Art & Science

At IDA, we firmly believe in the need to broaden our perspectives. This is the role of artists: to help us perceive different aspects of the world. That is why we give a voice to figures from diverse fields, to understand the connections that bind us, through the lens of creativity and art. Art and science share a fascinating relationship with creativity – that ability to generate ideas. Art and science are both methods of investigating the nature of the world. For this interview, we are featuring Aleksandra Deczkowska, head of the ‘Brain-Immune Interactions’ laboratory at the Pasteur Institute, who is unravelling the nature of the interactions between immune cells and the brain, to understand how these communication pathways contribute to brain function. From birth, the brain and the immune system are exposed to new environmental stimuli to which they must adapt rapidly. Whilst the brain becomes accustomed to various visual stimuli, flavours and textures, the immune system learns to recognise and protect the body against pathogens and to tolerate the commensal microbiome. Can a link be established between the maturation of the immune system and that of the brain?

1. Do you find that your creativity helps you to identify a lead, an explanation or a potential solution? Of course. I think there are two creative processes, often intertwining. In the lab, when we start a new project, we can work on anything; there is so much that is unknown! It’s almost an open ocean, a clean canvas – anything is possible to research! So first we talk, abstract, connect facts from life, clinic, and biology, exchange ideas with no criticism, just yes-ending. Usually, we do it at a big whiteboard, with a lot of drawings, arrows, and colors. We usually pick a scientific question that is novel, interesting for us, but also, once answered, could help solve some burning biomedical need. For us, this need is a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and other conditions where manipulating the immune system in our blood could aid neurological patients. Then there is the other type. Like in art, we are often limited by the constraints of the techniques and materials we are using. How to overcome these limitations, use unconventional methods, borrow techniques from another field is another way to be creative.  Similarly, we must be doing something new, and SO MUCH has already been done! So we need to read the literature that exists and make sure that our questions are really new. This is more of an escape room kind of creativity, but it still requires playful imagination, non-traditional approaches, and is incredibly important in science. So we do both, usually I like to separate those conversations or thought processes, not to kill crazy ideas prematurely.

2. How do you deal with moments of doubt? Doubt catches me when our observations are weird, unexpected, sometimes just contradicting our hypothesis. But these are also usually the most thrilling pieces of data! So there is a lot of emotion there, and I don’t have much tolerance for this type of uncertainty. I need to know “is it really there or not”. So we do more experiments, using different methods to see. And when things check out (“it’s really there”) we just have to follow the data, no matter how bizarre. If it doesn’t – we kill the hypothesis. Data is data. You can’t go wrong following the data. Maybe that’s why we are called “investigators” – we find a lead observation, and then it often shows us a clear path forward. In general, data is very good at curing my doubts. The imposter part of it is something else. “Am I really good enough to be at this conference? To talk to these famous scientists? Did what I say sound smart?” I read somewhere that 96% of scientists suffer from imposter syndrome at some time in their career - and this is data too!). This information alone is often enough to let go of the doubts. Even better to talk about it with colleagues - everyone feels the same! And at some point, you may find out that you belong as much as the people around you. You are completely ENOUGH.

3. In your view, what are the links between art and science? There are definitely many parallels. In both, you are expected to keep your mind open to other fields and to be up to date with what’s going on. To be kind of playful in your thinking, and to have NEW ideas, to the point that you may feel you have a new job every day of the week, but sometimes, for days or weeks in a row, it can mean just grinding it. In both, you are also expected to show (often with both excitement and terror) the fruit of your work to the public, actively promote it, and deal with A LOT of judgement, doubts, and unhealthy comparisons because everyone around seems to be groundbreaking. Both require creativity and discipline, knowing your craft and its limitations. Both can allow you to travel and meet amazing people but big chunks of it are going to be solitary. Maybe something more subtle is this: I heard from both Guy Yanai (painter) and Malcolm Gladwell (journalist and writer) that if they embark on creating something, there must be a need for it. Like, they cannot stand the feeling that it doesn’t exist, so they bring it into existence.  If the creation is not “needed” - it’s not worth doing. It really struck me as an accurate diagnosis. I paint (not very well), but only when I feel that I want to express something and I can’t do it in any other way, and if I don’t, I’m going to explode. My research questions are similar. I only work on questions that are important and that I feel nobody else can address. Of course, we learn and “practice” science all the time, but I have to feel that the project is needed to really embark on it. 

4. For artists, research and creativity often strike a delicate balance; do you find this to be the case in your work as well? It’s very similar. Creativity and finding interesting hypotheses are the fun parts; logistics, research, and often actually experimenting can be tedious, repetitive, and just boring, requiring a lot of focus, discipline, and rigor.  Francois Jacob called this separation “night science” (hypothesis generation) and “day science” (hypothesis testing), respectively. I think we often get worked up with day science, which feels like a more urgent thing to do, because this is what generates data. Like in other domains of work (and life), we need to actively make space in both our calendars and heads for more night science moments and conversations, space for stepping back and thinking bigger.

👉 To learn more on Aleksandra Deczkowska’s work: Watch the video