Professor Dr Martin Lercher of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (HHU) and his colleague Professor Dr Itai Yanai of New York University (NYU) are both interested in the topic of research creativity. In the most recent editorial in the scientific journal Nature Biotechnology, they advise stressing the value of creative processes for scientific growth, particularly in graduate study courses.
The authors remark that the rate of scientific innovation appears to be slowing: the proportion of research efforts that push science in new directions by challenging existing understanding has dropped since the second half of the twentieth century. Such efforts have been superseded by more results-oriented approaches that advance research but rarely produce transformative knowledge. This indicates a fundamental shift: hypothesis-driven methodologies are increasingly dominating publicly financed research programs, with the goal of confirming theories rather than discovering really novel and unexpected outcomes.
The first thing scientists-in-training learn today is how to establish a foothold in the world of research through the definition of highly specific projects, which lead to predictable results, which in turn lead to citable publications.
Professor Martin Lercher
Professor Martin Lercher, head of the Computational Cell Biology research group at HHU and Professor Itai Yanai, Director of the Applied Bioinformatics Laboratories at NYU, believe there is a need to rethink how scientists-in-training are educated. They write that “graduate study programmes should renew an emphasis on creativity by teaching the tools of innovative thinking.”
For years, the two authors have advocated for the “promotion of the creative side of the scientific process”. Their approach is based on the concept of “day science” and “night science” proposed by Nobel Prize winner François Jacob. “Day science” refers to modern science as a methodical, well-planned procedure led by previously stated hypotheses, whereas “night science” is the non-systematic, creative aspect of research, especially free thinking and the frequently intuitive investigation of ideas.
Lercher: “The first thing scientists-in-training learn today is how to establish a foothold in the world of research through the definition of highly specific projects, which lead to predictable results, which in turn lead to citable publications. Knowing and practising this is of course important as it enables incremental advances in research areas and the provision of reliable answers to detailed questions.” Yanai adds: “Yet, we cannot see this as the be-all and end-all, as this structured process rarely results in new discoveries, which are however critical for the advancement of science.”
In Nature Biotechnology, the two authors advocate for the incorporation of scientific creativity courses into graduate study programs. The most effective instrument for creative science may be improvisational, open scientific talks with close colleagues and professionals in related subjects. Graduate students and postdoctoral associates might learn to raise new questions from other perspectives by exploring other topics’ creativity toolboxes. Lercher and Yanai argue that “inventing the right question can advance science more than answering an existing one.”
Finally, the authors emphasise in their editorial that placing an emphasis on creativity in the sciences would also help to reduce misconceptions among the public about the scientific process, encouraging increased numbers of creative young people to pursue a career in science.
