Brian: The Typographical Error that Brought Early Career Neuroscientists and Artists Together
نویسندگان
چکیده
The divide between the arts and sciences is a relatively modern phenomenon. One can look at Renaissance collaborations between naturalists and artists, including the rich body of botanical art from the 1500s, as historical examples of such interdisciplinary collaborations [1–4]. But as both fields have evolved, it’s not surprising that they have become more compartmentalised and culturally segregated. Today, art and science subjects are taught independently from an early age, the divisions often solidifying over time [5]. Indeed, it is a great generalisation to limit definitions to merely ‘‘science’’ and ‘‘art,’’ with so many distinct categories within each field. Projects that enlist scientists and artists to incorporate both perspectives have the potential to promote scientific research in the public arena, enrich the creative component of science, stimulate artists, and engage diverse communities in dialogue and discourse, while developing exposure for both fields. Do You Mind?, an art-science collaboration started by researchers at the University of Auckland Centre for Brain Research and the arts management business The Busy Nice, was initially inspired by the imagery produced within neuroscience as tools to start conversation—from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the human brain to the recording of electrical signals from brain cells in culture to fluorescent microscopy images of cells (Figure 1). Do You Mind? paired early career neuroscientists at the Centre for Brain Research with newly established local artists. Collaborators started with the scientists’ research, but were free to discuss any aspect of the brain and brain research. Artists then produced artworks for exhibition in response to this interaction and research. The direct outcomes of Do You Mind? included a large-scale public exhibition and a publication documenting the project, with images and responses from all participants. Overall, developing Do You Mind? as a community project, using collaborative approaches, multi-media engagement, and documentation throughout the project, helped ensure high-profile media promotion. Anecdotal feedback from both the artists and scientists suggested that involvement had a positive effect upon their perspective and professional practice. The high level of public and media interest not only increased awareness of current neuroscience research at the Centre for Brain Research but also captivated fresh audiences for both research and art in Auckland.
منابع مشابه
Adaptive Approximate Record Matching
Typographical data entry errors and incomplete documents, produce imperfect records in real world databases. These errors generate distinct records which belong to the same entity. The aim of Approximate Record Matching is to find multiple records which belong to an entity. In this paper, an algorithm for Approximate Record Matching is proposed that can be adapted automatically with input error...
متن کاملTalent scouting in P2P networks
Please cite this article in press as: N. Koeni j.comnet.2011.10.021 Record labels would like to identify potential artists as early as possible in their career, before other companies approach the artists with competing contracts. However, there is a huge number of new artists, and the process of identifying the ones with high success potential is labor intensive. This paper demonstrates how da...
متن کاملLearning to Thrive: Building Diverse Scientists’ Access to Community and Resources through the BRAINS Program
BRAINS Broadening the Representation of Academic Investigators in NeuroScience is a National Institutes of Health-funded, national program that addresses challenges to the persistence of diverse early-career neuroscientists. In doing so, BRAINS aims to advance diversity in neuroscience by increasing career advancement and retention of post-PhD, early-career neuroscientists from underrepresented...
متن کاملCorrection: Weaning from mechanical ventilation
It has been brought to our attention that there was a typographical error in our review article [1] published in February 2000. The last sentence of the abstract should read: " Two randomized studies found that, in difficult-to-wean patients, synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) is the most ineffective method of weaning. " Reference 1.
متن کامل