Patterns are difficult to break, and they are difficult to un-see….like these tower-viewers….most people probably just see a set of binoculars waiting to be tilted upwards to view the city across the inlet.
I always see a face every time I look at them; I can’t un-see it.
It’s also a total case of me anthropomorphizing an inanimate object.
In this case, neither is harmful, it’s just fun.
Human brains are interesting things. They seek order from chaos, select patterns where none exist, and anthropomorphize things that have no animation.
I’m assuming that’s why so many of us humans cling so desperately to the status quo, to the way it’s alway been done, to the boundaries that are familiar. We’ve always done X and haven’t suffered any negative consequences 9tat we are aware of) to date, so why alter habits. To step outside of any of that risks acknowledgement that we don’t know what we thought we knew because there are parameters we weren’t aware of and to change our minds seems to be an admission that we didn’t know as much about something as we thought we did, and that (gasp) we might not have all the information needed to form that opinion we have….or that the information might have changed and we’ve moved from being right to no longer being right if we cling to old thoughts, and it’s so much easier to cling than it is to adjust the sails. Because we are terrified of being wrong.
Get over it. If we aren’t wrong, if we don’t fail, then we are playing life too safely and we aren’t trying hard enough; we are stagnating.
One of my absolute favourite quotes, and probably the single greatest lesson I took away from academia:
“In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion”
Carl Sagan
A couple of very interesting papers were published recently on science and creativity. They highlighted that there has been a “steady decline in the disruptiveness of science and technology over time. Moreover, the patterns we observe are generally similar across broad fields of study, which suggests that the factors driving the decline are not unique to specific domains of science and technology.”
The authors report “a marked decline in disruptive science and technology over time. Our analyses show that this trend is unlikely to be driven by changes in citation practices or the quality of published work. Rather, the decline represents a substantive shift in science and technology, one that reinforces concerns about slowing innovative activity. We attribute this trend in part to scientists’ and inventors’ reliance on a narrower set of existing knowledge. Even though philosophers of science may be correct that the growth of knowledge is an endogenous process—wherein accumulated understanding promotes future discovery and invention—engagement with a broad range of extant knowledge is necessary for that process to play out, a requirement that appears more difficult with time. Relying on narrower slices of knowledge benefits individual careers but not scientific progress more generally.”
Is society squashing creativity and invention by imposing stricter expectations on research scientists that ends up restricting their drive to explore topics deeply and make discoveries in favour of safer and smaller studies that are more likely to secure funding?
Yes.
There is still a great deal of research taking place, and there is still an incredible amount of publication occurring, but where are the great new discoveries? They aren’t happening as frequently. Not because there is not new knowledge to find, but because we are not willing to risk funding potential failure as much as we used to be. We stick with the safe science, the science that looks like it’s achievable, and we fund that.
The smart researchers who know their creativity is being constrained by politics and non-scientist funding panels know how to play the game. Build a big project that is shiny and meets the goals of the funding agency for that period, build in enough flexibility, add some components and associated (inflated) costs for things that are already well underway or have been completed and need to be written up (provides the opportunity to present a positive progress update a year from now), and use the flexibility they just created for themselves to do the real research that they want to do, and which could be groundbreaking.
It’s unfortunate that it has to work that way because of bureaucrats that want to control science and its messaging, but if it permits some research that wouldn’t otherwise happen to happen, then I am 100% in support of the means to the end.
Instead of government and policy makers trying to direct science in a manner of ‘Go get me the proof that the thing we want to promote/do/engage in is ok….’ or the reverse…’Go find me the data to prove that the thing they are doing is not ok…’ we need to find our way back to creativity in the scientific process, we need to remember that it’s not only OK to disagree and have arguments about lines of thought, it’s critical to do so. Instead of hearing a different opinion on a topic and labelling an individual as being disruptive for not conforming with consensus, we need to be open to exploring a different line of thought. History has demonstrated that a different and disruptive line of thought can lead to incredible breakthroughs.
“Science that has creativity woven into its fabric, which is sensitively infused into education, policy and governance, industry and business, has the potential to catalyse and foster a culture of innovation, problem solving, diversity and anticipation. This requires a continuing dialogue within the science community to nurture and grow creativity in the way science is carried out, communicated and embedded within society. There also needs to be conversation beyond the academy, incorporating wider perspectives and key decision-making bodies in society (government, parliament, business, industry, non-governmental organizations, charities and education sectors). As this conversation evolves and grows over time, a collective experience of science will permeate strategic decision-making and the articulation of vision and priorities.”
The conversation would not be ‘how can government and politics use science to strengthen their policies and meet their agendas’, but ‘how can science better inform and direct government and politics to improve policy and thereby better meet the needs of the environment and a society that depends on it’.
Too often we see governments ignore their own scientists because the findings don’t support the political agenda. Bureaucrats cherry-pick information to suit the messaging they’ve already decided they want to send.
“Ultimately science must re-engage with creativity and re-capture its creative roots. We need to create opportunities to imagine and ask,‘what if?’. We need to consider what works well within the status quo but also take opportunities to explore and consider additional goals and pathways. This requires a collective approach that transcends disciplinary, institutional and international boundaries. It will require investment in creating physical and conceptual spaces where lateral thinking can thrive, and traditional framings of excellence re-visited. It will also require commitment to building bridges within and beyond the academy, communicating science in engaging and effective ways, and investing in the next generation of scientists so that they have the skills and networks to be the voice of science.“
“Science is more than a tool to be deployed when a problem arises, and more than an experiment confined to a specific laboratory. In the same way, medicine is not simply applied biology, and magic is far more than a technique (but the use of knowledge and insights to create an experience with an audience). Science is a way of thinking and doing, a means of testing and evaluating, an approach to deliver breakthroughs and stepwise change. If we can weave creativity into all aspects of scientific work, we will establish pathways that enable innovative thinking and science to be a part of a collaborative approach to finding solutions to the long-standing global challenges.“
What does good science look like?
To someone who has never engaged in it, probably a lot like chaos.
We need to stop trying to control science and let science do what science does best: observe, ask questions, explore ideas, form hyptothes for the things that are observed (why is that the way it is?), test ideas, experiment, learn, share, and repeat.
The best science doesn’t answer all the questions, the best science generates more questions.
References
Park, M., E. Leahey and R.J. Funk. 2023. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
Morgan, R.R., R.L. Kneebone, N.D. Pyenson, S.B. Sholts, W. Houston, B. Butler, and K. Chesters. 2023. Regaining creativity in science: insights from conversation R. Soc. Open Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230134