Human Number Crunchers

When research is like a video game, computers finish second

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


FOR YEARS the conventional wisdom on the relative cognitive strengths of humans and machines has held that humans excel at recognizing faces and other kinds of pattern matching, while computers rule on anything that smacks of number crunching. That may no longer be the case. The success of Foldit—an online puzzle created by biologists and computer scientists at the University of Washington—proves that human intuition can outperform computer algorithms on complex scientific problems.

Foldit presents players (all nonscientists) with a partially folded protein on-screen and challenges them to twist it into an ideal shape based on simple rules. Not only did players predict correct protein structures much more quickly than any algorithm could (a brute-force search of all the possibilities would take millions of years), they were also able to intuit solutions that a computer might never have found at all. “To fold a protein into the right shape, you might first have to bend it in a couple of directions that seem totally wrong,” says Seth Cooper, a Washington computer scientist and one of Foldit's inventors. “A human being playing with a virtual object can see the big picture and recognize those tricky solutions.”

At the university's Center for Game Science, Cooper and his colleagues are now developing a new wave of games to accelerate the pace of research in bioinformatics, drug discovery and even nanoengineering. “Right now there are only 15 people in the world who know how to design a molecular machine out of DNA,” says Washington computer scientist Zoran Popović. “These games could increase that number by two orders of magnitude—we'd have thousands of people making new discoveries.” Could a gamer one day share a Nobel Prize? Says Cooper, “That's our greatest hope.”

John Pavlus is a writer and filmmaker focusing on science, technology and design. His work has appeared in Bloomberg Businessweek, MIT Technology Review, and The Best American Science and Nature Writing series. He lives in Portland, Ore.

More by John Pavlus
Scientific American Magazine Vol 303 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Human Number Crunchers” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 303 No. 6 (), p. 44
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1210-44

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe