Idealog

Idealog magazine
 
 
$47.50: a night at the movies or a year’s inspiration. Subscribe now

The logical problem

By Bette Flagler, 2007-07-23 23:00:00
Originally published in Idealog #10, page 94

Great science isn’t created on a balance sheet

Bette Flagler

[Science]

I attended a birthday party recently (my own) that ended rather abruptly when two of the guests left in a huff. The discussion among the group—a collection of rather opinionated, not-so-like-minded individuals—had turned to the funding of research in what the huffy ones thought was inconsequential, ridiculous and would never contribute to New Zealand. Contribute, mind you, in a quantitative way. Perhaps, even, in dollars.

If you think it’s a bizarre conversation to have while blowing out the candles, well, fair enough. But what is a better use of our money than funding projects that allow people to develop their ability to think, to hone their research skills and, at the same time, perhaps give us a better understanding of our world? I couldn’t keep my opinions to myself and after all it was my birthday and I was princess for the day, so off they huffed.

Science suffers from being cast as logical. It’s supposed to follow rules and it’s supposed to produce results. However, science is also about opening minds, trying new things, listening to ideas and—frequently—being surprised. It’s about creativity, but people aren’t their most creative when they are restricted by regulations and predetermined expectations.

Plenty of people have thought about it, but Teresa Amabile of Harvard Business School is the the most quoted: intrinsic motivation is conducive to creativity, and extrinsic motivation is detrimental.

Tell someone to create and they won’t; give them the freedom to create and they will. Over and over it’s been shown: art that is commissioned is less creative than art that isn’t. Yet we expect scientists to be creative within the confines of commissioned work.

As I dug into the second piece of cake, I thought how seriously overboard we have gone on this idea that everything needs to be directly useful. Who came up with the concept that funding should go only where an end use is obvious from the beginning?  That philosophy goes against the very fundamentals of scientific inquiry. But without a practical application  in mind, how do we justify spending money on research?

My graduate research was on the production of genetically identical chimeras (mice, not people, no need to call the ethics police). It was definitely not the kind of thing that transformed an economy. Did it end up producing anything commercially viable? Anything important? No, not unless you consider me to be the product. That research project didn’t work out very well from a scientific point of view, but still, it transformed me: it not only fulfilled its thesis obligation, it helped grow me into a thinking, questioning human being. I am a contributing member of society and that is in no small part because of the support I had through public money that allowed me to complete original (though not earth-shattering!) research.

It was research that helped me learn my trade and then I could go off and do the stuff that mattered. But another part of my trade—the part of it that would have taught me how to deal with hysterical patients, with church leaders who opposed what I was doing and with the ethics of evolving medicine—would have been useful to learn, too. Modern science isn’t about studying in just one area and great strides are made when ideas from different disciplines are allowed to cross-pollinate.

Art and science are co-mortgagers at the University of Western Australia’s SymbioticA, an art–biology lab that was founded in 2000. There, says the university, researchers and students explore and develop the links between art and a range of research areas such as neuroscience, plant biology, anatomy and human biology, tissue engineering, physics, bio-engineering, anthropology, molecular biology, microscopy, animal welfare and ethics. It is a place, they say, where the emphasis is on developing critical thought, discussing ethical and cultural issues and encouraging cross-disciplinary experimentation in art and science.

Jacqueline Rowarth is the new head of agriculture at Massey University. If you want to hear someone go nutty about science, art and agriculture, give her a call. She’s got a challenge on her hands: since 1999, enrolment in the performing arts has risen by 200 percent while enrolment in agriculture and environment dropped by 46 percent. She needs to remind these students (part of a generation notable for wanting to do good for society while maintaining a healthy work-life balance) that science, agriculture and studying the environment are creative activities, too.

I hope she succeeds, because if we don’t give these bright minds room (and funding) to think and grow and create, there are plenty of other places in the world that will snap them up.

Bette Flagler crossed the bio-art divide when the right side of her brain finally shouted louder than the left

Add your comment

HTML will be removed. Web addresses will be automatically hyperlinked.

Latest Idealog Weekly Latest issue: 128 pages of pure gold
Idealog Weekly: Rich with ideas in your inbox every Friday

Sign up now!

Tweeted

  • Fetching tweets …
Follow Idealog on Twitter

Overheard

Idealog is published by

AUT Media

Idealog is supported by

IBM

Image Centre

TelstraClear

 

Most useful

Six random stories

Most commented

Most collectible

Idealog t-shirt