Science, Art and Technology -- Discussions Scientific communication is transforming through art and technology in a way that broadens audiences and improves the dissemination of information to the public. We watch as science continually unearths new understanding of the world around us infusing human possibilities, while technological innovation persistently enables new correspondence connecting people worldwide through varied mutations of human communication. Art, in turn, incites the imagination, rouses scientific ideas, and investigates our collective humanity. Aesthetic values have long been understood on many levels using technology and scientific understanding. Linearly and modularly, we have studied time, space, light, movement and sound; yet unknown scientific discoveries and technological development are always impending. Artists must continue to collaborate with scientists and engineers stretching their minds together imagining new solutions for sharing knowledge. Already scientists, artists, and engineers cross train in each others fields of study. As new hybrid communicators they are cooperatively merging their talents prodding worldwide knowledge to bridge peoples of vastly different culture and perspective together into universally shared understanding of the physical world. Do science students need artistic abilities? What do you think? Kenneth R. Jolls stated in Nature Opinion Correspondence the following: "Graphic artists who collaborate with scientists have often been shaped by the other of C. P. Snow's 'two cultures'. Although well-intentioned, many artists' understanding of basic science is inadequate for meaningful participation in high-level technical work. Cognitive art is like commercial art and technical writing: it has never garnered respect from the artistic establishment, and its practitioners are left to fend for themselves. From the start of schooling, distinctions are made between students with a talent for science and those with leanings towards the arts. In our technology-focused society, science receives more attention and an emphasis that does not include visual-thinking skills. Calculus, for example, is learned through symbolic operations, but portraying those procedures by using curves and surfaces and tangents and intercepts is typically considered to be an unnecessary frill.Thus the two cultures diverge, and if we try to reassemble them later to let one benefit the other, we have serious difficulties: the world views don't match. Subjective ideas can be stifled by objective thought but, by the same token, physical reality can be mismanaged by well-meaning attempts at creativity. We must indeed invest in visualization skills for science-bound students, but there should be a parallel path for science-illustrators-to-be to learn the basics of physics, chemistry and mathematics. Collaborators who understand each other's language have a much better chance of finding the common ground they need for the cooperation they seek." Nature 455, 1175 (30 October 2008) | doi:10.1038/4551175b; Published online 29 October 2008 Link to the full correspondence at: Nov 3, 2008