New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

How Ideas Emerge from Society

Where do great ideas come from—and how do we recognize their significance when they appear?

Danny Hillis, Applied Minds co-founder and a Scientific American adviser, and I were discussing these questions recently as we prepared for a talk in late October at the Compass Summit (compass-summit.com). “Ideas are a product of society,” an emergent phenomenon, Hillis told me, “which are almost inevitable.” That’s why, he said, our admiration for individuals who have come up with such ideas is “almost giving too much credit.” The idea itself is not enough. A lot of people in a society will have a given notion, he explained. Maybe only 1,000 will try to sketch it out. “Then 100 will try to make something, and 10 of those might actually make something practical. One or two of those might be on the level of an Edison or Tesla.”

In many ways, Hillis and I share a mission of identifying those ideas that just might work. His company, of course, is involved in developing them. As for the magazine and our Web site’s role? “The interesting thing about Scientific American is it lets you understand those ideas,” he added.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


We have both watched with interest recent sweeping trends in the idea machine: how interdisciplinary research is a growing area of focus and the rising force of “big data” and increasing computing power. Those topics would be part of our on-stage Compass Summit conversation, and they also underpin this issue’s special look at innovation, the third annual “World Changing Ideas.” The section features 10 out-of-the-lab concepts with the possibility to scale in a practical way.

I’m particularly taken by “The Machine That Would Predict the Future,” by David Weinberger.. The story covers the work of Dirk Helbing, a physicist and chair of sociology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. Helbing has proposed a large-scale computing program that would attempt to model global-scale systems and so “would effectively serve as the world’s crystal ball.”

Perhaps you, like me, will feel forcefully reminded of Isaac Asimov’s Hari Seldon, the “psychohistorian” whose pattern-predicting math drove the famous Foundation science-fiction series. Asimov, a long-time Scientific American subscriber himself, read the magazine to keep up with science. Increasingly, it feels as if the reverse is also true.

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina
Scientific American Magazine Vol 305 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Emergent Genius” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 305 No. 6 (), p. 6
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican122011-4gpRBbjjquHDTVvfhYskSE

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe