Exploring the systematic decline of creativity in education, medicine, and organizations, and evidence-based strategies to reclaim our innovative potential.
Imagine a young fish swimming through the ocean, when an older fish nods and says, "Morning, kids. How's the water?" The two young fish just smile and continue on their way. Once they're out of earshot, one turns to the other and asks, "What on earth is water?"9
This parable, adapted from David Foster Wallace's famous "This Is Water" speech, captures a profound truth about our human condition: the most obvious and important realities are often the ones we fail to see. And today, there's something crucial disappearing from our waters: creativity. Not just in the arts, but in medicine, science, education, and throughout our society—we're in the midst of a creativity crisis that threatens our ability to solve complex problems and make groundbreaking discoveries1 .
The situation has become so concerning that in her essay "Water Pie: Creativity and Leadership in Academic Psychiatry," Laura Roberts warns about the state of modern psychiatry, medicine, and the real threats to creative thinking.
— Academic Psychiatry editorial1
But what exactly is killing our creativity? And more importantly, how can we get it back? Emerging research from neuroscience, psychology, and even artificial intelligence provides surprising answers.
Our creativity crisis often begins in the classroom. Worldwide, educational systems have largely resorted to standardized tests with one right answer6 .
From K-12 through higher education, students face multiple-choice tests designed to have single correct answers, true-or-false questions with no room for exceptions, and stereotyped examples6 .
The problem extends well beyond the classroom. In medicine and academia, creativity faces additional threats.
Even in organizations that vocally desire creativity, management practices often remain pivoted around the pursuit of aligned workforces and organizational homogeneity.
This creates a paradox: companies demand creative workers while implementing structures that deny creativity's very premise in difference and divergence.
"Children are not frightened of being wrong. If you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong."
This educational approach creates what psychologists call a fixed mindset—the belief that success is based on innate talent rather than effort and learning6 .
When students are rewarded only for correct answers and punished for mistakes, they naturally become risk-averse and less inclined to think outside the box.
Creative work requires being affected—the propensity to feel at work and to care—which defines many creative labours, yet tends to be left out of more common metrics for measuring performance and recruiting laborers.
As creativity declines in human domains, scientists have begun questioning whether artificial intelligence might fill the gap. Can generative AI make scientific discoveries similar to those of humans? A groundbreaking 2025 study published in Scientific Reports put this to the test3 .
Researchers designed a novel experiment where ChatGPT4 assumed the role of a scientist tasked with investigating a Nobel-worthy scientific discovery in molecular genetics3 .
The AI was asked to discover the mechanism of how genes control other genes in E. coli—specifically, how three regulatory genes (P, I, and O) control the production of β-gal, with the I gene acting as a chemical inhibitor and the O gene as a physical inhibitor3 .
To enable this investigation, researchers used a semi-automated molecular genetic laboratory (SAMGL)—a computer-simulated laboratory that provides an environment for genetics experiments3 .
For each experiment designed by ChatGPT4, a researcher performed the experiment in SAMGL on behalf of the AI and provided the results back3 .
The study compared ChatGPT's discovery process against human subjects from previous research who had performed the same discovery task using the same laboratory3 .
The results revealed significant limitations in AI's creative capabilities:
| Discovery Component | Human Scientists | Current GenAI (ChatGPT4) |
|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis Generation | Generate truly original hypotheses | Unable to generate truly original hypotheses |
| Anomaly Detection | Capable of epiphanies, detecting anomalies | Incapable of having epiphanies to detect anomalies |
| Experimental Design | Designs guided by hypotheses | Limited ability to use hypotheses to guide design |
| Process Correction | Realizes when process is incorrect and switches direction | Has illusion of successful discovery with overconfidence |
| Discovery Type | Can achieve fundamental discoveries | Can only make incremental discoveries |
The researchers concluded that current generative AI is good only at discovery tasks involving either a known representation of domain knowledge or access to human scientists' knowledge space3 . It cannot achieve fundamental discoveries from scratch as humans can3 .
Perhaps most concerning was ChatGPT4's overconfidence—it suffered from the illusion of making completely successful discoveries, unable to recognize when its process was failing3 .
The decline in creativity isn't irreversible. Neuroscience reveals that creativity isn't fixed—everybody has creative potential, but it requires nurturing specific conditions5 . Based on research across multiple fields, here are evidence-based strategies to reclaim creativity:
Our pedagogy needs modification to promote that "creativity is part and parcel of every patient encounter and requires daily integration with our knowledge, skills, and attitudes"1 .
Actionable strategy: Replace some multiple-choice tests with narrative responses about clinical situations. "When we read a narrative about a clinical situation, we learn much more about how a student thinks"1 .
Creativity is deeply personal but thrives in community1 . It's fueled by collaborating, sharing ideas, observing, experiencing, and learning about the work of others1 .
Actionable strategy: Create regular opportunities for interdisciplinary exchanges—between scientists and artists, doctors and musicians, engineers and poets.
Technology doesn't necessarily foster creativity1 . For instance, a computer cannot replicate the art of a sound clinical interview, which requires attachment, connection, empathic awareness, and improvisation1 .
Actionable strategy: Use technology as a tool rather than a replacement for human interaction.
Neuroscience reveals that sleep, particularly deep sleep, is crucial for creativity6 . During deep sleep, our brains sort out and catalog all the information we've taken in during the day6 .
Actionable strategy: Prioritize sleep and stress reduction. Chronic stress raises cortisol levels, depletes energy, and makes creative thinking difficult6 .
Research into creative practices reveals that any data can be analyzed creatively, and analytic work can be experimental, playful, and fun4 . When stuck in analytical processes, researchers use various creative practices:
Writing poems to work through analytical blocks helps move analytical thought processes forward.
Doodling, drawing, creating collages accesses different parts of the brain.
Building models, installations engages spatial and tactile intelligence.
Listening to or creating music to accompany thought promotes different cognitive states.
Walking, running, swimming connects physical and mental processes.
Meditation and mindfulness practices enhance focus and creative insight.
The crisis of lost creativity represents more than just an educational or scientific concern—it threatens our fundamental capacity as humans to solve complex problems, make groundbreaking discoveries, and perhaps even to understand ourselves and our world more deeply.
The good news is that creativity can be reclaimed. It begins with recognizing the "water" we swim in—the systemic, organizational, and educational constraints that limit our creative potential.
By implementing strategies based on solid research from neuroscience, psychology, and education, we can revive our creative capabilities.
As Andreasen and Ramchandran point out, "The capacity to be creative is one of the most important characteristics that human beings possess"1 .
From germ theory and relativity theory to the theory of evolution and modern genetics, virtually every revolutionary scientific theory derived from creative thinking and astute observations1 .
Einstein's creative imagination led him to move beyond an accepted and validated theoretical model and create an entirely different one1 . He didn't passively accept the current model but actively considered alternatives. He asked different questions1 .
In the end, it takes the freedom to question accepted principles to go beyond accepted views and standards1 . The same applies to all of us today. By recognizing the creativity crisis and taking active steps to address it, we can begin to change the water we swim in—and recover one of our most essential human capacities.