Science writer Mary Cruse says that the worlds of science and the arts do not have to be incompatible

Back in 1959, the esteemed British scientist and novelist C.P. Snow sparked a controversy that would go on to span decades. The dispute was over the sciences, the arts and the growing gulf between them.

Snow argued that a lack of dialogue and a growing cultural tendency to perceive science as separate and irreconcilable with the arts was creating ‘two cultures’: segregated realms that would not intersect, thus stymieing the collective growth of the nation.

Sixty-five years later and the debate has yet to subside. Since Snow’s time, STEM fields (Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering) have certainly grown in cultural value, but that perceived incompatibility between the sciences and the arts somewhat persists to this day.

Of course, in many ways, science and art are different. STEM fields generally look to provide us with practical tools to better navigate the world: formulae, medicines, technology, engineering. Meanwhile, art is primarily about human expression and creativity.

And yet already the divisions begin to blur. After all, science is founded on curiosity and exploration. Research is not always born out of utility, but also out of a desire to understand the universe. This shared motivation prompted Albert Einstein to reflect that: “the most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.”

What’s more, scientists are often as creative as they are curious. Their trade demands that they think in unusual ways in their attempts to unravel the truth. History’s greatest scientists have been able to challenge preconceptions and do things differently – from Galileo to Newton, creative thinking is a quality that many scientists share.

The crossovers do not end here. One could consider any number of qualities – observation, questioning, perseverance, methodology, attention to detail – that could be just as easily applied to artists as scientists. There are clearly commonalities between the two fields, so why do we draw such clear lines between them?

Back in the mid-20th century when Snow first made his observations, he was referring to a relatively new phenomenon. The ‘two cultures’ haven’t always been as separate as they are today – indeed, the word scientist didn’t even exist until 1833. That’s not to say that dedicated scientists didn’t exist, but many of our most well-known historical figures were neither solely scientists nor artists. Take Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo for example: these renaissance men were as comfortable painting a portrait as they were designing pioneering machines.

We can learn from history here – by embracing both fields, our understanding of the world becomes immensely richer. It seems that we are often all-too-quick to label people as either scientifically or artistically minded.

We are encouraged to specialise at a young age, and so for many people their last experience of one area or another comes at the age of 16. It’s inevitable that this siloing of knowledge creates divisions. Too many of us worry that science is ‘not for us’, or that the arts are impenetrable. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

STEM and the arts will always be different fields, but difference does not have to mean incompatibility. We are not born pure scientists or artists. We may have a pre-disposition towards one field, but this does not limit us from appreciating the other.

For too long, the sciences and the arts have been confined to separate spheres, but education and engagement at all levels could benefit from the blurring of these divisions.

The two fields may go about it differently but, ultimately, both the sciences and the arts share the same goal: providing humankind with a window on to the beauty and mystery of the universe.