Do you need to be a genius to be a good scientist? Why creativity matters more than most people think

Many people outside science and even many scientists have a surprisingly narrow view of what makes a good scientist. When we think about science, we always think about intelligence. This is the public image of the scientist: intelligence first. The smartest people solve the hardest problems. But after spending time in research, I realize that creativity often matters just as much, and sometimes more.

I think what makes someone’s idea interesting is that there is actually this question: how important is creativity for being a successful scientist? To my point of view, this is challenging the notion of the “are you genius?”

My view is that creativity is essential, but it is rarely innate. But why is science fundamentally a creative activity? Science is fundamentally about generating explanations and questions that do not yet exist. Anyone can learn techniques like PCR, statistical analyses, microscopy, coding, and literature review … But deciding which question is worth asking? Which experiment could reveal something new? What alternative explanation might everyone be missing? Those are creative acts.

When I think about the difference between intelligence and creativity, I think about them like the difference between solving problems and finding problems.

Sometimes I wonder if highly successful scientists, are necessarily the people with the highest IQ. They might be simply people who connect unrelated ideas, notice unexpected patterns, reframe problems, design clever experiments, and ask unusual questions. Those are manifestations of creativity.

As an early-career scientist, I think we are different.

I would argue that PhD students and many postdocs often require substantial creative support from their supervisors. Not because we are incapable of creativity. Rather, creativity in science depends heavily on having deep domain knowledge, intuition about what is feasible, understanding of the literature, and awareness of which questions are important. A first-year PhD student simply doesn’t possess these yet. If we think about music, we wouldn’t expect a beginner pianist to compose a great sonata immediately. First, they learn scales, harmony, and existing music.

Scientific creativity develops similarly. A good PI often acts as a coach, a sounding board, a source of ideas, and a provider of intellectual structure. Over time, the trainee becomes increasingly independent.

Personally I always treated dependence on a PI as a weakness. We, as young scientists, learn creativity partly by observing how experienced our PI thinks. We watch them generate hypotheses, critique our experiments, identify gaps in knowledge, and see how they react to failed results.

In that sense, can creativity be taught? or at least cultivated?

Finally, I would say that the biggest misconception about science was always rewarding intelligence above all else. Intelligence helps you solve problems. Creativity helps you find the problems worth solving.