For the Sake of Science, the Arts Deserve Support
By Robert S. Root-Bernstein
The sciences and the arts too often are considered to be
polar opposites. The sciences are supposed to be objective,
intellectual, analytical, reproducible, and useful; the arts are
thought to be subjective, sensual, empathic, unique, and
frivolous. In the competition between the two for
dominance in modern society, the arts have clearly lost: U.S.
support for all of the arts combined is less than what any
singlescientific or technological discipline receives. The
current attempts by members of Congress to
eliminate support for the National Endowment for the Arts
underscore this point.
Yet many scientists employ the arts as scientific tools.
Moreover, various artistic insights have actually preceded
and made possible subsequent scientific discoveries. The arts
thus can stimulate scientific progress, and we dismiss them
at our peril.
History shows that the sciences and technology have never
flourished in the absence of a similar flourishing of the arts.
The reasons for this connectedness have become apparent in
the past several decades, as a result of studies by historians
of science and technology, psychologists, and other scholars
who study creativity. A consensus is emerging that scientists
and engineers need skills associated with, and often learned
from, the arts.
These skills include the abilities to observe acutely; to think
spatially (what does an object look like when I rotate it in
my mind?) and kinesthetically (how does it move?); to
identify the essential components of a complex whole; to
recognize and invent patterns (the "rules" governing a
system); to gain what the Nobelist Barbara McClintock
called "a feeling for the organism" -- empathy with the
objects of study; and to synthesize and communicate the results of one's
thinking visually, verbally, or mathematically.
Such skills or tools for thinking are not learned within the
standard science curriculum but almost exclusively through
the practice of the arts, including music and writing. Several
recent studies of very successful scientists and engineers --
including research by Robert Milgram of Tel Aviv
University, Suzanne Merritt of the Polaroid Corporation,
Leonard Humphreys and his colleagues at the University of
Iowa, and my own work with colleagues at the University of
California at Los Angeles -- have shown that active
participation and demonstrated ability in one or more of the
arts are far more predictive of success in science than
standard measures such as I.Q., scores on tests such as the
SAT, or academic degrees.
Don Cunningham
School of Education
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405
812-856-8525
cunningh who-is-at indiana.edu
"We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities"
Pogo, aka Walt Kelly