Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41210920›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2025

Why science needs art.

Giulia Ghisleni, Christian Stolte, Megan Gozzard, Lea Von Soosten, Antonia Bruno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Giulia GhisleniDepartment of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Christian StolteChristian Stolte Design, Islesboro, ME, United States.
Megan GozzardWellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Lea Von SoostenUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Antonia BrunoDepartment of Biotechnology and Biosciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This perspective paper examines the profound cognitive and methodological parallels between scientific and artistic research, challenging the traditional distinction between the two domains. While science and art use different languages, both emerge from the human drive for creativity and understanding. We argue that scientific inquiry, often presented as strictly objective and methodical, inherently shares with art the need for imagination, flexibility, and interpretative thinking. Drawing on neuroscience, education, design theory, and the visual arts, we highlight how artistic practices, particularly in the visual arts, can enhance scientific learning, innovation, and public engagement. We advocate integrating art into scientific training and research to foster a more creative and inclusive epistemology. Through examples in microbiology, education, and data visualization, we show how the arts can support deeper understanding, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and more effective science communication. Ultimately, we call for a shift toward a more integrated approach that embraces the complementary strengths of both art and science in advancing knowledge and societal impact.

Indexed as

art-science integrationcreative epistemologyinterdisciplinary researchscience communicationvisual arts in science education

Identifiers

PMID41210920
PMCPMC12592062

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.