Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37206962›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2023

Regaining creativity in science: insights from conversation.

Ruth M Morgan, Roger L Kneebone, Nicholas D Pyenson, Sabrina B Sholts, Will Houstoun, Benjamin Butler, Kevin Chesters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ruth M MorganDepartment of Security and Crime Science and UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences, University College London, 35 Tavistock Square, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4146-654X
Roger L KneeboneCentre for Engagement and Simulation Science, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Nicholas D PyensonDepartment of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4678-5782
Sabrina B SholtsDepartment of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4168-0578
Will HoustounRoyal College of Music-Imperial Centre for Performance Science, Royal College of Music, London, UK.
Benjamin ButlerHorasis, Maurerstrasse 2, 8500 Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Kevin ChestersHarbour Collective, LABS House, 15-19 Bloomsbury Way, Holborn, London WC1A 2TH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 'early modern' (Renaissance) workshop was predicated on the idea that informal, open-ended cooperation enables participants to experience difference and develop new insights, which can lead to new ways of thinking and doing. This paper presents the insights that emerged from a conversation event that brought wide-ranging voices together from different domains in science, and across the arts and industry, to consider science leadership as we look to the future in a time of interlocking crises. The core theme identified was a need to regain creativity in science; in the methods of scientific endeavours, in the way science is produced and communicated, and in how science is experienced in society. Three key challenges for re-establishing a culture of creativity in science emerged: (i) how scientists communicate what science is and what it is for, (ii) what scientists value, and (iii) how scientists create and co-create science with and for society. Furthermore, the value of open-ended and ongoing conversation between different perspectives as a means of achieving this culture was identified and demonstrated.

Indexed as

conversationcreativitydiversityinterdisciplinaryscience leadership

Identifiers

PMID37206962
PMCPMC10189591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.