Peter Godfrey-Smith, a Professor of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Sydney, explores with us the differences between creativity in science and philosophy. While philosophers speculate unconstrainedly, scientists must balance creative thinking with the need for empirical testing and within our fields’ paradigms – if you mention the “Lamarck” word at a bar full of geneticists, don’t be surprised if the piano suddenly stops and everybody looks at you in disbelief. We also talk about Thomas Kuhn’s tension between normal and revolutionary science, the risks and rewards of disruptive ideas, and the importance of "middle-class science"—independent labs driving innovation. Peter ends by drawing a parallel between the night science / day science transition and Händel's aria "As Steals the Morn," which describes the transition from dream state to wakefulness.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

In this episode, Itai and Martin delve into the interplay between hypothesis-driven and exploratory research, drawing on insights from past guests of the Night Science Podcast. They discuss how being focused on a single hypothesis can prevent us from making discoveries, while emphasizing the value of open-ended exploratory analyses—often dismissed as “fishing expeditions.” The episode also examines the risks inherent to both approaches: hypothesis-driven Day Science may overlook key insights, while exploratory Night Science risks being misled by randomness.


This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). 
For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

In this episode, Stanford professor Michael Fischbach discusses insights from his course on how to choose meaningful research problems. Highlights include:

- Invest time in problem selection: Spend more time upfront selecting the right research problem.
- Date ideas: Before settling on an idea, explore multiple alternatives without emotional attachment.
- Fixed vs. floating parameters: Early on, clearly define what aspects of your research idea are fixed and which can be flexible.
- Manage risks: Embrace risk but systematically de-risk projects.
- Killer experiments: Identify early “go/no-go” experiments.
- Turn crises into opportunities: Use a project's crisis to find out what it's really about.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

James Kaufman, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut, discusses the psychological underpinnings of creative thinking with Itai & Martin. Together, we delve into the complex nature of creativity, exploring its roots as both a trait and a skill that can be nurtured. We examine the role of personality traits in creativity, the impact of interdisciplinary team dynamics, and how creative metacognition—the ability to recognize one’s own creative strengths and weaknesses—plays a vital role.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

MIT's Bob Weinberg is perhaps the world's most prominent cancer researcher. In this episode, Bob emphasizes that true innovation often comes from blending ideas from different fields – a synthesis that transcends the boundaries of one's primary area of research. We discuss the vital role of human interaction, with many scientific breakthroughs coming from informal collaborations between researchers, celebrating the collective "lab brain" as a powerful driver of creativity and discovery. And given that modern experimental methods could facilitate an essentially infinite variety of alternative projects, Bob recommends that we continually question the relevance of what we have chosen to work on.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

Manu Prakash is a professor of bioengineering at Stanford University, asking biological questions with insights from physics. His most widely known contribution is the FoldScope, a $1-microscope made from paper and a lens – 2 million copies of this have been distributed to would-be scientists around the world. In this episode, Manu emphasizes how science is a sense of wonder and a personal journey with no set roads. To get to new and deep questions, Manu feels he needs to “embed” himself in the world he's studying, e.g., by spending weeks on research vessels on the open sea when he’s interested in deep-sea biology. In his view, the most important consequence of a discovery is not how it impacts the world, but how it changes the scientist making the discovery.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

Dianne Newman – a molecular microbiologist at CalTech – is a professor both in Biology and Geology. In this episode, she encourages young scientists to pursue questions to which they have a visceral connection, rather than following popular trends. In its search for fundamental truths guided by our inner biases and preferences, Dianne likens scientific curiosity to artistic expression. She emphasizes our control over how much we dwell on the difficult aspects of our research, helping us to find satisfaction in creatively working around whatever obstacles we meet. Dianne also reflects on the unpredictable nature of research, and stresses how a problem that somebody else gives you can very rapidly become yours if you take it upon yourself to become its creative driver.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

Tina Seelig is Executive Director of the Knight-Hennessy-Scholars at Stanford University. She is widely known for teaching creativity courses and workshops with an entrepreneurial focus. In this episode, Tina emphasizes the importance of living in the problem space longer, taking time to challenge assumptions and reframe questions before rushing to solutions. We discuss how deliberately generating bad ideas can lead to innovative solutions, as they allow for bigger conceptual leaps and often contain the seeds of brilliant ideas. Treating ideas as less precious allows for a continuous flow of creativity. But ideas aren’t cheap – they are free but incredibly valuable, like oxygen.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

Venki Ramakrishnan shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for uncovering the structure of the ribosome. He runs a lab at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England. In this episode, Venki emphasizes the importance of enjoying the scientific process itself, not just aiming for major discoveries. He describes his creativity as a result of mulling over a problem and of talking with people. Venki also highlights the need for scientists to make daily judgment calls about their approach and the future of the project. And he encourages openness and collaboration, viewing the ability to seek help as a strength rather than a weakness.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

Jennifer Oyler-Yaniv is a professor working on the immune system at Harvard’s Medical School. In this episode, we discuss with her how she teaches creativity in her course for PhD students. We explore the emotional roller coaster ride of research projects, typically culminating in the point of creative frustration, where we get stuck and are tempted to either give up or take an easy, sub-par way out. We discuss how the creative process and its tools are really the same in science and in the arts, but that cultural and language differences still make creativity teaching by scientists themselves more relatable to young scientists. And the hosts realize the importance of personality in everyone’s own version of the creative process – with Itai needing a *CRISIS* in each project, while Martin’s projects evolve in much calmer waters.

This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .