Humans seem to be drawn towards extremes of accomplishment – whether it’s daring to explore new geographical locations no matter what practical challenges that presents or pushing our bodies to their limits in attempts to break sporting world records. The enigma of genius panel at the World Science Festival explored one end of the mental spectrum of humans; what makes some of us outstandingly intelligent or creative? And how do you spot a genius anyway?

A large and mixed panel including experts from both the arts and sciences led an interesting and wide-ranging debate, although one that raised many questions. Contributions came from:

Philip Glass – influential composer

Dean Keith Simonton – author of books on the topic of genius

Marcus du Sautoy – mathematician, resarcher, writer and radio presenter

“Rex Jung ":https://www.stgeorges.bc.ca/podium/default.aspx?t=204&tn=Dr.+Rex+Jung&nid=647886&ptid=146154&sdb=False&pf=pgt&mode=0&vcm=False – researcher into creativity

Douglas Fields – researcher specialising in neuron-glia interactions, brain development and the cellular mechanisms of memory

Julie Taymor – director of theatre, film and opera.

A history of genius

The panel discussions started with a brief history of genius; it was a term originally used by the Romans, who believed everyone had one as it was akin to a personal guardian. It was only later that the word came to refer to a subset of individuals with exceptional skills. Kant believed that genius could only be found in artists as scientists could teach their knowledge to others.

The tools needed to get the job done: technique, independence and stamina"

Next, there followed some personal definitions of genius from the panellists. Glass defined genius as the “tools needed to get the job done; technique, independence and stamina” while Taymor stressed the importance of being able to be simultaneously completely immersed in a subject, while also able to step back from it and see a bigger picture. She stressed the importance of needing to assimilate information quickly but then also quickly output something original from that information.

Genius is “language-changing”

Glass noted that genius discoveries or creations could be “language-changing” in that they may not be recognised or understood by many people, if anyone, initially, but when they are adopted they change the way a subject is subsequently seen. “It’s like seeing in colour after being in black and white” suggested du Sautoy. However, Glass cautioned that even geniuses may not know what they are doing at the time they are doing their best work as they are pioneering their own path, feeling their way in the dark. This requires an element of fearlessness.

Down-time, creativity and pathology

The debate then moved onto the science behind genius with a discussion of neuroscience, which included a focus on glial cells – specialised cells in the brain that sparked interest due to the observation that Einstein had a greater percentage of these cells than an average person.

One of the more interesting observations discussed was that lower levels of activity in the frontal areas of the brain can lead to greater creativity. Meditation has been shown to down regulate activity in this area, correlating with the idea that moments of inspiration often strike when taking a break after focusing hard on something. Taymor raised the concern that the constant multi-tasking that has become the norm in modern life may be inhibiting creativity because our brains don’t have this “down-time”.

Finally, the conversation moved onto whether genius correlates with mental instability. Glass acknowledged the obsession that can come with intelligence; a genius will often focus “laser-like” on their passion, diverting attention from other areas. He asked at what point does an obsession become pathological?

Overall, the evening was an entertaining look at genius from various different angles, raising some unanswered questions along the way. You can follow the Twitter commentary in the Storify of tweets that we’ve created below.

What do you think?

Do you know someone who’s a genius? Do you think you can know before some time has passed to assess their impact of what they’ve done? Are Nobel Laureates the true geniuses of science or are there other unsung heroes that don’t get the credit for the more tedious graft that provides the soil in which seeds of genius can grow? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

You might also be interested to read a related "post ":https://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/lindaunobel/2011-06-16/reflections-on-genius-are-there-two-sides-to-every-success about this panel which asks how genius relates to Nobel Laureates in Science.

If you want to read more highlights from the World Science Festival, you can find a summary of all our coverage here.

One of the unique aspects about the World Science Festival is the willingness of the organisers to experiment with different formats; from theatrical interpretations of key "scientific events ":https://blogs.nature.com/u6e5b2ce1/2011/06/07/photograph-51 to the all-day family street fair on the final day. Another type of event at this year’s festival is the “science salon”; a panel discussion pitched at a slightly more scientific audience with an emphasis on more direct conversation between the panel and the attendees.

Experimenting with formating of memories in the brain was the topic for Saturday afternoon’s “Manipulating Memory” salon. However, what followed was not a trippy Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind-style philosophical exploration, but a well-pitched session, with carefully selected panellists who mostly complemented each other’s expertise. This led to a very tight discussion of the current paradigms in learning and memory with a few titbits of food for thought on the ethical implications of probable future progress.

Moderated by Julie Burstein the panel consisted of:

Christina Alberini – Professor in the Departments of Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Structrural and Chemical Biology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

Adam Kolber – Professor at Brooklyn Law School

Joseph LeDoux – Professor of neural science at NYU and Director of the Emotional Brain Insititute

Lynn Nadel – researches the role of the hippocampus in memory and spatial cognition

Elizabeth Phelps – Director of the Phelps lab at the New York University Center for Neuroeconomics

Todd Sacktor – researches the role of protein kinase C in the short-term memory of snails.

The key science described was that of the consolidation and re-consolidation of memories. Following an event, memories can be solidified from short-term memories into more persistent, long-term memories, a process that we know can be easily disrupted e.g. if a person has been drinking alcohol or is distracted by another event. The "PKC-zeta ":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_kinase_M_zeta/Protein_kinase_C_zeta protein is now known to be involved in this process of long term memory storage and experiments where its normally constitutive activity is down-regulated result in the loss of long-term memories.

While it’s possible to alter memory formation at this initial stage of learning, it’s also possible to alter memories later via reconsolidation; every time a memory is recalled and accessed, reconsolidation allows it to be further manipulated and then re-stored with the accumulated alterations. Think of it as taking out a library book and returning it with an additional date stamp in the front, or a crease on one of the page corners. This new paradigm of reconsolidation opens up potential therapeutic solutions (either via drugs or talking therapies) for people who have been exposed to emotionally traumatic events, but the panel also questioned the ethics of meddling with memories in this way. While all agreed we should aim to alleviate suffering, including emotional suffering, wherever possible, what happens if a key witness in a trial appears “too calm” when describing an horrific event because they’ve received treatment that has softened their anxiety-inducing memories? Should jurors be informed so that they could alter their judgements of the witness’ report accordingly?

As well as the unclear ethical implications, we are also currently limited by the sheer lack of known drugs that can be used to study memory storage in humans. The use of the beta-blocker propranolol (typically used for lowering blood pressure), for treating post-traumatic stress disorder was mentioned, but the panel seemed convinced we need to be prepared what to do “when” and not “if” other memory-altering drugs become available. The discussion of ethics and drug treatments also raises the interesting question of whether future studies could show any mechanistic differences between talking therapies and drug treatments? Would taking a pill to forget a painful break-up be specific enough not to erase other memories too and would it also remove the illumination that regret, introspection and a mild dose of suffering can provide?

If you want to read more highlights from the World Science Festival, you can find a summary of all our coverage here.

Wednesday afternoon’s World Science Festival panel Telling Science Stories in Print and on the Web featured many of the big names in science writing and journalism, from the “blogfather” of science blogging, Bora Zivkovic, to the Guardian’s Emily Bell via author and PLoS blogger, Seth Mnookin.

The challenge facing the participants in such a discussion was always going to be avoiding falling into an echo chamber of enthusiastic cheerleading for the transformative powers of the internet, while communicating the many changes that are continuing to take place in this highly dynamic environment where more traditional publishing rules and roles no longer suffice.

Since the “Pepsigate” events of last summer which resulted in the fragmentation of the Scienceblogs network, there’s been a lot of activity in the science blogosphere – many new blogging networks have appeared, some independent and some affiliated with major publishers – and a lot of conversation around that. There’s a well-known joke that science bloggers write most about…science blogging and to extend the soft drink theme, it can seem at times like online science communication is a big can of sweet, fizzy liquid that’s been firmly shaken. We all know there’s a lot of energy there, energy that can be volatile and catalyse dramatic events, but are we in danger of being distracted by the froth and fizz when releasing the ring pull and over-estimating the real effects of the medium?

The panel was a mostly balanced sprint through some of the current discussion topics facing journalists and communicators, with a heavy emphasis on the online angle. These included Emily Bell’s paraphrasing of Dickens to declare that “It was the best of times and the best of times” while pointing out that online voices are changing how we view traditional media and once secure media jobs. It’s now no longer enough to state that you’re a reporter for a particular newspaper to earn an audience. Bora Zivkovic talked about the opportunities the internet has offered to younger people to have a louder voice, one that he believes is being recognised by traditional publishers as more and more blogging networks are founded. Comments were also made about how the internet has changed the nature of our interactions with written material such that there is a now a two-way flow of information; “we are now in conversation mode”.

Examples of the potential of online journalism to change the way science journalism is carried out, described by Carl Zimmer and others, are the arsenic life blog conversations and the recent coverage of the Fukushima crisis. The former shows that scientists have the ability to respond more quickly to published results online than via traditional routes. However, time constraints meant an in-depth discussion of how exactly the conversations unfolded and evolved were not touched upon and so failed to highlight the non black-and-white nature of the online events.

Zimmer confidently suggested that the “only thing changing as rapidly as online journalism is peer reviewed literature” a quote that was enthusiastically retweeted on Twitter with only a few comments about whether Open Access and initiatives such as Open Peer Review are really being introduced as quickly as claimed. Are we living through a sudden revolution or a slow chipping away at the traditional foundations? And do these definitions of the speed and reach of change matter anyway?

Seth Mnookin was the most cautious about his online experiences, explaining how he found it difficult to engage in productive conversation with anti-vaccination believers in the comment threads on his blog posts. He talked about the challenges of finding balanced conversation online – commenters on blogs are most likely to be those who disagree with the author’s thesis while the pitfalls of Twitter include self-reinforcing aggregations of like-minded people.

Judging by the enthusiastic reunions and first time meetings following the panel, the energy of the times that we live in is certainly appealing to those already engaged in science communication online. It would be interesting to hear the reactions of the non-tweeting/blogging members of the audience to see whether our enthusiasm is appealing, in need of mixing with a stiffer spirit, or a fizzy drink that is best handled at a distance.

If you want to read more highlights from the World Science Festival, you can find a summary of all our coverage here.