Bridging the Great Divide: STEM and the Arts are More Alike Than You Think

By Kate O’Flanagan (Deputy Features)  

Science and the arts. Science versus the arts. The seemingly eternal debate has been carried out for decades, in the Letters to the Editor section of newspapers, across college campuses, and now, on social media. The debate has only become more heated and vicious as the divisions, real or imagined, between the disciplines have become more pronounced. But how legitimate are these divisions? 

The argument of employability is used as a trump card. As scientific enterprise is propelled forward and technology encroaches further into every aspect of our daily lives, the rhetoric is that STEM graduates are uniquely more profitable and employable than their arts and humanities counterparts. Repeated ad nauseum, this sound bite is a myth. A 2020 study by the British Academy found that arts, humanities and social science graduates end up in jobs in eight of the ten fastest-growing sectors of the economy more often than STEM graduates. Furthermore, STEM graduates have just a single percentage point advantage in finding any job within a year of graduating than their humanities counterparts. The days of entering a job straight after graduation and working at it until your retirement are long gone – irrespective of degree, the average person will work twelve jobs in their lifetime. With 29 percent of people aged 25-44 completely changing fields since starting their first post-university job, your degree has less impact on long-term future job prospects than teachers, parents, and the general public would have you believe.

While they are depicted as wholly independent with little natural overlap, collaboration between STEM and the arts can elevate both fields. The helping hand of an artist or designer can make the narrative of scientific discoveries more palatable and compelling, presenting results in a more broadly understandable fashion. As Leonardo DaVinci said, “Art is the queen of all sciences communicating knowledge to all the generations of the world.” In recent years art museums, such as the Getty in Los Angeles, have collaborated with educators to create science curricula based on art to help students visualise science. This can help promote scientific literacy, as well as strengthening critical thinking; vital skills in a society where misinformation and pseudoscience are rampant. Well documented and effective, this partnership in communication is the tip of the iceberg of the collaboration between artists and scientists. The commitment to curiosity and open-minded inquisitiveness shared by both groups makes them natural partners. By collaborating from the offset, the great potential present can be harnessed and result in unexpected outcomes that can be exponentially more valuable than any solo work, as seen in the decades of advancement of computer graphics. The power of collaboration between artists and scientists was on display for over a decade at the Science Gallery, Dublin. With the tagline ‘where science and art collide’, the gallery championed both disciplines and the revelations that come when they work together through its forty-three unique exhibitions, ranging from design and intimacy to light and violence, contagion and biomimicry to artificial intelligence and play.

The Renaissance revolutionised both science and art. Expertise in the disciplines coexisted naturally; they had not yet developed into their current polarised states. This intermingling has diminished as society pushed the narrative that science and art are fundamentally different. However, the tradition has not been completely lost. Taking a look at prominent creatives reveals a perhaps surprising number with science backgrounds. Dexter Holland, the lead singer of the punk band The Offspring has a PhD in molecular biology. In a case of art imitating life, Mayim Bialik has a PhD in the same discipline as the character she portrayed on The Big Bang Theory – neuroscience. Art Garfunkel; MSc mathematics education. Natalie Portman; BSc psychology. Rowan Atkinson, Mr. Bean himself; MSc electrical engineering. The list goes on. Scientists by trade have also been active in the creative sphere. The physicist Brian Cox was a keyboardist for several bands before falling head over heels for the Large Hadron Collider. Clearly, it is possible to be both artistically and scientifically minded. The most famous, tangible example of this marriage of science and art is Brian May’s guitar – the Red Special. Before he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with Queen, or was awarded his PhD in astrophysics, May was a sixteen year old with twin passions of science and music. And, with the help of his electrical engineer father, he built a guitar. Fifty-nine years later, it is still his primary guitar for live and studio performances.

There is not always a clear delineation between art and science. Nowhere is this more clearly understood than in the genre of science fiction. Nicknamed the ‘literature of ideas’, the best science fiction holds a mirror up to contemporary society through its creation of alternate realities, divergent timelines, and otherworldly technologies. Often credited with predicting technological advancements – Jules Verne depicted men landing on the moon over a hundred years before the Apollo 11 mission and video calls appear in films as early as 1927 – the truth of the genre’s material impact is often less fantastical. Think of it as a chicken and egg scenario; did science fiction predict the future or were scientists inspired by what was depicted in science fiction? Science fiction can also influence public understanding of scientific breakthroughs or developments, such as artificial intelligence and biotechnology. Ultimately less a prediction of the future, and more a way of exploring our hopes and fears about the present, science fiction and the realities of science are in constant conversation. This conversation often goes beyond entertainment and even cultural criticism. It can reach out and change the face of science.

Nichelle Nichols didn’t just break new ground in the entertainment industry with her portrayal of Lt. Uhura in Star Trek, one of the first Black characters to be portrayed in a non-menial role on an American television series. She also tackled the gender gap in STEM, with the help of NASA. From 1977 to 2015, Nicholls volunteered her time to promote NASA’s programmes, with her goal being to recruit diverse astronauts. She succeeded. Her work helped recruit 8,000 individuals to NASA, including the first African American, Asian, and Latino men and women to enter space. Star Trek’s vision of a multicultural, equitable future transcended television and transformed NASA.

Science and the arts have both changed the world in profound ways. “I believe the intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups,” wrote the British physicist and novelist C. P. Snow in 1959. While not unique to the West, the two-culture split between STEM and the arts is misinformed and misguided. It does a disservice to both disciplines and the practitioners of each, or both. Man cannot live by bread alone. Equally, we cannot survive by science or the arts alone. Both are required and are as vibrant and vital as the other. Scientists and artists are not diametrically opposed. More alike than they are different, both desire to push the boundaries of their chosen discipline, driven by discovery, curiosity and passion.

Good scientists and good artists are asking the same questions: What is true? Why does it matter? Where do we go from here?