"Oh, you're a chemist?  You must be smart!" 

"I don't know much about science; I'm more of a creative type of person!"

So, there you have it.  If you listen to the rest of the world, us science geeks are smart, . . . but boring.  We know lots of technical "stuff" but our days are spent in dark, mysterious laboratories, contemplating the mysteries of science, surrounded by bubbling beakers and colored solutions in test tubes.  We don't get out much, and when we do, we don't interact with people very much (please, no jokes about "needing a shower!").

This attitude is so pervasive that many people don't have any idea how to respond when I identify myself as a chemist.  "Really?  That's interesting.  Do you work for 3M?" (Note: 3M is the biggest local employer of us science types.)  So imagine their surprise when they see me playing my trumpet (I'm actually pretty good to the casual listener, but certainly not a professional), or coaching  a soccer team (again, I'm a good coach for 10-year-olds, but that's about all I can claim).  We aren't supposed to be good at these things, because they require talent, or creativity, or people skills, or any number of other things that scientists aren't supposed to have.  And I don't fit the visual stereotype: thick, black-rim glasses, a white shirt and narrow dark plain tie, and a pocket protector (actually, I wear contacts!).  And I shower every day.

But I am not alone.  Over the years I have met many brilliant scientists, who also played the trumpet, or violin, or sang, or were artists.  And it seems like the more brilliant the scientist, the more likely that they are also talented in one of the "arts."  This may seem odd to non-scientists, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Science requires a great deal of discipline.  This is primarily study discipline in the early years, and the ability to learn complex concepts.  "Good technique" in every laboratory science requires adherence to a number of well-documented procedures and practices.  But so does playing a trumpet.  The early years are spent playing scales and learning how to get your fingers, lips, and tongue to all work together in a way that won't drive away large animals!  It is a matter of practice discipline.  After a few years the scientist can become proficient in the laboratory, and the musician can play the notes correctly.  Both might do just fine in their careers, but neither are likely to be regarded as brilliant, or leaders in their field. 

To reach that next level, you need something more, and I think the big difference is creativity.  The revolutionary advances in science have always been about breaking the rules, inventing new ones, or just looking at the idea from a completely different angle.  Newton, Einstein, Watson & Crick, and many, many more, all changed how the world looked at things.  It's the same way that Bach, Beethoven, and Picasso also changed how we think about music, and art.  It's really all the same.  The difference is the creativity, and we see it in every revolutionary idea, whether in science, engineering, music, art ... just about every field.

So, don't be afraid to show off your creativity.  It is what makes you a great scientist.  And if you see it in others, don't be surprised to learn that they have many other unique, and interesting skills.  It's time to change the world's perspective of what great science is about.

Send me some more stories and examples.  Let's start making our case for the creative scientist.

Next up . . . how the media portray scientists!