Can Scientific Writing Be Creative?

If we consider the process of scientific investigation, or for that matter any investigation or study,
as a process which involves (i) gathering information, (ii) processing or evaluating the information, and (iii) making certain comments or conclusions about the evaluation, then it appears that “communicating” the findings, becomes part of that investigation.

Two questions seem relevant:

How should a scientist communicate, via symbols, equations, graphs, or words?

And who should the audience be?

Do I, as a research scientist or as an educator, write for my colleagues or for my students? Do I write for the one student, the intelligent one whom I hope is capable of “true understanding”?

Or do I write for any student? Should try to write for the nonexpert?

Interestingly, a writer in many ways is very similar to a scientist. William Faulkner(Winokur, 1990, p. 264) says, “A writer needs three things, experience, observation and imagination, any two of which, at times any one of which, can supply the lack of the others.”

Thus, it is not too demanding on my part to ask the question: Can scientific writing be creative? For, I think, a person with scientific tendencies also has the ability to observe, is generally endowed with a (vivid) imagination, his experiences are mostly based on his experiments, conducted in his laboratory (which could also be his mind), and a process of critical thinking to make sense of these observations.

There are many who try (or have tried) to present a set of exercises or techniques in “how-to-books or how-to-seminars” about how to develop our creativity, how to get in touch with this or that. I do not know if I can show or say how creativity can be developed.

Creativity is a manifestation of inspiration, and inspiration is a gift, from the Divine. Of course, we might conclude based on the lives of many inspiring sages that the main reason they were given this gift was that they led a spiritual, disciplined, and pure life; that they had a sense of the Divine Presence; that they were in commune with the Divine, at least some of the time, if not all of the time. At the same time, if we look at the lives of many creative people, by whatever standard we measure creativity in art, music, poetry, or literature, their personal lives are often anything but disciplined, sacred, or pure. Even though we call them creative people, it seems the gift of inspiration did not manifest itself in all aspects of their lives; it did not transform their whole being.

I would like to make a distinction between “science writing” and “scientific writing.” By the former, I mean a writing which is usually done by a nonscientist, a journalist perhaps, someone who has read a few books or articles, and has rewritten about a specific aspect of science. As interesting, educating, or creative this might be, I am not addressing myself to this group of writers. Instead, my focus is on those with scientific training and background and those educated in science, whether mathematical, biological, or physical sciences or engineering. If these scientists write, I put their writings in the category of “scientific writing.”

This does not mean that their writings are necessarily creative. Some distinction is unavoidable, but we must be careful that this separation does not cause any misunderstandings. The Noble prize winner, Sir Peter Medawar (1979, p. 3), for example, says, “Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidierup; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artist and others artisans. There are poet–scientists and philosopher – scientists and even a few mystics. What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common? Obligative scientist must be very rare, and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead.”
Mehrdad Massoudi
Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2003 ( C° 2003)