time.

Boden primarily introduces conceptual spaces through examples, and she does not, therefore, furnish these conceptual spaces with more explicit details; perhaps because the account is meant to be so general that it can cover creativity in most domains. Explicating Boden’s conceptual spaces in the context of scientific creativity through paradigms – either following Kuhn’s original exposition or later sophistications such as that offered by Thagard – can therefore be helpful. Arguably, also Kuhn relies heavily on examples, but his explication of paradigms in terms of a disciplinary matrix does provide additional details on the elements that direct thinking within a paradigm and consequently, also, more concrete suggestions for the dimensions in which one can go beyond a paradigm (as discussed in section 3). Thagard’s ( 1992 , chap. 2) conceptual systems account, in turn, offers more details on how conceptual spaces in science may be structured as concepts connected by kind-, instance-, rule-, property-, and part-links.

In the conceptual systems framework, exploratory creativity can then be identified as additions to the conceptual system that leaves the conceptual system (mostly) intact, arguably what Thagard describes as “[s]imple conceptual reorganizations that involves mere extension of existing relations” as opposed to “the revisionary sort […] which involves moving the concepts around in the hierarchies and rejecting old kind-relations or part-relations” (Thagard 1992 , 36–37). To use one of Thagard’s ( 1992 , 35) examples for such simple reorganizations, one can imagine the proposal to add a kind-link between the concept ‘dolphin’ and the concept ‘whale.’ If these were simply previously conceived as unrelated sea-creatures, adding this link would leave the remaining conceptual system intact, and the proposal would therefore qualify as exploratory creativity. With this connection to Thagard’s conceptual systems, we can better understand why such exploratory creativity nevertheless “changes the map it inherits,” as Boden puts it above. The kind-link to whales embeds dolphins in a part of the conceptual system that includes for instance the part-link between spleens and whales (Thagard 1992 , 35). Our expectations regarding dolphins, “the map,” will change – we now, for instance, expect dolphins to have spleens – even though the conceptual space as captured by the conceptual system remains the same apart from the added kind-link. Footnote 7

Relating conceptual spaces to Kuhnian paradigms and, as Boden also does, exploratory creativity to the puzzle solving of normal science is perhaps especially interesting for the way it informs the practice that produces exploratory creativity. As also mentioned by Nickles above, Kuhn argues that discoveries through normal science are only possible because the paradigm requires “focusing attention upon a small range of relatively esoteric problems” (Kuhn 1970 , 24). Thus, understanding conceptual spaces and exploratory creativity through Kuhn not only echoes Boden’s argument that ideas can be creative despite preserving the conceptual space but adds that exploratory creativity might actually be aided the more convergent the thinking is. In more general terms, Kuhn’s detailed account of normal science can offer a template for exploratory creativity that goes beyond Boden’s generic remarks about exploring the existing conceptual space. Furthermore, appreciating that the exploratory and largely convergent normal science can qualify as creativity rejects – as Kuhn also does – the conception that genuine creativity must be so radically divergent Footnote 8 that it is restricted to paradigm shifts whose associated incommensurability is prone to reproduce the unfortunate view of creativity as inscrutable and unlearnable. Footnote 9 Relatedly, the construal of normal science as creativity serves to break the linkage between scientific creativity and the scientific genius. Footnote 10

Transformational creativity is the second more radical form of creativity that Boden identifies, and it includes instances that “involve someone’s thinking something which, with respect to the conceptual spaces in their minds, they couldn’t have thought before. The supposedly impossible idea can come about only if the creator changes the preexisting style in some way” (Boden 1991 , 6). Explicating conceptual spaces in science as paradigms following the above, ideas exemplify transformational creativity if they cannot be subsumed under the current paradigm and thus go beyond normal science. As Boden argues, such ideas would inevitably require the creator to have altered the preexisting style and transformational creativity in science therefore comes with changes to the paradigm. This connects transformational creativity with the second type of creativity that Nickles finds implicit in Kuhn’s paradigm theory which precisely involves proposals for “a new defining framework.” According to Nickles’ Kuhn, this mode of creativity is characteristic of the revolutionary science that leads up to a paradigm shift. In associating paradigm shifts with transformations of a conceptual space, i.e. in bringing together Boden and Kuhn, one might in turn reinforce Nickles’ point that “a paradigm shift does not typically result from a massive infusion of new empirical results. Rather, it amounts to a conceptual reorganization of the old materials” (Nickles 2011 , 212). This is also in accordance with a construal of transformational creativity in Thagard’s conceptual systems account as “ conceptual revolutions” that “involve a dramatic replacement of a substantial portion of the conceptual system” (Thagard 1992 , 32), which goes beyond adding or deleting single nodes or links, as in the dolphin example.

The association between transformational creativity and scientific revolutions, however, also emphasizes Boden’s claim that transformational creativity – with its requirement to think the unthinkable – is particularly challenging. Kuhn occasionally discusses paradigms as defining “the legitimate problems and methods of a research field” (Kuhn 1970 , 10), but this arguably assumes an outsider perspective to the paradigm. A practitioner immersed in a paradigm will not come up with various ideas and then compare them to the paradigm to decide which are legitimate. Rather, such a practitioner will rarely if not never think anything that violates the paradigm; as also alluded to by Kuhn (e.g. 1970, 93). Footnote 11 The practitioners within a paradigm are, as Margolis finds, entrenched in particular “habits of the mind” (Margolis 1993 , 22) which will typically take the form of “intuitions that seem too obviously right to prompt discussion” (Margolis 1990 , 434). Indeed, the practitioners are so engrossed in the paradigm that the first challenges to transformational creativity are to realize that transformational creativity is even possible and to become aware what transformational creativity might change. The teaching of paradigm theory and scientific revolutions will illustrate that transformational creativity in science is both possible and historically actual. Together, they provide for the realization that the scientific practice with its foundational principles and assumptions is not fixed but rather an additional arena for scientific innovation beyond normal science. Section 3 will expand on this theme focusing on how Kuhn’s disciplinary matrix can be seen as introducing a subdivision among types of transformational scientific creativity and thus as giving more details for what might change with transformational creativity.

Boden’s third type of creativity involves “making unfamiliar combinations of familiar ideas” (Boden 1991 , 3). Footnote 12 This combinational creativity is for instance exemplified by a collage (Boden 1991 , 3), and an example from physics is the integration of the theories of electric and magnetic phenomena into electromagnetism in the nineteenth century. Boden insinuates that combinational creativity is less surprising – and thus less creative – than exploratory and transformational creativity. However, Kuhn’s account of the workings of paradigms proposes a very different verdict in the context of science. As also alluded to above, Kuhn finds it an important role of paradigms that they set the type of problems that practitioners within the paradigm can (imagine to) work on and what can be considered acceptable solutions including the type of resources that one can draw upon. On this view, the combination of elements of multiple paradigms is therefore rarely, if not never, set as a puzzle for normal science. Thus, new ideas that do so – instances of combinational creativity – will arguably be more surprising than at least exploratory creativity from the perspective of normal science. In science, following Kuhn, a challenge therefore lies in identifying, let alone solving, problems that could be approached through combinational creativity. Indeed, such combinational creativity might be beyond the assessment and even the recognition of any one paradigm whereby such ideas would appear to the practitioners of the paradigms to be not worth entertaining. If one adopts Kuhn’s ( 1970 , chap. 10) view that paradigms are often incommensurable, Footnote 13 combinational creativity could even be outright impossible in some circumstances since it would be embedded in two different worlds at once. Thagard ( 1992 ), in contrast, argues that paradigms are not in general incommensurable (see also, e.g., Szumilewicz 1977 ; Devitt 1979 ). Indeed, Thagard’s conceptual systems are more hospitable to the possibility that two previously unrelated conceptual systems become connected by a new link whose introduction would therefore qualify as combinational creativity.

Where exploratory creativity and transformational creativity maps distinctions already made by Kuhn in the context of paradigm theory, combinational creativity is at odds with at least Kuhn’s account of paradigms. The meeting of combinational creativity and paradigm theory therefore offers an interesting occasion to consider whether creativity in science is different from creativity elsewhere: Where Boden finds that combinational creativity is generally less surprising and rather common, there are perhaps special obstacles to it in science which will make combinational scientific creativity rarer and more challenging. Relatedly, Boden’s account can also be used as an occasion to discuss Kuhn’s view that paradigms are incommensurable and to consider whether the combination of paradigms is possible.

3 The disciplinary matrix and transformational creativity

Transformational creativity is particularly challenging, also in science. It requires thinking outside the box and though the box may be known through acquaintance with the paradigm, the outside will remain unknown. This section, however, will argue that Kuhn’s disciplinary matrix gives some details on the possible directions out of the box. The disciplinary matrix suggests what to think when one is looking for ideas that might qualify as transformational creativity and more can therefore be said about transformational creativity in science than “think the unthinkable.” In the postscript to the second enlarged edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), Kuhn provides a – for that purpose – helpful explication of ‘paradigm’ in terms of what he calls the “disciplinary matrix”: “‘disciplinary’ because it refers to the common possession of the practitioners of a particular discipline; ‘matrix’ because it is composed of ordered elements of various sorts” (Kuhn 1970 , 182). Kuhn lists four such types of components of the disciplinary matrix: symbolic generalizations, models (broadly construed), values, and exemplars. Where awareness of the existence of a disciplinary matrix allows the insight that the disciplinary matrix could be different, i.e. that transformational creativity is possible, the ordering into types of components furnishes this insight with some indication of what might be different in other disciplinary matrices, i.e. some suggestion for the directions that transformational scientific creativity may take that goes beyond generic references to conceptual spaces as a whole. The components of the disciplinary matrix introduce, as such, a subdivision to transformational scientific creativity whereby creative ideas can be categorized according to the type of component of a disciplinary matrix that it modifies or rejects. This once again illustrates the synergies of integrating this typology of creativity with paradigm theory.

Kuhn describes symbolic generalizations as “the formal or the readily formalizable components of the disciplinary matrix” (Kuhn 1970 , 182). Kuhn gives Newton’s second law, F  =  m  ·  a , as an example of the former and Newton’s third law, “action equals reaction”, as an example of the latter (Kuhn 1970 , 183). Due to their formal nature, attempts at transformational creativity could apparently proceed by simply changing, for instance, a multiplication into an addition in one of the central symbolic generalizations. However, arbitrary changes to the symbolic generalizations will most often not generate new disciplinary matrices but rather generate defective or outright inconsistent groupings of formal(izable) statements. To be creative ideas rather than incomprehensible nonsense, changes to the symbolic generalizations must be subtle, and this applies to all transformational creativity. “Unless someone realizes the structure which old and new spaces have in common, the new idea cannot be seen as the solution to the old problem. Without some appreciation of shared constraints, it cannot even be seen as the solution to a new problem intelligibly connected with the previous one” (Boden 1991 , 96–97). Kuhn, as Nickles observes, makes the similar observation that “if a particular move is too divergent, it risks not being recognized as a serious constructive contribution to that field” (Nickles 2011 , 211–12). Footnote 14 Importantly, this implies that it is inconceivable to replace all aspects of the paradigm at once. Even in cases of dramatic conceptual changes, it is necessary that “continuity is maintained by the survival of links to other concepts” (Thagard 1992 , 32; see also Nersessian 1987 ; Chen and Barker 2000 ). In early quantum mechanics, for instance, the Hamiltonian for the hydrogen atom underwent several changes to accommodate the motion of the nucleus, the spin-orbit coupling, and relativistic effects (Kragh 2003 ). Much of the framework surrounding this central symbolic generalization was preserved under each change even though especially the addition of relativistic effects could be considered the first move towards the new disciplinary matrix of relativistic quantum mechanics. While emphasizing that transformational creativity must be subtle may reinforce the impression that transformational creativity is difficult, it also importantly signifies that transformational creativity is not facilitated by being as radical as possible.

The second type of elements in the disciplinary matrix is models. This includes the ontological models of the disciplinary matrix such as “heat is the kinetic energy of the constituent parts of bodies” (Kuhn 1970 , 184), but also models of a more heuristic character such as “the molecules of a gas behave like tiny elastic billiard balls in random motion” (Kuhn 1970 , 184). Transformational creativity through new heuristic models might be exemplified by the introduction of the liquid drop model of the atomic nucleus (see, however, Andersen 1996 , 472). Transformational creativity through new ontological models would involve changes to what we assume exists, such as the proposal to replace phlogiston for oxidation, or changes to how the already existing relate to each other, exemplified by Copernicus’ heliocentrism. Thagard ( 1992 , 191–99) gives the more detailed account of the Copernican revolution as a conceptual change to the kind-links of the conceptual system as exemplified by the Sun and the Moon no longer belonging to the kind ‘planet’.

Values form the third type of element in the disciplinary matrix. According to Kuhn, these tend to be more widely shared between disciplinary matrices. But changes of values can, nevertheless, qualify as transformational creativity, though the potential for creativity in this part of the disciplinary matrix is consequently more limited. Kuhn proposes the value of prediction – and generally empirical significance – as central to many scientific disciplines, but other examples include accuracy, simplicity, and self-consistence (Kuhn 1970 , 185). Knowledge of the current operative values and the recognition of the role of values in the disciplinary matrix enable proposals to remove or include values to the disciplinary matrix, or to prioritize the values differently. Sabine Hossenfelder ( 2018 ), for instance, argues that the emphasis on the values of beauty, simplicity, and naturalness leads contemporary physics astray which can at least be regarded as the proposal to prioritize accuracy and prediction over these. The introduction of new values might be exemplified by Richard Dawid’s ( 2013 ) proposal that “non-empirical confirmation” should help adjudicate between theories in quantum gravity research. Since the empirical consequences of these theories are very limited, they are hardly encompassed by the “classical empirical paradigm” (Dawid 2013 , 22), and Dawid might in this light be construed as proposing a transformation to the disciplinary matrix through new values that allow these theories to be included and compared.

From the perspective of transformational creativity in science, the recognition that such creativity can concern both models and values rejects the view that scientific discovery – especially its significant changes – must proceed through new equations. Connecting transformational scientific creativity with the disciplinary matrix can therefore broaden the search space for new creative ideas. More generally, this connection provides the first step towards thinking outside the box by indicating what might be different outside. The types of components of the disciplinary matrix can indicate this by suggesting that the symbolic generalizations, models, and values might be different and therefore be subject to change through transformational creativity.

4 Teaching scientific creativity

To teach the tripartite typology of creativity in a philosophy of science course, one can largely follow one’s preferred approach to teaching paradigm theory. However, to emphasize that normal science is creative, it may be helpful to stress the way paradigms constrain normal science without giving its problems or solutions explicitly. The close connection between normal science and exploratory creativity can then be used as a starting point for introducing Boden’s typology. Having already introduced paradigms in the teaching of paradigm theory, combinational creativity can be explicated as the meeting of paradigms, though it may here be relevant to add a discussion of the apparent conflicts between combinational creativity and the (alleged) incommensurability of paradigms. Transformational creativity and the way it breaks with the existing conceptual space can in turn be explained as the departure from the current paradigm perhaps emphasizing the further subdivisions within transformational creativity that Kuhn’s disciplinary matrix provides for.

While the teaching of scientific creativity can, as such, be integrated with most approaches to teaching paradigm theory, I favor the case based active learning approach to teaching philosophy of science Footnote 15 (Green et al. 2021 ) and Cabrera’s “‘Second Philosophy’ approach, which consists, roughly, in emphasizing the concrete ways in which philosophical problems arise during scientific practice” (Cabrera 2021 , 2), both discussed in further detail elsewhere in this topical collection. In combination, they propose an approach where episodes from the history of science and typical circumstances from the scientific practice are used as generators and motivation for the philosophical discussions. I shall here briefly illustrate this approach with three cases/exercises from my own teaching that attempt to integrate paradigm theory and scientific creativity.

4.1 Exploratory creativity/normal science

Neptune was telescopically discovered in 1846 after mathematical astronomers had predicted where to point the telescope. The prediction was based on the errant motion of Uranus which only satisfied Newton’s theory of gravity if there existed a hitherto undiscovered 8th planet with a certain orbit around the sun (see, e.g., Sheehan et al. 2021 ). The discovery of a planet very much lends itself to Boden’s metaphor for exploratory creativity of discovering “unexpected locations” on the map of our “home-territory.” The map, in this case, is based on the Newtonian paradigm, and one way of working with this case study is having the students discuss in groups how the discovery of Neptune fits into this paradigm (as it is, for instance, summarized by Ladyman ( 2002 , 98–100)). This serves to substantiate Boden’s map metaphor and thus how exploratory creativity play out relative to a conceptual space. From the perspective of paradigm theory, the case illustrates how the study of esoteric details in normal science is the basis for new scientific discovery, the discovery of Neptune relying on precision measurements of the motion of Uranus, detailed star charts, advanced perturbative methods in celestial mechanics, to name some. More advanced students can be given these to reproduce the prediction themselves (using numerical simulations).

4.2 Transformational creativity

The discovery of Neptune – brought about by convergent thinking – stands in contrast with the more divergent thinking involved in ideas that go beyond established paradigms. Section 3 gave several examples of this, and Thagard’s examples of conceptual revolutions as well as Kuhn’s examples of paradigm shifts can also serve as cases that illustrate this difference. However, for purposes of illustrating transformational creativity, one can consider choosing a case that also emphasizes how transformational creativity is more than new equations, how such creativity must be subtle to be recognized as a promising new idea, and how it involves thinking the unthinkable. Copernicus’ heliocentrism nicely exemplifies all. As mentioned above, it primarily involves a change in the ontological model. Its subtlety lies in its preservation of the methods and principles of Ptolemy’s astronomy (Thagard 1992 , 193–99) as well as in being worked out in similar mathematical detail which made Copernicus’ proposal stand out compared to earlier gests towards heliocentrism (Shank 2017 ). Finally, Copernicus had to realize and convince others that the Earth’s immobility could be an illusion (Chen-Morris and Feldhay 2017 ). Students can, for instance, work with this case study by adding these details about methods, principles, mathematics, and preconceptions to Thagard’s ( 1992 , fig. 8.2-8.3) diagrams of the respective conceptual systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus and discuss how the former transforms into the latter.

4.3 The disciplinary matrix

This exercise asks students to consider the disciplinary matrix of their own scientific (sub)discipline using the types of components discussed in section 3. The purpose of the exercise is to indicate that also contemporary science operates within a paradigm and that the content of this paradigm can be organized by the disciplinary matrix. This, in turn, raises the awareness that there is a potential for transformational creativity even in contemporary science along the dimensions exemplified in section 3. Immediately filling in the disciplinary matrix can be difficult for students, but it can be facilitated by asking (1) whether there are principles (or laws) that any serious scientific theory must satisfy which is helpful for teasing out the paradigm’s symbolic generalizations and ontological models; (2) what scientific theories should aim for which gets at the values of the paradigm; and (3) how they imagine the systems being studied which can be a way of realizing what heuristic models that are operative. If the gained understanding of the contemporary disciplinary matrix is in turn supplemented by analyzing historical examples of transformational creativity – like those given in section 3 – through the lens of the types of components of the disciplinary matrix, then one might hope that these types of components can work as tools for the students with which to identify possible venues for transformational creativity in the current disciplinary matrix.

By explicating Boden’s conceptual spaces as paradigms, paradigm theory can be used in philosophy of science courses to introduce to students the influential distinction in the literature on creativity between exploratory, transformational, and combinational creativity as it applies in a scientific context. Even though this merely introduces them to a categorization of creativity, it provides for several synergies with paradigm theory, as indicated, that illuminate important aspects of paradigm theory and the typology of creativity alike. Furthermore, it may contribute to the aim of Cabrera’s second philosophy approach to address the challenge identified by Lederman ( 1992 ) in the context of the teaching of nature of science that students fail “to appreciate the social, creative, and imaginative elements of science” (Cabrera 2021 , 10).

One issue, however, remains: How does one generate these creative ideas and relatedly, how can we teach this? The restraints of paradigms make such questions particularly pressing for transformational creativity, but similar questions can also be raised for exploratory and combinational creativity. While for instance Thagard’s ( 1992 , 35) list of changes a conceptual system can undergo indicates what a creative idea might do, i.e. what kind of idea to look for, it gives little instruction for how to look. Likewise, the disciplinary matrix indicates what transformational creativity might change, but not how to come up with such creative ideas. As argued above, Kuhn’s account of normal science, if true, may suggest a particular mode of research – the focusing on esoteric details – that can facilitate exploratory creativity, but as a whole the question about the generation of creative ideas exposes some limitations to the teaching of scientific creativity through paradigm theory. These limitations are well captured by Nancy Nersessian’s (e.g. 1999 ) distinction between a product and process approach to the study of scientific creativity and discovery (see also Thagard 2012 , pt. III). Nersessian’s own work on conceptual change is exemplary of the process approach since it explores “the methods or kinds of reasoning through which concepts are constructed” (Nersessian 1999 , 6), whereas she mentions Kuhn as an example of the product approach that emphasizes the results of such methods and reasoning. This product approach is also reflected in the discussions here where creativity was categorized based on the kind of surprise the creative product gave rise to relative to a conceptual space which was in turn explicated by paradigms or conceptual systems. Thus, in focusing on typologies for creativity and paradigm theory, important themes from the process approach are therefore neglected such as model-based reasoning in general and the development of mental models in particular (see, e.g., Magnani, Nersessian, and Thagard 1999 ; Magnani and Casadio 2016 ). When teaching creativity, it would therefore be ideal to also teach for instance Nersessian’s (e.g. 2008 ) work on how creative ideas can be generated through mental models such as analogy, visual modeling, and thought experiments.

5 Conclusion

Paradigm theory provides a good infrastructure for teaching scientific creativity and more particularly, Boden’s influential tripartite typology of creativity. This distinction between combinational, exploratory, and transformational creativity can be explicated in a scientific context through Kuhn’s account of paradigms and Thagard’s related notion of conceptual systems. Combinational creativity combines elements from different paradigms, exploratory creativity explores the space already set by the paradigm, and transformational creativity characterizes ideas that go beyond any known paradigm. Paradigm theory thus functions as a framework with which to categorize and analyze scientific creativity that can be taught by simply adding a perspective when teaching paradigm theory. The integration of paradigm theory and scientific creativity is of mutual benefit. Kuhn’s disciplinary matrix and Thagard’s conceptual systems provide, in different ways, structure to Boden’s conceptual spaces. Moreover, Thagard’s conceptual systems can capture what happens to the conceptual space when new creative ideas are adopted. This includes the conceptual revolutions induced by transformational creativity, the connection of distinct conceptual systems in combinational creativity, and the expansion of such systems through exploratory creativity. Exploratory creativity can also be informed by Kuhn’s account of normal science, and a subdivision within transformational creativity is implicit in Kuhn’s disciplinary matrix. The association between normal science and exploratory creativity in turn emphasizes that normal science – despite its description as “puzzle solving” – can be creative. This signifies, importantly, that scientific creativity is not limited to the big changes of scientific revolutions. Furthermore, the association between such scientific revolutions and a type of creativity that goes beyond a conceptual space can serve to emphasize that revolutions in science, as both Thagard and Kuhn point out, are often driven by conceptual changes. Finally, Boden’s identification of a type of creativity that combines conceptual spaces suggests the possibility of combining paradigms, a notion that might be outright incomprehensible according to one reading of Kuhn. However, from Kuhn’s account of normal science, we also get the qualification that combinational creativity in science is at least difficult – and probably more so than Boden indicates – since no paradigm will set such combination as one of its puzzles.

Paradigm theory and scientific creativity have, in other words, much to offer each other and the present proposal is therefore to cover scientific creativity as part of the discussion of paradigm theory in philosophy of science courses.

In identifying these components as part of innovation, the European Commision seems to follow the typical explication of innovation as a success term for when a creative idea is brought to fruition through the implementation in a relevant context (Shalley, Hitt, and Zhou 2015 ).

Indeed, at the University of Copenhagen the compulsory philosophy of science courses integrated in the physics, chemistry, mathematics, informatics, biology, sport science, and computer science programs already require an explicit innovation component.

While the value of creativity is disputed in some quarters (see, e.g., Grant 2012 ; Hills and Bird 2019 ), this essay will assume that teaching scientific creativity is valuable. There is also a longer history to the contemporary promotion for creativity and innovation in higher education and elsewhere (see, e.g., Godin 2015 ; Mason 2017 ).

Sternberg ( 2003 , 126–27) has a similar tripartite typology with further subdivisions. The difference between exploratory and transformational creativity is also implicit in the two levels of the more experiment-focused “4-space model of scientific discovery” (Schunn and Klahr 1995 ). A more detailed catalogue of typologies of creativity can be found in Sawyer ( 2012 , 123–24) but for present purposes, the important observation is that many of them resemble Boden’s typology. Thus, though paradigm theory is here related specifically to Boden’s typology, this reflects a more general connection between Kuhn and the creativity literature and not merely a connection to elements that are idiosyncratic to Boden. It might also be added that Gaut and Kieran ( 2018b , 5) argue that “Boden’s account is the most influential typology to be found in the contemporary philosophical literature.”

See Novitz ( 1999 ) for a discussion of the possibility of creativity that is independent of any conceptual space.

Despite being explicated in terms of a conceptual space, explorational creativity in science can arguably be both theoretical and experimental (see Klahr and Dunbar 1988 ). The same is the case for transformational creativity, for instance through “exploratory experiments” (Steinle 1997 , 70).

See Boden ( 2018 ) for other examples of exploratory, transformational, and combinational creativity in biology.

That convergent thinking is important for creativity is also corroborated by recent empirical findings (e.g. Cropley 2006 ; Webb et al. 2017 ; Zhu et al. 2019 ).

See Gaut ( 2014 ) for a more detailed discussion and rejection of the view that creativity cannot be taught. Indeed, the view implicit here is that there are teachable rationales in the context of discovery, a view that Nickles (e.g. 2006) has been a primary proponent of. This remark, however, does not entail an endorsement of for instance Simon’s ( 1973 ) proposal that creativity in science is entirely algorithmic.

See for instance Weisberg ( 1986 ) and Simonton ( 2013 ) for more on creativity and genius and how they come apart.

Kuhn argues that extra-paradigmatic ideas will only occur through “something’s first going wrong with normal research” (Kuhn 1970 , 114); for instance the accumulation of anomalies.

See Thagard and Stewart ( 2011 ) for an interesting neural model of combinational creativity.

It should be noted that Kuhn continued to refine and modify the incommensurability thesis in reaction to this critique (Hoyningen-Huene 1990 ; Demir 2008 ; Sankey 2019 ). There may therefore be versions of it that are more hospitable to combinational creativity.

Indeed, paradigm theory might inform the conditions for when divergent thinking is advisable in science.

This approach of course shares features with integrated history and philosophy of science which is often already central to the teaching of paradigm theory (Mauskopf and Schmaltz 2012 ).

Andersen, H. (1996). Categorization, anomalies and the discovery of nuclear fission. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 27 (4), 463–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-2198(96)00016-0

Article   Google Scholar  

Andersen, H. (2013). The second essential tension: On tradition and innovation in interdisciplinary research. Topoi, 32 (1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9133-z

Boden, M. A. (1991). The creative mind: Myths & Mechanisms . Basic Books.

Google Scholar  

Boden, M. A. (2018). Creativity and biology. In B. Gaut & M. Kieran (Eds.), Creativity and philosophy (pp. 173–192). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cabrera, F. (2021). Second philosophy and testimonial reliability: Philosophy of science for STEM students. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11 (3), 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00392-3

Chen, X., & Barker, P. (2000). Continuity through revolutions: A frame-based account of conceptual change during scientific revolutions. Philosophy of Science, 67 , S208–S223.

Chen-Morris, R., and Feldhay, R. (2017). “Framing the Appearances in the Fifteenth Century: Alberti, Cusa, Regiomontanus, and Copernicus.” In Before Copernicus , edited by Rivka Feldhay and F. Jamil Ragep, 110–40. The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century. McGill-Queen’s University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q1xth3.11 .

Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (3), 391–404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13

Dawid, R. (2013). String theory and the scientific method . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Demir, I. (2008). Incommensurabilities in the work of Thomas Kuhn. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 39 (1), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.11.011

Devitt, M. (1979). Against Incommensurability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 57 (1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048407912341021

European Commission. 2017. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on a renewed EU agenda for higher education . Vol. COM/2017/0247 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2017:247:FIN .

Gaut, B. (2014). “Educating for creativity.” In the philosophy of creativity , edited by Elliot Samuel Paul and Scott Barry Kaufman. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0014 .

Gaut, B., & Kieran, M. (Eds.). (2018a). Creativity and philosophy . Routledge.

Gaut, B., & Kieran, M. (2018b). Philosophising about creativity. In B. Gaut & M. Kieran (Eds.), Creativity and philosophy (pp. 1–22). Routledge.

Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries . Routledge.

Grant, J. (2012). The value of imaginativeness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90 (2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2011.574143

Green, S., Andersen, H., Danielsen, K., Emmeche, C., Joas, C., Johansen, M. W., Nagayoshi, C., Witteveen, J., & Sørensen, H. K. (2021). Adapting practice-based philosophy of science to teaching of science students. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11 (3), 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00393-2

Hills, A., & Bird, A. (2019). Against creativity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 99 (3), 694–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12511

Hossenfelder, S. (2018). Lost in math: How beauty leads physics astray . Basic Books.

Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1990). Kuhn’s conception of incommensurability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 21 (3), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(90)90006-T

Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12 (1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1

Kragh, H. (2003). Magic number: A partial history of the fine-structure constant. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 57 (5), 395–431.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science . Routledge.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404

Magnani, L., & Casadio, C. (Eds.). (2016). Model-based reasoning in science and technology . Springer International Publishing.

Magnani, L., Nersessian, N. J., & Thagard, P. (Eds.). (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery . Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4813-3_1

Margolis, H. (1990). Paradigms and barriers. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1990 (2), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1990.2.193086

Margolis, H. (1993). Paradigms and barriers: How habits of mind govern scientific beliefs . University of Chicago Press.

Mason, J. H. (2017). The value of creativity: The origins and emergence of a modern belief . Routledge.

Mauskopf, S., & Schmaltz, T. (Eds.). (2012). Integrating history and philosophy of science: Problems and prospects . Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1745-9_1

Nersessian, N. J. (1987). A cognitive-historical approach to meaning in scientific theories. In N. J. Nersessian (Ed.), The process of science: Contemporary philosophical approaches to understanding scientific practice (pp. 161–177). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3519-8_9

Nersessian, N. J. (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 5–22). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4813-3_1

Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts . MIT Press.

Nickles, Thomas. 2006. “HEURISTIC APPRAISAL: CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY OR JUSTIFICATION?” in revisiting discovery and Justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction , edited by JUTTA SCHICKORE and FRIEDRICH STEINLE, 159–82. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4251-5_10 .

Nickles, T. (2011). Paradigm Shifts. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (second edition) (pp. 209–215). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375038-9.00166-7

Novitz, D. (1999). Creativity and constraint. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77 (1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409912348811

Pope, R. (2005). Creativity : Theory, history, practice . Routledge.

Reichert, S. (2019). The role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems . European University Association.

Sankey, H. (2019). The incommensurability thesis . Taylor & Francis.

Sawyer, R.K. 2012. Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.no/books?id=QyJjyZ_YBAkC .

Schickore, J. 2018. “Scientific Discovery.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , edited by Edward N. Zalta. Vol. Summer 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/scientific-discovery/ .

Schunn, C. D., & Klahr, D. (1995). A 4-space model of scientific discovery. In J. Moore & J. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 106–111). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shalley, C.E., Hitt, M.A., and Zhou, J. 2015. “Integrating creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship to enhance the Organization’s capability to navigate in the new competitive landscape.” In the Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship . Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927678.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199927678-e-35 .

Shank, M.H. 2017. “Regiomontanus and Astronomical Controversy in the Background of Copernicus.” In Before Copernicus , edited by Rivka Feldhay and F. Jamil Ragep, 79–109. The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century. McGill-Queen’s University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q1xth3.10 .

Sheehan, W., Bell, T. E., Kennett, C., & Smith, R. (Eds.). (2021). Neptune: From grand discovery to a world revealed: Essays on the 200th anniversary of the birth of John couch Adams. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54218-4_1

Simon, H. A. (1973). Does scientific discovery have a logic? Philosophy of Science, 40 (4), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1086/288559

Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165358

Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative genius in science. In G. Feist (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 251–272). Springer Publishing Company.

Sintonen, M. (2009). Tradition and innovation: Exploring and transforming conceptual structures. In J. Meheus & T. Nickles (Eds.), Models of discovery and creativity (pp. 209–221). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3421-2_10

Steinle, F. (1997). Entering new fields: Exploratory uses of experimentation. Philosophy of Science, 64 , 65–74.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509612

Szumilewicz, I. (1977). Incommensurability and the rationality of the development of science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 28 (4), 345–350.

Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual Revolutions . Princeton University Press.

Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change . The MIT Press. https://books.google.no/books?id=HrJIV19_nZYC

Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! Experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35 (1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01142.x

Webb, M. E., Little, D. R., Cropper, S. J., & Roze, K. (2017). The contributions of convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and Schizotypy to solving insight and non-insight problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 23 (3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1295105

Weisberg, R. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. Creativity: Genius and other myths . W H Freeman.

Zhu, W., Shang, S., Jiang, W., Pei, M., & Yanjie, S. (2019). Convergent thinking moderates the relationship between divergent thinking and scientific creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 31 (3), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641685

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Astrid Rasch, Thomas Netland, Hanne Andersen, Andreas Achen, and Niels Linnemann for their valuable feedback on and helpful discussion of earlier drafts of this paper.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Open access funding provided by NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Faculty of Humanities, NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Rasmus Jaksland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Single authored.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rasmus Jaksland .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, ethical approval, informed consent, additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Teaching philosophy of science to students from other disciplines

Guest Editors: Sara Green, Joeri Witteveen

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jaksland, R. Teaching scientific creativity through philosophy of science. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 11 , 110 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00427-9

Download citation

Received : 19 December 2020

Accepted : 19 October 2021

Published : 26 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00427-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Paradigm theory
• Philosophy of science
• Transformational creativity
• Context of discovery
• Thomas Kuhn
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Oxford Scientist

The University of Oxford's independent science magazine

• Schools Competition Past Winners & Runners Up

How is Creativity Important in Science?

Theo Hawkins, Year 11, King’s College School Wimbledon

Psychologists, historians, sociologists, and philosophers have attributed scientific creativity to genius, logical method, and the influence of society. Patenting organisations have measured it in terms of originality and usefulness. Scientists themselves have considered the topic, such as when, in 1801, Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) lectured on the original subject of Galvanism and claimed that science ‘bestowed’ on humanity ‘powers which may almost be called creative’. Doubtless, he had in mind his literary creativity and friendship with Coleridge as much as his scientific imagination, with a nod perhaps to Coleridge’s comment that if Davy ‘had not been the first chemist, he would have been the first poet of his age’. Whilst Davy’s literary creativity is debatable, given that his proofreading of the second edition of Wordsworth’s ‘Lyrical Ballads’ was littered with errors, his scientific creativity can be measured by the criteria above. 

Davy certainly fits the genius mould as a scientific innovator, entitled ‘the Newton of chemistry’, who isolated potassium, sodium (both in 1807) and barium (in 1808), discovered the elemental nature of chlorine (in 1810) and iodine (in 1811) and invented the new field of electrochemistry.

It could be argued that he used his intuition and imagination to find these scientific creative solutions. Psychologists, such as Feist, Gorman, and Simonton, concur that scientific creativity is shown in leaps of imagination that make unexpected associations. Davy’s scientific discoveries may well have come from creative chaos, rather than a logical and linear process. Certainly, he fulfills Simonton’s hypothesis that creativity requires ‘you to go where you don’t know where you’re going’, as his maverick experimentation with nitrous oxide (laughing gas) led both to a near death experience and to its potential as an anaesthetic. Davy had the creative ability to ‘think outside the box’ and to connect experiences imaginatively to solve problems. The young Cornish boy observing the rapid decay of Hayle’s floodgates, due to the contact between copper and iron under the influence of seawater, would many years later, with the assistance of Faraday, investigate Galvanic corrosion and attempt to solve the problem of corroded copper sheathing on Royal Navy ships. 

Davy’s scientific creativity was not simply imaginative, but also an exercise in problem-solving by applying logic. This is not like the logic of the computer-generated experiments of the psychologist Herbert Simon, which used ‘discovery programs’ to simulate great scientific discoveries, rather the hard work and routine thinking needed to shift from an imaginative thought to a developed product. When Davy’s essays with Beddoes in 1799 on ‘the generation of oxygen gas, and the causes of the colours of organic beings’ were criticised, he regretted publishing these ‘dreams of misemployed genius which the light of experiment and observation has never conducted to truth’. In so stating, he identified that ‘genius’ and ‘dream’ (ie imagination) were not enough to be creative, but needed ‘truth’ (logical deduction) to become innovative (or ‘useful’ as the patents definition might describe it). With determination, he refined and improved his experimental techniques, so when he published his ‘Researches, Chemical and Philosophical’ in 1800 the response was far more positive. 

A sociologist would be quick to note that Davy’s collaboration with Beddoes was proof that creativity in science can stem not only from lone genius, but also from collaboration. It is true that the spirit of the times (the ‘zeitgeist’) sometimes makes a scientific discovery inevitable as there is a store of shared knowledge from which the answer will emerge and the number of scientists addressing the issue will also eventually result in a creative solution. This idea that an invention is simply ‘in the air’ waiting for anyone to pick it up could explain Davy’s priority dispute of 1816–1818 with George Stephenson over the invention of the miners’ safety lamp. Undoubtedly, Davy met the criteria by which scientific creativity is judged – having the imagination of a poet and the genius of a scientific innovator. His real contribution, however, is that he gives hope to all scientists of every skill and age, since his creativity was shaped by hard work, the application of logic, by drawing conclusions from acquired knowledge, and by forging cooperative ventures. 

Runner-up for the Schools Science Writing Competition, Hilary Term, 2021

Image credit: David Clode via Unsplash

From this section

The Oxford Scientist Schools Competition 2023: Winners Announced

The great future innovations of small-scale science

Making our hearts sing

A Levitating Frog and Scotch Tape

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Michael Polanyi on creativity in science

2020, Research Papers in Economics

Related Papers

Nordic Journal of Art and Research

Heidi Angell Strøm

Modern science is expected to generate new knowledge and understanding. In this scientific essay, I wish to explore the field of creativity in science by contributing a theoretical perspective on creativity and the creative process, which will include exemplifying different factors that promote or inhibit creativity, as well as reflecting on creativity in my own research project. In addition, I examine how we can help strengthen creativity in the context of discovery in research, then I provide a discussion of the issue.

Seungbae Park

Scientific progress can be credited to creative scientists, who constantly ideate new theories and experiments. I explore how the three central positions in philosophy of science – scientific realism, scientific pessimism, and instrumentalism – are related to the practical issue of how scientists' creativity can be fostered. I argue that realism encourages scientists to entertain new theories and experiments, pessimism discourages them from doing so, and instrumentalism falls in between realism and pessimism in terms of its effects on scientists' creativity. Therefore, scientists should accept realism and reject both pessimism and instrumentalism for the sake of scientific creativity and progress.

Palgrave Communications

Bill Gaskins

Examining scientific creativity through the lens of artistic practice may allow identification of a path towards an institutional environment that explicitly values and promotes transformative creativity in science. It is our perception as an artist and natural scientist that even though creativity is valued in the sciences, it is not institutionally promoted to the same extent it is in the arts. Acknowledging creativity as acts of transformation and central to scientific pursuit, actively utilizing chance and failure in scientific experimentation, are critical for step changes in scientific knowledge. Iterative and open-ended processes should be modeled after insights from a range of practices in the visual, performing and media arts. Successful institutional implementation requires training through a long-term process of unlearning and learning, organizing interactions to critique results, designing experiments to contain trial and error, and building common and individual spaces ...

Creativity and Innovation Management

Christian De Cock

Sylvie H Ferrando

Metascience

Thomas ("Tom") Nickles

Roberta Cardarello

Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)

Jacques Grégoire

European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences

Anna Shutaleva

Academia Letters

Jose Figueiredo

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Kizito Kiyimba

Science Education

Veronica McCauley

Creative Education

Persa Fokiali

Vadim Keyser

Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics

Lorenzo Magnani

The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America

Kathryn Grabenstein

Silvena Dencheva

Journal of Elementary Science Education

Martina Nieswandt

Helen De Cruz

Challenges in Creativity & Psychology for the XXI Century

María Antonia Padilla Vargas

suyidno suyidno

Technology and Culture

Brian Baigrie

Julia Morkina

Franc Solina

Neyda Gilman , Dagobert Soergel , Olivia Helfer

Kevin Niall Dunbar

Research in Science & Technological Education

Gail Edwards

JOHARI BIN SURIF FP

matteo moretti

Punia Turiman

Design Issues

Olaf Kramer

Karen Reeds

Maria Evagorou , Sibel Erduran , Terhi Mäntylä

The First China-UK Youth Art and Science Education Forum

Keith S Taber

The Journal of Creative Behavior

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Creativity in Science: How scientists decide what to study

by Barry Bickmore

Listen to this reading

Did you know that creative thinking is found in every field, from art to business and even to science? Creativity plays a critical role in the process of science. The really big problems in science are usually too difficult to solve directly, but creative thinking allows scientists to re-imagine these complex problems and break them down into smaller, solvable parts.

Some of the most important questions in science are either too large or too complex to answer directly, so scientists break them down into smaller, solvable questions.

Many times, the questions that scientists research involve the simplest cases.

Scientists use creativity to determine which smaller questions are likely to yield results, imagine possible answers to their questions, and devise ways to test those answers.

To be creative, scientists need background knowledge, which they gain by learning about past scientific work, talking to colleagues, and tapping their own experience.

Students in science classes usually get the idea that scientific investigations involve careful observation and analysis of data to test hypotheses . One thing that remains shrouded in mystery, however, is how scientists decide on the particular questions they ask in the first place. For example, if you were to ask college biology students what they want to research or what motivates them to study science, they might say, "I want to find a cure for cancer." But if you were to ask which experiments or observations they plan to start with, most students would be at a loss. In contrast, if you were to flip through the table of contents of the journal, Cancer Research , you would find titles like "Ligand-Independent Androgen Receptor Variants Derived from Splicing of Cryptic Exons Signify Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer" (Hu et al., 2009). Clearly, the actual research topics scientists choose to study and publish papers about are quite a bit more specific than curing cancer.

So how do scientists come up with those specific questions to study? You might be surprised to hear that the process involves large doses of creativity. A Nobel Prize-winning biologist, Peter Medawar , once referred to scientific research as "the art of the soluble" (Medawar, 1984, p. 254). Medawar did not mean that science is about things that dissolve – he meant that being successful in science is about figuring out which questions are solvable through scientific investigation, and then figuring out the solutions to those questions.

The natural world is highly complex, and the really big, interesting scientific problems (like curing cancer) are usually too difficult to solve directly. The art of being a scientist involves continually re-imagining these big problems, mentally breaking them down into smaller, solvable (i.e. "soluble") parts, and then speculating about which of these smaller parts might be key to cracking open the whole subject . In other words, a scientist must imagine, in advance, possible outcomes of different observations , and then design a research study that might help them decide between different hypotheses .

• What is creativity?

You might think that this process sounds more analytical than creative, but experts who study creativity have found that logical thinking is always a part of the creative process in any field, from art to science to business (Tardif & Sternberg, 1988). Creativity is not only the ability to come up with new ideas, but also narrowing down those new ideas to focus on one that can be elaborated. Creative people in any field come up with new ways of looking at the world – they are constantly asking, "What if...?" But it doesn't stop there. After a creative person asks "What if...?" they then go on to logically think through the consequences.

Take, for instance, the Cubist style of painting developed by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. Both artists were adept at painting in a realistic style, but they decided to tweak the rules a bit. "What if," they asked, we were to represent complex objects like people as composites of simple geometric shapes like cubes, pyramids, and spheres? And further, "what if" we were to flatten these three-dimensional shapes onto a single plane, as if the object were simultaneously visible from all angles? What would it look like? Picasso, Braque, and other artists painted subjects , like people, in a Cubist style by logically using the new rules (see Figure 1). One of the reasons that Picasso is considered a great creative artist is because he came up with a new idea and then elaborated upon it: His paintings stuck to the rules of Cubism he helped to invent.

Figure 1: Juan Gris, Portrait of Pablo Picasso , 1912, oil on canvas, The Art Institute of Chicago. An example of an important Cubist painting.

Science is creative in much the same way that art, music, or literature are creative, in that scientists have to use their imagination to come up with explanations. These explanations are well informed – they are not mere guesses – but there is no escaping the fact that they are ultimately products of the imagination. As Peter Medawar explained, "Scientists are building explanatory structures, telling stories which are scrupulously tested to see if they are stories about real life" (Medawar, 1984, p. 133, emphasis in original). By "telling stories," Medawar does not mean that scientists are just making things up out of nothing. He means that scientists piece together bits of information in a way that makes sense, the way writers piece together characters and events. But a scientist's job doesn't end there. The story they've told is rigorously tested to see if makes sense in the context of everything else we already know.

It can be difficult to understand how scientific creativity works in practice, so in this module we will briefly explore the creative process from the history of one of the big problems in biology: heredity . That is, how do organisms inherit the traits of their parents? Many of the scientific concepts mentioned here are examined in more detail in other modules, but here we focus on how creativity helped develop our understanding of this big problem.

Comprehension Checkpoint

For thousands of years, people have understood that organisms inherit traits from their parents and have bred animals (like dogs, horses, sheep, and cattle) for specific traits. If we want dogs that are easy to train as hunting companions, or have black spots, long noses, or whatever else, we breed dogs that have those traits, knowing their offspring will be more likely to turn out similarly. After several generations of such breeding practices, we can generally produce animals that have very consistent traits – that's why there are so many very distinct kinds of dogs around (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Cover from volume 316, issue 5821 of the journal Science , issued April 6, 2007.

It has always been clear, however, that patterns of inheritance are complicated. We've all seen some children who look very much like one parent , while others look like a mixture of the two. Still others might look like one of their grandparents or uncles and aunts.

So how does heredity work? Today, most people are familiar with the ideas of genes and DNA , and that we inherit genes from our parents that encode all kinds of traits like skin color and some diseases. But imagine what it was like for 19th century scientists who didn't know anything about genes or chromosomes or DNA to try and answer this question. It was just too big to tackle all at once, so scientists began using their imagination to break up the problem into more specific questions. There are many smaller and more specific questions that one could ask about how heredity works, such as:

• "How do traits (like hair color) sometimes skip generations?"
• "Why do some offspring look very different from their parents?"
• "Does the inheritance of one type of trait affect how others are inherited?"

Scientists also have to imagine how to investigate such questions using different research methods (see our modules on Research Methods). Given the research techniques and knowledge that was available in the mid-1800s, one question that could be addressed was simply, "What patterns can we observe in inherited traits?" If inheritance occurs in certain distinct patterns, those patterns might help narrow down the possibilities for the processes involved in making those patterns, the same way you can use the size and shape of tracks in the mud to determine who or what was walking through the area.

• Observing patterns in peas

Gregor Mendel , an Austrian monk, looked systematically at patterns of inheritance . Mendel had been trained in physics and mathematics at Vienna University, but he had a passion for biology, and was inspired by a biology teacher at the university to try to "reduce the phenomena of life to known physical and chemical laws" (Schwartz, 2008) (see our Scientists and the Scientific Community module for more information on people who influenced Gregor Mendel's scientific career). Mendel started performing secret crossbreeding experiments on white and gray mice – a practice not fully endorsed by the church at the time – as well as more public experiments with various flowering plants at his monastery.

By 1854, Mendel had settled on the common garden pea, Pisum , for his experiments . Why peas, and not mice? Primarily, peas were simply easier to breed. Mendel was also able to produce varieties of Pisum that bred true for certain easily recognizable characteristics. For example, some varieties produced only yellow seeds, while others produced only green; some produced red flowers, and others white, and so on. If he crossed plants that produced yellow seeds with plants that produced green seeds, he could confidently predict that all the offspring of this cross would produce yellow seeds. And if he crossed the offspring, which all had yellow seeds, about ¾ of the next generation would produce yellow seeds, while ¼ would produce green seeds. Thus, the offspring still retained a characteristic from the parent with green seeds even though they themselves did not produce green seeds. Mendel thus proposed a simple model , in which two characteristics, one from each parent, are inherited and involved with determining traits (Figure 3) (see Genetics I for more on Mendel's laws).

Figure 3: While not a creation of Mendel's, the Punnet square gives a visual representation of how traits are passed from parents to offspring.

Even though Mendel clearly showed that his model applied to seven traits of garden peas, other traits do not exhibit such simple behavior. In fact, he later performed similar experiments on other plants and did not always get the same results – heredity is just not that simple. Still, enough traits of various organisms were shown to follow the patterns recognized by Mendel that eventually scientists came to believe he had identified something important about heredity, even if there were other complicating factors (Schwartz, 2008).

The story of Mendel's peas illustrates two important points about creativity in science. First, creativity involves abstraction. That is, even though the real world is very complicated, a creative person can mentally carve away some of the complexity to reveal simple principles that mostly account for his or her observations . Mendel's laws aren't perfect, but he is considered a great scientist because he was able to identify important patterns in his data that other people might have missed by getting too hung up on the details. Second, creative scientists can often see through the complicating factors to see the essence of a problem, allowing them to pick the simplest cases to study first. This is not a sign of laziness. Instead, the idea is that by studying the simplest cases, scientists can build simple models and add the complexity to them later. This is exactly why Mendel chose Pisum for his study, and it is exactly why he was able to identify such an important pattern in his data.

• The next question

Mendel's simple model of heredity was not immediately accepted. In fact, his work does not seem to have been widely known for some time. But the patterns of inheritance he identified were crucial in the quest to answer another question: What is the physical material that passes heritable traits from organisms to their offspring? Identifying the material that carries hereditary information would allow scientists to study that material in more detail and perhaps understand exactly how traits are passed on.

Again, scientists began with simple cases – single cells . By 1841, the microscopist Robert Remak had collected evidence that new cells are formed by the division of previously existing cells (Remak, 1841). During the process of cell division, the nucleus appears to dissolve into the protoplasm of the original, and then two nuclei reappear, one in each of the two cells produced. In 1874, Leopold Auerbach, a German physician at the University of Breslau, showed that the nuclei of two cells appear to fuse when an egg cell is fertilized, and then cell division begins (Auerbach, 1874). When Oscar Hertwig, a German zoologist, read Auerbach's paper, he realized that the second nucleus might belong to a sperm cell. Therefore, an exchange of genetic material from both parents might occur when the nuclei of sperm and egg cells fuse together.

When this idea hit Hertwig, he immediately dropped all his other projects and began studying egg cell fertilization in sea urchins (Figure 4). Why sea urchins? As a zoologist, Hertwig knew about a lot of organisms , and he chose sea urchins for a very practical reason: Their egg cells are large and translucent, so it would be relatively easy to see what goes on inside a sea urchin egg under the microscope. Hertwig's and later studies showed that during cell division, the nucleus dissolves into strings called "chromosomes," which then split apart along their lengths and segregate during cell division. It was soon recognized that if chromosomes carry the hereditary information in cells, Mendel's model might provide a mathematical description of their behavior during reproduction (Schwartz, 2008). (For a more complete description of chromosomes, see our DNA I module.)

Figure 4 : Echinus melo , aka the watermelon sea urchin at Capo Caccia, Alghero (Sardinia, Italy).

You might be asking where these flashes of creative insight come from that send scientists like Oscar Hertwig rushing off to study odd things like sea urchin eggs. It would be easy to take a romantic view of this kind of creativity, and vaguely explain it as a product of Hertwig's or Mendel's "genius." But creativity about what to study is only possible when a scientist possesses a considerable stock of background knowledge to draw from, a concept discussed further in our module on Scientists and the Scientific Community .

• Getting back to the big problem

Once scientists had concluded that chromosomes carry genetic information, they were able to study them more closely. Chemists in the early 20 th century found that chromosomes are made of proteins and a substance called deoxyribonucleic acid , abbreviated as DNA . Subsequent experiments showed that DNA, rather than protein, must carry the genetic code (Schwartz, 2008). However, it still was unknown how heredity works. It was still not quite possible to address this big problem directly. Instead, scientists began asking more specific, but related questions.

A big break in the case came with the question asked by a few scientists, "What is the molecular structure of DNA?" When chemists speak of "molecular structure," they are talking about how atoms are bonded together in particular configurations . They often visualize the atoms as little balls and the bonds as sticks connecting the balls together.

How could scientists possibly know how things as small as atoms fit together? It turns out that if you crystallize a substance, you can shoot X-rays at the crystals , which diffract the radiation into different patterns depending on the arrangement of atoms. During 1951-1952, Rosalind Franklin , a chemist at King's College, London, obtained what were then the highest quality X-ray diffraction patterns of crystallized DNA ever produced. Using these and other data , she was able to quickly figure out important aspects of the molecular structure (Elkins, 2003).

In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick , two of Franklin's colleagues at King's College, expanded on Franklin's data and insights to build a more complete model of DNA structure out of actual balls and sticks. They put the pieces together in different ways until they had a structure that accounted for all the information they had about DNA, and it looked like the now-familiar double helix. Their ball-and-stick model helped them explain a previous observation by Erwin Chargaff that in DNA the amount of adenine always equals the amount of thymine, and the amount of cytosine always equals that of guanine (Watson & Crick, 1953) (see our DNA II module for more information).

Once the structure of DNA was known, understanding how material was passed on during cell division became more accessible. Watson and Crick said, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material" (Watson & Crick, 1953). In other words, they recognized that the structure could "unzip" into separate strands that each contained the full genetic code in order to replicate, an observation made by the scientists studying chromosomes . The discovery of the structure of DNA allowed scientists to then go on to map out which parts of individual DNA molecules regulate different functions and traits . Scientists involved in the Human Genome Project, for example, worked from 1990-2003 to catalog the sequences of over three billion base pairs that make up human DNA. Scientists have continually been working with these data to identify how different DNA segments relate to various human traits.

• Developing your own scientific creativity

We now know basically how heredity works, even though we are still working on understanding the complicating factors – such as environment – that can alter the simple patterns seen by Mendel. This knowledge was gained because scientists were able to break down a very big question into more manageable parts and take advantage of their background knowledge to think creatively about the answers to those questions.

Developing your own creativity as a scientist starts with getting to know a subject in many ways – reading the literature, becoming familiar with materials, and, most importantly, talking to people who are experts. Because they are experts, they know the unanswered questions that remain, and they have a good sense for the techniques that can address those questions. It might seem like a paradox that you have to be knowledgeable in order to be creative, but new knowledge can be generated only if you know what has come before. If you want to find a cure for cancer, for example, you might study "ligand-independent androgen receptor variants derived from splicing of cryptic exons" like Hu and others (2009) because they are molecules that might signal the presence of a certain type of prostate cancer, and that might give you clues about how prostate cancer develops. They would never have come up with such a research topic without a good deal of background knowledge gained from reading scientific literature.

Fostering scientific creativity also involves challenging that knowledge by asking "what if" questions, proposing alternative solutions , and looking across disciplinary boundaries to answer your questions. What if prostate cancer were caused by something you ate? How would we test for that? What other concepts might be important to answering that question? The "art of the soluble" involves choosing which "what if" questions can really be addressed, and creatively figuring out ways to answer them.

Table of Contents

• Breaking down the big problem

Activate glossary term highlighting to easily identify key terms within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on these terms to view their definitions.

Activate NGSS annotations to easily identify NGSS standards within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on them to view these standards.

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• < Back to search results
• Creativity in Science

Creativity in Science

Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist.

• Get access Buy a print copy Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register
• Cited by 335

This Book has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar
• Dean Keith Simonton , University of California, Davis
• Export citation
• Buy a print copy

Book description

Psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, historians - and even scientists themselves - have often tried to decipher the basis for creativity in science. Some have attributed creativity to a special logic, the so-called scientific method, whereas others have pointed to the inspirations of genius or to the inevitable workings of the zeitgeist. Finally, some have viewed scientific breakthroughs as the product of chance, as witnessed in the numerous episodes of serendipity. Too often these four alternative interpretations are seen as mutually exclusive. Yet the central thesis of this book is that the chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist perspectives can be integrated into a single coherent theory of creativity in science. But for this integration to succeed, change must be elevated to the status of primary cause. Logic, genius and the zeitgeist still have significant roles to play but mainly operate insofar as they enhance, or constrain the operation of a chance combinatorial process.

"This engaging and insightful book explores the four candidates that traditionally have been suggested to explain creativity in science. Recommended." -R.M. Davis, Albion College, CHOICE

"Simonton is a very clear writer, and the empirical support he marshals is impressive. Although the book begins with an advisement of mathematical formulae to be used, Simonton does not bog the reader down with equations. Instead, he affirms the superiority of the change approach as an overarching explanation to scientific creativity with a thorough account of how the causal predictions based on the logic, genius, and zeitgeist perspectives ultimately contradict available data." -Christopher H. Ramey, Department of Psychology, Florida Southern College, Philosophical Psychology

• Aa Reduce text
• Aa Enlarge text

Refine List

Actions for selected content:.

• View selected items
• Save to my bookmarks
• Export citations
• Download PDF (zip)
• Save to Kindle
• Save to Dropbox
• Save to Google Drive

Save content to

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .

To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Frontmatter pp i-vi

• Get access Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register

Contents pp vii-viii

Preface pp ix-xii, mathematical notation pp xiii-xvi, chapter 1 - introduction: scientific creativity pp 1-13, chapter 2 - creative products pp 14-39, chapter 3 - combinatorial processes pp 40-75, chapter 4 - scientific activity pp 76-98, chapter 5 - creative scientists pp 99-136, chapter 6 - scientific discovery pp 137-159, chapter 7 - consolidation: creativity in science pp 160-184, references pp 185-210, index pp 211-216, altmetric attention score, full text views.

Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views for chapters in this book.

Book summary page views

Book summary views reflect the number of visits to the book and chapter landing pages.

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

International Philosophical Quarterly

Volume 60, issue 4, december 2020.

The Abductive Structure of Scientific Creativity: An Essay on the Ecology of Cognition. By Lorenzo Magnani

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Scientific creativity: a review

Affiliation.

• 1 Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio 45215-6300.
• PMID: 1802653
• DOI: 10.3109/03602539109029771

Aside from possession of the relevant knowledge, skills, and intelligence, what seems to characterize the creative scientist is his imagination, originality, and ingenuity in combining existing knowledge into a new and unified scheme. This creativity frequently emerges from an aesthetic, poetic sense of freedom derived from work, an uninhibited playful activity of exploring a medium for its own sake. We speculate thus: With a preference for irregularities and disorder, the creative scientist temporarily takes leave of his senses, permitting expression of unconfigurated forces of his irrational unconscious. This amounts to a kind of internal "wagering," in which the scientist pits himself against uncertain circumstances, a situation in which his individual effort can be the deciding factor. When working on a difficult problem, there frequently occurs a "creative worrying" in which the problem is consciously and unconsciously carried around while doing other tasks. This period is attended by frustrations, tensions, and false inspirations. Dream and reality are wedded in a largely unconscious process of undefined emotional turmoil. When a uniquely gratifying association is realized, the unconscious deposits its collection of insights into the fringe consciousness, whereupon the full consciousness seizes on it and releases it as a flash of insight. Because the creative scientist possesses a strong and exacting self-concept, he can organize, integrate, and even exploit the conflict within himself. By compensating in fantasy for what is missing in reality, creativeness can be an expressive outlet ameliorating the universal, annoying split between a man's inner unconscious world and his outer conscious world. Although there is a divergence of opinion as to whether creativity can be taught, there is agreement that it can be fostered. However, parents, teachers, and institutions must display considerably more flexibility and tolerance towards individually minded persons who behave in seemingly nonconformist ways.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: toward a dual pathway to creativity model. De Dreu CK, Baas M, Nijstad BA. De Dreu CK, et al. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 May;94(5):739-56. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.739. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008. PMID: 18444736
• [The concept of creativity--and everyday creativity]. Schuster M. Schuster M. Psychiatr Hung. 2006;21(4):279-87. Psychiatr Hung. 2006. PMID: 17170469 Review. Hungarian.
• [The analysis of physicians' work: announcing the end of attempts at in vitro fertilization]. Santiago-Delefosse M, Cahen F, Coeffin-Driol C. Santiago-Delefosse M, et al. Encephale. 2003 Jul-Aug;29(4 Pt 1):293-305. Encephale. 2003. PMID: 14615699 French.
• On some roots of creativity. Krystal H. Krystal H. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1988 Sep;11(3):475-91. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1988. PMID: 3067233 Review.
• [The relationship between mental health, socialization and creativity]. Krause R. Krause R. Z Klin Psychol Psychother. 1979;27(1):49-74. Z Klin Psychol Psychother. 1979. PMID: 483964 German.
• Creative Expression of Science through Poetry and Other Media can Enrich Medical and Science Education. Brown SA. Brown SA. Front Neurol. 2015 Jan 22;6:3. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00003. eCollection 2015. Front Neurol. 2015. PMID: 25657637 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Taylor & Francis

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Creativity in Science

Great art and great science have a link, a link that begins deep within curious minds, a link that involves combining thoughts, stirring memories, perceiving sensations, creating new ideas, and producing original products.

This “link” is called creative imagination .

At the middle of the last century, linking creativity and science seemed odd, not especially practical – even comical. Science was considered a rational study of observable facts and phenomena, and creativity seemed more mystical and transcendent.

Yet after psychologists started investigating creativity, and research started to gain traction, the concept of creative patterns of thought across all disciplines – not just artistic expression – began to seem plausible. The idea that certain creative thought patterns lend themselves to certain disciplines began to intrigue and perplex researchers. More intriguing was the idea that creative thought patterns influenced rational and logical thought processes.

A great part of that intrigue started after researchers began looking at the career and success of many important 20th scientists, scientists who discovered the theory of relativity, quantum theory, superconductivity, nuclear power, gene mapping, radioactivity, nuclear power, genetic engineering – to name only a few. These scientific discoveries and inventions took the world as we knew it, and transformed it into the most scientifically and technically advanced era in history.

Einstein Breaks Scientific Stereotype

Clearly, one of the most celebrated scientists of the last century was Albert Einstein, credited for founding the era of modern physics, and discovering the theory of relativity. In 1921 he won the Nobel Prize, resulting in continuous attention from journalists, other scientists, and the public until the end of his life in 1955.

Scientific Breakthroughs Rely on Peers

Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton writes in the book “Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist,” that many will read Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” and understand at least some of the logic, plot, and character development. Individuals also listen to symphonies and feel moved, or receive satisfaction from paintings, dance, or sculpture.

“In contrast, it would be rare to find a layperson who could make any sense of [Newton’s] “Principia Mathematica,” Simonton states.

In other words, many individuals would enjoy an article in The New Yorker , and not get anything out of an article in the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics .

Yet, Simonton said that products or outcomes considered “major” in the scientific community are those that high-impact scientific journals publish. Papers submitted to these journals go through an academically rigorous peer-review process, and are judged “creative” if they are:

• original and novel (not having been seen before) in their domain(s); and
• meet the standards of logic and fact for that particular domain(s).

A further test for a truly significant scientific breakthrough is how many times a published scientific journal article gets cited in subsequent articles.

In December 1999, Time Magazine named him “Person of the Century,” an amazing achievement given the unprecedented explosion of 20th century knowledge from not only scientists, but also from those working in so many other disciplines.

One thing that made Einstein so irresistible – and irrepressible – was the fact that he personified the opposite of the scientific stereotype.

As a youth, he showed no remarkable gifts or abilities, and some have even reported early struggles with talking and reading. (In recent publications, others have disputed those claims.)

Einstein’s image shows a man that looks unconventional, perhaps a bit economically on the skids. He never wore ties or pressed shirts or white lab coats. He played the violin, and he loved long solitary days to just sit and think. He wore sweatshirts and shabby sweaters, his long unruly hair and mustache, gray and wiry in his later years, always looked as if it needed combing.

He disdained and didn’t trust authority figures, and as a youth and even into his adult years became known as a rebel. He was a romantic and a flirt, divorced his first wife and angered his second with his romantic dalliances.

If this sounds more like an artist than scientist, perhaps that’s what gave creativity researchers – and scientists – reason to pause. And his interviews and writings supported his unorthodox persona.

In a 1929 interview, a journalist questioned him about whether his scientific discoveries resulted from inspiration or intuition. His answer was that he used both. However, he then added:

“I’m enough of an artist to draw freely on my imagination, which I think is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

This was indeed a revolutionary statement for 1929. Up until the 1950s, most researchers believed that intelligence and creativity were highly correlated. During the 1950s and 1960s, however, psychologists started to debunk the high- intelligence, high-creativity link. Tests emerged that showed individuals could score high on creativity and average on IQ, and proceed to lead highly creative and successful careers.

But after establishing that creative thought does differ from other types of thought, researchers started investigating different forms of creativity, such as creativity in science as compared to creativity in the arts. Even though creativity is required in both domains, the fact remains that science is significantly different from art. It’s a different domain, (see General Creativity vs. Domain-Specific Creativity ) or discipline, requiring a completely separate set of skills and talents.

Creativity researchers now take numerous approaches to studying creativity in science, usually focusing on either the process, the personal attributes of eminent scientists, the creative product or outcome produced – or a combination of all factors. They call the “P’s” of creativity research the six P’s , adding persuasion, place, and potential to the mix.

Cognitive Complexity

But many experts who study scientific thought as well as creativity in science believe in another essential aspect to this complex topic. Many books, papers, and essays have documented the unique ability of creative scientists to assimilate knowledge from many different disciplines in order to produce highly original products.

Science vs. Technology

Science “discovers” while technology “invents,” according to Antonio Zichichi in his book “Creativity in Science.”

Zichichi of the Academy of Sciences and University of Bologna, Italy, states that a clear distinction must be made between science and technology.

Science concerns the discovery of the Fundamental Laws of Science, such as the four laws of thermodynamics, Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion. Laws are considered facts of the universe, unless disproved by new discoveries of facts or evidence overturning the facts.

Technology bases its inventions on the Fundamental Laws of Science. Sometimes inventions precede the discovery of these Laws, however. For instance, the Steam Machine was invented before the discovery of Thermodynamics; however after the discovery of Thermodynamics, scientists fully understood this invention, Zichichi states.

Technological invention means putting together new ideas in original ways, using different “structures” or “pieces” and uses them in a way no one has ever attempted. Yet, to “invent” doesn’t necessarily mean to understand how the invention works, as the steam invention exemplified.

Creativity is required in both science discovery and technological invention. “Imagination in science corresponds to thinking of a new principle, of a new phenomenon, of a new law, and to imagining a new experiment,” Zichichi states.

Historian J. Rogers Hollingsworth of the University of Wisconsin-Madison calls this skill “high cognitive complexity,” publishing his analysis of scientific creativity in Knowledge , Communication , and Creativity .

Describing this talent, he stated that “scientists having high levels of cognitive complexity tend to internalize multiple fields of science and have greater capacity to observe and understand the connectivity among phenomena in multiple fields of science. They tend to bring ideas from one field of knowledge into another field.”

He wrote in “High Cognitive Complexity and the Making of Major Scientific Discoveries,” that he investigated 291 major scientific discoveries of the 1900s, and became intrigued that all the scientists behind these breakthroughs exhibited high cognitive complexity. His analysis attempted to understand what set these eminent scientists apart from other scientists.

For instance, the chemist Irène Joliot-Curie, awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1935 with her husband Frédéric Joliot, clearly set herself apart from other scientists. Also, chemist Gertrude Elion received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1988, and John Bardeen received the Nobel Prize twice, first in 1956 for the invention of the transistor, then in 1972 for the theory of superconductivity.

What set these scientists apart from others who seemingly have a high degree of passion for their scientific fields?

Hollingsworth argued that most of the scientists who made the century’s 291 major discoveries “internalized a great deal of scientific diversity.” And this ability to “internalize” probably came from the diversity of their sociocultural backgrounds.

Original Combination: Neuroscience and Literary Fiction

Ashok N. Hegde, PhD, is a neuroscientist and a creative writer. During his undergraduate days of pursuing a bachelor’s of science in agricultural studies, he published his first story called “The Strangers of Andromeda.”

Read more about neuroscience, literary fiction and an interview with Ashok N. Hegde …

For example, Irène Joliot-Curie lived and operated in two diverse cultures, as the daughter of a Polish-born mother, also a Nobel laureate, and a French- born Nobel laureate father, Pierre Curie. She had a Polish governess who spoke Polish to her, but her French grandfather on her father’s side also influenced her. He disdained the Catholic church, which was the predominant cultural influence of Curie’s upbringing.

Her friends attended strict French schools, but Curie received a private education. Hollingsworth states that her ability to socialize and live in these disparate worlds contributed to her high cognitive ability.

Gertrude Elion also had to internalize her Jewish background while growing up in America as the daughter of immigrants. Additionally, she entered a male-dominated profession – another culture to assimilate. Hence, the requirement to function within multiple cultures developed her skill for high cognitive complexity.

John Bardeen also learned to live as an “outsider,” having been promoted in grade school to a higher grade. He has stated that learning with these older students presented a special challenge because he couldn’t connect with them, or establish friendships.

“Because such an individual internalizes multiple cultures, he/she has the potential to develop a wider horizon, a keener intelligence, a more detached and rational viewpoint – the ingredients of a creative person,” Hollingsworth postulates.

Yet some of the eminent scientists Hollingsworth studied didn’t come from especially diverse backgrounds that required internalizing, or required only a minimal amount. Hollingsworth noted that those who developed avid avocations, especially in the arts, also displayed highly complex cognitions similar to the more culturally diverse scientists.

Hollingsworth lists numerous scientists with hobbies in the visual arts, writing, music, drama, architecture and woodworking.

These scientists reported that their avocations aided their scientific accomplishments. Einstein attributed his intuition to his music, and his son reported that when his father appeared at a roadblock or dead end, he would “take refuge in music, and that would usually resolve all difficulties.”

In addition to diverse backgrounds and avocations in the arts, Hollingsworth noted that individuals with high cognitive complexity also display the following traits:

• They are more tolerant of ambiguity;
• They are more comfortable not only with new findings but even with contradictory findings;
• They have a greater ability to observe the world in terms of gray rather than in terms of black and white;
• They report that learning new things and moving into new areas is like play;
• They tend to be more intuitive;
• They have a high degree of spontaneity in their thinking;
• They enjoy exploring uncertainty and engaging in high- risk research rather than working in areas which are already well understood.

Creativity in science is complex, but it’s this complexity that makes it one of the most interesting areas of psychological research today. Science presents a different challenge than studying the arts, for instance, but is as important as any other domain. Research in this area is often applied to educational fields, as well as to business and technology-based industries.

If you are interested in studying creativity in science from a psychological perspective, there are many fields available for study, including Human Growth and Development , Cognitive Psychology , Social Psychology , Educational Psychology , and Media Psychology .

To become a researcher in psychology, usually a PhD is required. However, some schools offer certificates in creativity studies. Contact schools that offer psychology programs for more information.

The Chinese Creativity Crisis

When Americans discuss their educational system, and what they perceive is lacking, they often point to the Chinese and the media coverage of their preeminence in math and the sciences.

But the debate over education is strongly supported by international studies, and the test scores of Chinese students.

In 2010, for example, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development gave 15-year-old students in 65 countries a test called PISA, or the Program for International Student Assessment.

Chinese students came out first in math, science and reading while U.S. students came out 23rd or 24th in most subjects.

Blogs, pundits, and those crying for educational reform in this country hit the media hard with their commentaries on the failing quality of the current system. Americans are getting beat – badly – at least in terms of standardized test scores, and that sets off alarms among policymakers, the U.S. business community, and high-ranking governments officials.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told the New York Times that Americans were being “out-educated.”

But many others sounded a different note – even the Chinese themselves. For several years, those in China have been calling for educational reform. They cite a system lacking in something that keeps America at the forefront of innovation and ingenuity – an ingredient essential to novelty, invention, and economic development. Many call that magic ingredient creativity.

Zhang Xin, chief executive officer of SOHO China, and one of China’s richest women, told Charlie Rose in a July 2011 interview that in China “the quality of education in China is still not there.”

This CEO of the biggest real estate developer in China said that many talk of how China produces so many engineers. Yet, she said, the system still doesn’t allow for many “talents” to become nurtured or educated.

New York Times reporter Nicolas D. Kristoff wrote about this paradox in the NYT editorial “China’s Winning Schools?” He wrote that the Chinese are “scathing” in their appraisal of their system, saying that it “kills independent thought and creativity.”

They are envious of the American system that promotes self-reliance, and makes education exciting and not just a “chore,” he wrote.

The solution for both systems seems incomprehensible. Yet perhaps it’s a balanced combination of both systems that promises to produce the most educated populace yet. Developing nations take note.

Related Links Browse Links Browse Links Creativity in Education Domain-Specific Creativity Creative Children Travel and Creativity Creativity in Business Creative Process Identifying Creative Individuals Nurturing Creativity Measuring Creativity

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information (CA and NV)
• Psychologist
• Social Worker
• Military Psychology
• Psychology Schools
• Counseling Schools
• Psychology Degree Programs
• Counseling Degree Programs
• Associate’s in Psychology
• Bachelor’s in Psychology
• Master’s in Psychology
• PHd in Psychology
• Psychologist License
• Counseling License

Building a Wall Around Science: The Effect of U.S.-China Tensions on International Scientific Research

This paper examines the impact of rising U.S.-China geopolitical tensions on three main dimensions of science: STEM trainee mobility between these countries, usage of scientific works between scientists in each country, and scientist productivity in each country. We examine each dimension from a “U.S.” perspective and from a “China” perspective in an effort to provide evidence around the asymmetric effects of isolationism and geopolitical tension on science. Using a differences-in-differences approach in tandem with CV and publication data, we find that between 2016 and 2019 ethnically Chinese graduate students became 16% less likely to attend a U.S.-based Ph.D. program, and that those that did became 4% less likely to stay in the U.S. after graduation. In both instances, these students became more likely to move to a non-U.S. anglophone country instead. Second, we document a sharp decline in Chinese usage of U.S. science as measured by citations, but no such decline in the propensity of U.S. scientists to cite Chinese research. Third, we find that while a decline in Chinese usage of U.S. science does not appear to affect the average productivity of China-based researchers as measured by publications, heightened anti-Chinese sentiment in the U.S. appears to reduce the productivity of ethnically Chinese scientists in the U.S. by 2-6%. Our results do not suggest any clear “winner,” but instead indicate that increasing isolationism and geopolitical tension lead to reduced talent and knowledge flows between the U.S. and China, which are likely to be particularly damaging to international science. The effects on productivity are still small but are likely to only grow as nationalistic and isolationist policies also escalate. The results as a whole strongly suggest the presence of a “chilling effect” for ethnically Chinese scholars in the U.S., affecting both the U.S.’s ability to attract and retain talent as well as the productivity of its ethnically Chinese scientists.

We are grateful to Lee Branstetter, Emilie Feldman, Ina Ganguli, Mae McDonnell, and Natalie Carlson, as well as seminar participants at the Geography of Innovation Conference, Wharton Emerging Markets Conference, Sussex University Department of Economics, and the Chinese Economists Society Conference. We are especially appreciative of Dimensions, which provided us with the data used in this analysis. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Palm Beach Fellowship of Christians and Jews honors local students for creative achievements

More than 70 students representing private and public schools throughout the county were honored for their creativity Thursday by the Palm Beach Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

During its annual meeting at the Wells Fargo branch on South County Road, the nonprofit organization recognized elementary, middle and high school students for their excellence in art, music, writing and speaking as part of its annual Essay and Creative Arts Competition.

Awards were distributed in seven different categories: art (painting and drawing); art (poster); essay; music performance; poetry; spoken word; and video.

Related: Palm Beach nonprofits hand out college scholarships to children of town employees

Students were recognized as first, second and third-place finishers and honorable mention awardees. Winners received cash prizes ranging from $25 to $100, said Sherri Gilbert, Palm Beach Fellowship of Christians and Jews executive director.

Teachers also were honored at Thursday's event, with each receiving a cash prize to show appreciation for their efforts in the classroom, Gilbert added.

This year's theme was "Impact: The Power of our Words and Actions."

"It's an interesting theme," Gilbert said. "I feel like I've been surrounded by that in the world at large, with cyberbullying and things like that."

The Palm Beach Fellowship of Christians and Jews has been handing out student awards for nearly three decades, Gilbert said, and this year's competition drew more than 300 submissions.

A handful of students collected their awards in person Thursday, Gilbert said, and they had the opportunity to mingle with Fellowship members and supporters and learn about the organization.

"It's nice, because people in the community, all the parents and families and the kids, get to see what we do, especially for young people," Gilbert said. "And then our board members and members of the community get to meet these teachers and honor the educators. It's a real nice mix."

First-place finishers were:

Art (painting and drawing) — Isabella Abalo, grade 7, Bak Middle School of the Arts; art (poster) — Colette Conde, grade 6, Bak Middle School of the Arts; essay (grade 6), Mae Havlicek, The Benjamin School; essay (grade 7), Annabel Brown (The Benjamin School); essay (grade 8), Liv Heurich, The Benjamin School, and Tara Huynh, Western Pines Middle School; essay (high school), Cabo Kujawa, The Benjamin School); music performance, Celeste Campos, Gabriela Chavez and Bryan Hernandez, grade 7, St. Luke Catholic School; poetry (haiku), Finn Martin, The Benjamin School); poetry (high school), Michael Louis, grade 12, The Benjamin School; poetry (middle school), Brody Dunhill, grade 6, Rosarian Academy, Tessa Brown, grade 8, Rosarian Academy, Beatrice George, grade 8, Rosarian Academy, Caroline Yohe, grade 8, Rosarian Academy; spoken word, Nick Ferik, grade 7, Rosarian Academy, Santino Merchan, grade 7, Rosarian Academy, Andrew Sevald, grade 7, Rosarian Academy, Cerina Deitz, grade 6, Rosarian Academy, Brynn Saleeby-Russell, grade 6, Rosarian Academy, Khloe Ugarte, grade 6, Rosarian Academy; video, Cameron Lencheski, grade 8, Rosarian Academy.

The Palm Beach Fellowship of Christians and Jews is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting fellowship, understanding, and respect among all religions and cultures, and bringing the community together through education, dialogue, and interaction. For information, visit  www.palmbeachfellowship.net/ .

Jodie Wagner is a journalist at the  Palm Beach Daily News , part of the USA TODAY Florida Network. You can reach her at  [email protected] .  Help support our journalism. Subscribe today .

Scientific breakthroughs: 2024 emerging trends to watch

December 28, 2023

Across disciplines and industries, scientific discoveries happen every day, so how can you stay ahead of emerging trends in a thriving landscape? At CAS, we have a unique view of recent scientific breakthroughs, the historical discoveries they were built upon, and the expertise to navigate the opportunities ahead. In 2023, we identified the top scientific breakthroughs , and 2024 has even more to offer. New trends to watch include the accelerated expansion of green chemistry, the clinical validation of CRISPR, the rise of biomaterials, and the renewed progress in treating the undruggable, from cancer to neurodegenerative diseases. To hear what the experts from Lawrence Liverpool National Lab and Oak Ridge National Lab are saying on this topic, join us for a free webinar on January 25 from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. EDT for a panel discussion on the trends to watch in 2024.

The ascension of AI in R&D

While the future of AI has always been forward-looking, the AI revolution in chemistry and drug discovery has yet to be fully realized. While there have been some high-profile set-backs , several breakthroughs should be watched closely as the field continues to evolve. Generative AI is making an impact in drug discovery , machine learning is being used more in environmental research , and large language models like ChatGPT are being tested in healthcare applications and clinical settings.

Many scientists are keeping an eye on AlphaFold, DeepMind’s protein structure prediction software that revolutionized how proteins are understood. DeepMind and Isomorphic Labs have recently announced how their latest model shows improved accuracy, can generate predictions for almost all molecules in the Protein Data Bank, and expand coverage to ligands, nucleic acids, and posttranslational modifications . Therapeutic antibody discovery driven by AI is also gaining popularity , and platforms such as the RubrYc Therapeutics antibody discovery engine will help advance research in this area.

Though many look at AI development with excitement, concerns over accurate and accessible training data , fairness and bias , lack of regulatory oversight , impact on academia, scholarly research and publishing , hallucinations in large language models , and even concerns over infodemic threats to public health are being discussed. However, continuous improvement is inevitable with AI, so expect to see many new developments and innovations throughout 2024.

‘Greener’ green chemistry

Green chemistry is a rapidly evolving field that is constantly seeking innovative ways to minimize the environmental impact of chemical processes. Here are several emerging trends that are seeing significant breakthroughs:

• Improving green chemistry predictions/outcomes : One of the biggest challenges in green chemistry is predicting the environmental impact of new chemicals and processes. Researchers are developing new computational tools and models that can help predict these impacts with greater accuracy. This will allow chemists to design safer and more environmentally friendly chemicals.
• Reducing plastics: More than 350 million tons of plastic waste is generated every year. Across the landscape of manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers, reducing the use of single-use plastics and microplastics is critical. New value-driven approaches by innovators like MiTerro that reuse industrial by-products and biomass waste for eco-friendly and cheaper plastic replacements will soon be industry expectations. Lowering costs and plastic footprints will be important throughout the entire supply chain.    
• Alternative battery chemistry: In the battery and energy storage space, finding alternatives to scarce " endangered elements" like lithium and cobalt will be critical. While essential components of many batteries, they are becoming scarce and expensive. New investments in lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries that do not use nickel and cobalt have expanded , with 45% of the EV market share being projected for LFP in 2029. Continued research is projected for more development in alternative materials like sodium, iron, and magnesium, which are more abundant, less expensive, and more sustainable.
• More sustainable catalysts : Catalysts speed up a chemical reaction or decrease the energy required without getting consumed. Noble metals are excellent catalysts; however, they are expensive and their mining causes environmental damage. Even non-noble metal catalysts can also be toxic due to contamination and challenges with their disposal. Sustainable catalysts are made of earth-abundant elements that are also non-toxic in nature. In recent years, there has been a growing focus on developing sustainable catalysts that are more environmentally friendly and less reliant on precious metals. New developments with catalysts, their roles, and environmental impact will drive meaningful progress in reducing carbon footprints.  
• Recycling lithium-ion batteries: Lithium-ion recycling has seen increased investments with more than 800 patents already published in 2023. The use of solid electrolytes or liquid nonflammable electrolytes may improve the safety and durability of LIBs and reduce their material use. Finally, a method to manufacture electrodes without solvent s could reduce the use of deprecated solvents such as N-methylpyrrolidinone, which require recycling and careful handling to prevent emissions.

Rise of biomaterials

New materials for biomedical applications could revolutionize many healthcare segments in 2024. One example is bioelectronic materials, which form interfaces between electronic devices and the human body, such as the brain-computer interface system being developed by Neuralink. This system, which uses a network of biocompatible electrodes implanted directly in the brain, was given FDA approval to begin human trials in 2023.

• Bioelectronic materials: are often hybrids or composites, incorporating nanoscale materials, highly engineered conductive polymers, and bioresorbable substances. Recently developed devices can be implanted, used temporarily, and then safely reabsorbed by the body without the need for removal. This has been demonstrated by a fully bioresorbable, combined sensor-wireless power receiver made from zinc and the biodegradable polymer, poly(lactic acid).
• Natural biomaterials: that are biocompatible and naturally derived (such as chitosan, cellulose nanomaterials, and silk) are used to make advanced multifunctional biomaterials in 2023. For example, they designed an injectable hydrogel brain implant for treating Parkinson’s disease, which is based on reversible crosslinks formed between chitosan, tannic acid, and gold nanoparticles.
• Bioinks : are used for 3D printing of organs and transplant development which could revolutionize patient care. Currently, these models are used for studying organ architecture like 3D-printed heart models for cardiac disorders and 3D-printed lung models to test the efficacy of drugs. Specialized bioinks enhance the quality, efficacy, and versatility of 3D-printed organs, structures, and outcomes. Finally, new approaches like volumetric additive manufacturing (VAM) of pristine silk- based bioinks are unlocking new frontiers of innovation for 3D printing.

To the moon and beyond

The global Artemis program is a NASA-led international space exploration program that aims to land the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon by 2025 as part of the long-term goal of establishing a sustainable human presence on the Moon. Additionally, the NASA mission called Europa Clipper, scheduled for a 2024 launch, will orbit around Jupiter and fly by Europa , one of Jupiter’s moons, to study the presence of water and its habitability. China’s mission, Chang’e 6 , plans to bring samples from the moon back to Earth for further studies. The Martian Moons Exploration (MMX) mission by Japan’s JAXA plans to bring back samples from Phobos, one of the Mars moons. Boeing is also expected to do a test flight of its reusable space capsule Starliner , which can take people to low-earth orbit.

The R&D impact of Artemis extends to more fields than just aerospace engineering, though:

• Robotics: Robots will play a critical role in the Artemis program, performing many tasks, such as collecting samples, building infrastructure, and conducting scientific research. This will drive the development of new robotic technologies, including autonomous systems and dexterous manipulators.
• Space medicine: The Artemis program will require the development of new technologies to protect astronauts from the hazards of space travel, such as radiation exposure and microgravity. This will include scientific discoveries in medical diagnostics, therapeutics, and countermeasures.
• Earth science: The Artemis program will provide a unique opportunity to study the Moon and its environment. This will lead to new insights into the Earth's history, geology, and climate.
• Materials science: The extreme space environment will require new materials that are lightweight, durable, and radiation resistant. This will have applications in many industries, including aerospace, construction, and energy.
• Information technology: The Artemis program will generate a massive amount of data, which will need to be processed, analyzed, and shared in real time. This will drive the development of new IT technologies, such as cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning.

The CRISPR pay-off

After years of research, setbacks, and minimal progress, the first formal evidence of CRISPR as a therapeutic platform technology in the clinic was realized. Intellia Therapeutics received FDA clearance to initiate a pivotal phase 3 trial of a new drug for the treatment of hATTR, and using the same Cas9 mRNA, got a new medicine treating a different disease, angioedema. This was achieved by only changing 20 nucleotides of the guide RNA, suggesting that CRISPR can be used as a therapeutic platform technology in the clinic.

The second great moment for CRISPR drug development technology came when Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics announced the authorization of the first CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy, CASGEVY™, by the United Kingdom MHRA, for the treatment of sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia. This was the first approval of a CRISPR-based therapy for human use and is a landmark moment in realizing the potential of CRISPR to improve human health.

In addition to its remarkable genome editing capability, the CRISPR-Cas system has proven to be effective in many applications, including early cancer diagnosis . CRISPR-based genome and transcriptome engineering and CRISPR-Cas12a and CRISPR-Cas13a appear to have the necessary characteristics to be robust detection tools for cancer therapy and diagnostics. CRISPR-Cas-based biosensing system gives rise to a new era for precise diagnoses of early-stage cancers.

MIT engineers have also designed a new nanoparticle DNA-encoded nanosensor for urinary biomarkers that could enable early cancer diagnoses with a simple urine test. The sensors, which can detect cancerous proteins, could also distinguish the type of tumor or how it responds to treatment.

Ending cancer

The immuno-oncology field has seen tremendous growth in the last few years. Approved products such as cytokines, vaccines, tumor-directed monoclonal antibodies, and immune checkpoint blockers continue to grow in market size. Novel therapies like TAC01-HER2 are currently undergoing clinical trials. This unique therapy uses autologous T cells, which have been genetically engineered to incorporate T cell Antigen Coupler (TAC) receptors that recognize human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) presence on tumor cells to remove them. This could be a promising therapy for metastatic, HER2-positive solid tumors.

Another promising strategy aims to use the CAR-T cells against solid tumors in conjunction with a vaccine that boosts immune response. Immune boosting helps the body create more host T cells that can target other tumor antigens that CAR-T cells cannot kill.

Another notable trend is the development of improved and effective personalized therapies. For instance, a recently developed personalized RNA neoantigen vaccine, based on uridine mRNA–lipoplex nanoparticles, was found effective against pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Major challenges in immuno-oncology are therapy resistance, lack of predictable biomarkers, and tumor heterogenicity. As a result, devising novel treatment strategies could be a future research focus.

Decarbonizing energy

Multiple well-funded efforts are underway to decarbonize energy production by replacing fossil fuel-based energy sources with sources that generate no (or much less) CO2 in 2024.

One of these efforts is to incorporate large-scale energy storage devices into the existing power grid. These are an important part of enabling the use of renewable sources since they provide additional supply and demand for electricity to complement renewable sources. Several types of grid-scale storage that vary in the amount of energy they can store and how quickly they can discharge it into the grid are under development. Some are physical (flywheels, pumped hydro, and compressed air) and some are chemical (traditional batteries, flow batteries , supercapacitors, and hydrogen ), but all are the subject of active chemistry and materials development research. The U.S. government is encouraging development in this area through tax credits as part of the Inflation Reduction Act and a $7 billion program to establish regional hydrogen hubs.

Meanwhile, nuclear power will continue to be an active R&D area in 2024. In nuclear fission, multiple companies are developing small modular reactors (SMRs) for use in electricity production and chemical manufacturing, including hydrogen. The development of nuclear fusion reactors involves fundamental research in physics and materials science. One major challenge is finding a material that can be used for the wall of the reactor facing the fusion plasma; so far, candidate materials have included high-entropy alloys and even molten metals .

Neurodegenerative diseases

Neurodegenerative diseases are a major public health concern, being a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. While there is currently no cure for any neurodegenerative disease, new scientific discoveries and understandings of these pathways may be the key to helping patient outcomes.

• Alzheimer’s disease: Two immunotherapeutics have received FDA approval to reduce both cognitive and functional decline in individuals living with early Alzheimer's disease. Aducannumab (Aduhelm®) received accelerated approval in 2021 and is the first new treatment approved for Alzheimer’s since 2003 and the first therapy targeting the disease pathophysiology, reducing beta-amyloid plaques in the brains of early Alzheimer’s disease patients. Lecanemab (Leqembi®) received traditional approval in 2023 and is the first drug targeting Alzheimer’s disease pathophysiology to show clinical benefits, reducing the rate of disease progression and slowing cognitive and functional decline in adults with early stages of the disease.
• Parkinson’s disease: New treatment modalities outside of pharmaceuticals and deep brain stimulation are being researched and approved by the FDA for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease symptoms. The non-invasive medical device, Exablate Neuro (approved by the FDA in 2021), uses focused ultrasound on one side of the brain to provide relief from severe symptoms such as tremors, limb rigidity, and dyskinesia. 2023 brought major news for Parkinson’s disease research with the validation of the biomarker alpha-synuclein. Researchers have developed a tool called the α-synuclein seeding amplification assay which detects the biomarker in the spinal fluid of people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and individuals who have not shown clinical symptoms.
• Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS): Two pharmaceuticals have seen FDA approval in the past two years to slow disease progression in individuals with ALS. Relyvrio ® was approved in 2022 and acts by preventing or slowing more neuron cell death in patients with ALS. Tofersen (Qalsody®), an antisense oligonucleotide, was approved in 2023 under the accelerated approval pathway. Tofersen targets RNA produced from mutated superoxide dismutase 1 (SOD1) genes to eliminate toxic SOD1 protein production. Recently published genetic research on how mutations contribute to ALS is ongoing with researchers recently discovering how NEK1 gene mutations lead to ALS. This discovery suggests a possible rational therapeutic approach to stabilizing microtubules in ALS patients.

Gain new perspectives for faster progress directly to your inbox.

Drive industry-leading advancements and accelerate breakthroughs by unlocking your data’s full potential. Contact our CAS Custom Services SM experts to find the digital solution to your information challenges.

• DOI: 10.1080/17510694.2024.2366163
• Corpus ID: 270858518

‘The song factories have closed!’: songwriting camps as spaces of collaborative creativity in the post-industrial age

• Jan Herbst , Michael Ahlers , Simon Barber
• Published in Creative Industries Journal 29 June 2024
• Art, Sociology

47 References

“bring your a-game and leave your ego at the door”, coproduction, regulating nimbus and focus: organizing copresence for creative collaboration, the creative electronic music producer, copyright, compensation, and commons in the music ai industry, the pursuit of quality in grounded theory, the art of record production, the rise of the remote mix engineer: technology, expertise, star, creativity in the recording studio, the work realities of professional studio musicians in the german popular music recording industry: careers, practices and economic situations, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Supplements
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Why Publish With Us?
• Open Access
• About Nicotine & Tobacco Research
• About Society for Nicotine & Tobacco Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

“ keep it a secret ”: leaked documents suggest philip morris international, and its japanese affiliate, continue to exploit science for profit.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Sophie Braznell, Louis Laurence, Iona Fitzpatrick, Anna B Gilmore, “ Keep it a secret ”: leaked documents suggest Philip Morris International, and its Japanese affiliate, continue to exploit science for profit, Nicotine & Tobacco Research , 2024;, ntae101, https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntae101

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The tobacco industry has a long history of manipulating science to conceal the harms of its products. As part of its proclaimed transformation, the world’s largest tobacco company, Philip Morris International (PMI), states it conducts “ transparent science ”. This paper uses recently leaked documents from PMI and its Japanese affiliate, Philip Morris Japan (PMJ), to examine its contemporary scientific practices.

23 documents dating 2012 through 2020 available from Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library were examined using Forster's hermeneutic approach to analysing corporate documentation. Thematic analysis using the Science for Profit Model was conducted to assess whether PMI/PMJ employed known corporate strategies to influence science in their interests.

PMJ contracted a third-party external research organisation, CMIC, to covertly fund a study on smoking cessation conducted by Kyoto University academics. No public record of PMJ’s funding or involvement in this study was found. PMJ paid life sciences consultancy, FTI-Innovations, ¥3,000,000 (approx. £20,000) a month between 2014 and 2019 to undertake extensive science-adjacent work, including building relationships with key scientific opinion leaders and using academic events to promote PMI’s science, products and messaging. FTI-Innovation’s work was hidden internally and externally. These activities resemble known strategies to influence the conduct, publication and reach of science, and conceal scientific activities.

The documents reveal PMI/PMJ’s recent activities mirror past practices to manipulate science, undermining PMI’s proclaimed transformation. Tobacco industry scientific practices remain a threat to public health, highlighting the urgent need for reform to protect science from the tobacco industry’s vested interests.

Implications: Japan is a key market for PMI, being a launch market for IQOS and having the highest heated tobacco product use globally. Our findings, in conjunction with other recent evidence, challenge PMI’s assertion that it is a source of credible science and cast doubt on the quality and ethical defensibility of its research, especially its studies conducted in Japan. This, in turn, brings into question the true public health impacts of its products. There is urgent need to reform the way tobacco-related science is funded and conducted. Implementation of models through which research can be funded using the industry’s profits while minimising its influence should be explored.

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• About Nicotine & Tobacco Research
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1469-994X
• Copyright © 2024 Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Main Navigation

• Contact NeurIPS
• Code of Ethics
• Code of Conduct
• Create Profile
• Journal To Conference Track
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Proceedings
• Future Meetings
• Exhibitor Information
• Privacy Policy

NeurIPS Creative AI Track: Ambiguity

Following last year’s incredible success, we are thrilled to announce the NeurIPS 2024 Creative AI track. We invite research papers and artworks that showcase innovative approaches of artificial intelligence and machine learning in art, design, and creativity. 

Focused on the theme of Ambiguity, this year’s track seeks to highlight the multifaceted and complex challenges brought forth by application of AI to both promote and challenge human creativity. We welcome submissions that: question the use of private and public data; consider new forms of authorship and ownership; challenge notions of ‘real’ and ‘non-real’, as well as human and machine agency; and provide a path forward for redefining and nurturing human creativity in this new age of generative computing. 

We particularly encourage works that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries to propose new forms of creativity and human experience. Submissions must present original work that has not been published or is not currently being reviewed elsewhere.

Important Dates:

• August 2: Submission Deadline
• September 26: Decision 
• October 30: Final Camera-Ready Submission 

Call for Papers and Artworks

Papers (posters).

We invite submissions for research papers that propose original ideas or novel uses of AI and ML for creativity. The topics of research papers are not restricted to the theme of ambiguity. Please note that this track will not be part of the NeurIPS conference proceedings. If you wish to publish in the NeurIPS proceedings please submit your paper directly to the main track.

To submit: We invite authors to submit their papers. We expect papers to be 2-6 pages without including references . The formatting instructions and templates will become available soon. The submission portal will open sometime in July.

We invite the submission of creative work that showcases innovative use of AI and ML. We highly encourage the authors to focus on the theme of Ambiguity.  We invite submissions in all areas of creativity including visual art, music, performing art, film, design, architecture, and more in the format of video recording .  

NeurIPS is a prestigious AI/ML conference that tens of thousands researchers from academia and industry attend every year. Selected works at the Creative AI track will be presented on large display screens at the conference and the authors will have the opportunity to interact with the NeurIPS research community to germinate more collaborative ideas.

To submit:  We invite authors to submit their original work. An artwork submission requires the following:

• Description of the work and the roles of AI and ML 
• Description on how the theme of Ambiguity is addressed
• Biography of all authors including relevant prior works 
• Thumbnail image of the work (<100MB)
• 3-min video preview of the work (<100MB) 

Single-blind review policy

The names of the authors should be included in the submission. 

Conference policy

If a work is accepted at least one author must purchase a  Conference & Tutorials  registration and attend in person . For pricing visit the pricing page . For registration  information visit the registration page . The location of the conference is Vancouver and the authors are responsible for their travel arrangements and expenses. The conference does not provide travel funding. 

For updates, please check this website regularly.

To stay up-to-date with all future announcements, please join our mailing list [email protected] .

For other inquiries, please contact [email protected] .

Jean Oh roBot Intelligence Group Carnegie Melon University

Marcelo Coelho Design Intelligence Lab MIT