The previous two installments of this series focus on the excitement and stability of projects when proposing them. Part 1 directly states the necessity of a clear problem statement. In Part 2, we briefly addressed the importance of recognizing your audience. In this installment, I would like to discuss the different manners in which you can go about describing a project. Depending on the goal and the proposed work, this greatly affects the role you play in the project. I like to refer to this as the hat you wear. Specifically, I will break it up into four major viewpoints: scientists, engineers, designers, and artists. Each has their unique perspective in projects.
Scientists
Scientists fundamentally ask and answer questions to understand our surroundings. The scientific method, as introduced by Sir Francis Bacon back in the 1600s, is perfectly suited towards answering questions. You make observations, ask a question, form a hypothesis, then experimentally test that hypothesis. Once you have sufficient experimental results, you’ve answered your question and proven your hypothesis true or false. The main goal of the scientific method is to answer your question. When you examine your problem statement, and what you propose to do, if you’re fundamentally answering an unasked question, you are wearing the hat of a scientist. Science is the basis on which new advancements are made. Once we understand the basics of our surroundings, we can tackle the actual problem.
Understanding when you are using a scientist approach is important for when you are proposing any project. There have been countless scenarios where I was under the assumption I was speaking to an engineer. When I took a closer look at their work, they were really a scientist first. The work being done was focused on gathering new information using newly available tools. The problem they were solving was really a lack of understanding in their field.
Engineers
Engineers are different in that they solve problems. With your engineering hat on, you address a problem and apply the tools gained from science to fix it. As a tissue engineer, the problem I try to solve is we can’t grow organs outside of the body. I try to take the material we’ve gained from science to influence the way cells grow artificially. Very often engineers dip into science when they run out of the knowledge necessary to solve their problem. The act of addressing the problem head on usually winds up with you wearing the hat of an engineer.
The prior work of scientists is necessary for engineering. At its heart, engineering is the application of scientific knowledge to specific problems. This is part of the reason funding basic science across the board is so important. Advances in scientific knowledge should eventually have the ability to be applied to problems. When proposing science-based projects, application should be evident. Many proposals I have seen lack this application-forward thinking. The work can be novel and complicated, but if the scientific impact becomes too incremental and loses sight of the application, people and funders are not interested. On the flip side, engineering proposals should acknowledge the science that is supporting their project. Without that clear understanding of the application of science, the engineer loses trust.
Designers
Designers build tools and guide how we use them. Once you have an engineered solution to a problem, it doesn’t matter how “good” it is unless people actually use it. This also can consider or ignore the science and engineering that led to the solution. Design is most often the least appreciated aspect of projects and is where users can lose interest quickly. You can have the most innovative solution to a problem, but if people find it impossible or even slightly inconvenient to use, it doesn’t matter how novel the engineered solution is.
A specific example of this is with a piece of orthopedic implant from a biomedical engineer I know. The implant itself was engineered to provide faster healing of the spine following surgery. While the technology was novel and had real benefits, it wasn’t easier for surgeons to use, so they didn’t have a major incentive to switch to that implant. After a series of discussions with several surgeons, the implant was slightly modified to make it significantly easier to install than other devices on the market. Now surgeons had a tool they liked to use that patients would also be happier with. The engineering was for the patient; the design was for doctors, the actual user of the device.
Artists
Finally, we come to the artist mindset. Artists are removed from the utility and practicality that designers and engineers are most worried about. Instead, the purpose of the artist is to focus on how people feel when they interact with their environment or a product. Color alone has huge impacts on the way people perceive then subconsciously interact. Art can also encompass the storytelling surrounding a project. A more compelling idea leading into a project garners interest. Art can increase the impact of figures in written proposals.
Please check out Dr. Sharleen Buel’s article on art and science communication for more. The different mediums of art and how we interact with them in problem-solving could be another four-part essay series. For now, please recognize that the mind of an artist in managing the emotional interaction of people and projects is a separate perspective.
Using Art to Communicate Science
“I had no idea researchers paid illustrators to make graphics!” –Me, five years ago, in a conversation with my PhD advisor.
While these hats are unique in perspective, they still depend on each other. Science, engineering, design, and art are all aspects of every project. It is important to recognize and focus on what thought process you’re using when proposing a project and forming a problem statement. A good strategy is to have different members of your team (referenced in Part 2 “Selling Stability”) who focus on these different thought processes. When all four thought processes come together, this helps improve the overall impact of your work. Science builds knowledge. Engineering builds tools from this knowledge. Design puts those tools in people’s hands. Art brings people together to start the process all over again. Without this combined thought process, projects can lose steam and the problem they aim to solve becomes unclear.
In the next and final installment of this series, I will combine everything I’ve discussed so far into a discussion of organ-on-chip devices. Specifically, I’ll discuss the promise, problems, and potential solutions in this field.