Here's how you can cultivate creativity in R&D through curiosity.

When you're curious, you naturally want to learn more and understand things deeply. This can lead you to think differently and come up with innovative solutions to problems. For example, suppose you wonder why certain reactions happen in a chemistry lab. In that case, you might start experimenting with different variables to find new ways to create materials. Curiosity pushes you to explore beyond what's already known, sparking creativity and driving progress in R&D.

Having an inherent curiosity by nature is one thing, and developing one specific to the subject is another. In both scenarios, self-reflection is key to determining if the subject sparks an innate curiosity. Being part of groups or project teams that encourage expressing your thoughts is a great way to begin articulating your curiosity. The more you value your questions/thoughts and approach them with confidence, the more others will value them too. Additionally, having curiosity and asking the "right" questions does guide research in the right direction. It's also important to recognize where you genuinely find curiosity and to be mindful of the group with whom you share your thoughts.

Yo le agregaría a este enunciado una cosa: acepta las preguntas "correctas". Más de una vez, nos enfrascamos en dirigir procesos investigativos, y, resulta que el problema viene siendo la brújula, ¿A dónde apunta tu investigación? Es mejor dedicarle más tiempo del necesario a este punto, que ir con elementos incompletos.

Estabilshing a safe space for R&D is obvoiusly hard because it is a matter of personality. Finding people with compatible mindsets and getting them to work together is more art than science, and the ability to do so is as valuable as it is rare. Curiosity is at the heart of a scientist’s intrinsic motivation, but it is not what makes you a successful researcher or developer. Conscientiouness, diligence and openness do, and my impression of academic scientific education and consequently worklife is that it disproportionally favours the former over the latter. While the former are essential to keep you going, it is the latter that determines direction. And what is the point in moving if you do not know where you are going?

When I start tackling a problem, I usually include my team to try to come up with at least two fundamentally different approaches first. Ways to do that are e.g. considering old methods that may be robust to factors affecting state of the art procedures. Another is abstracting and simplifying the problem so that people with very different backgrounds can think about it as well. It is important to develop alternatives before you dive deeper into one idea, as this will lead you to assumptions that are hard to un-think. Avoiding the sunken cost fallacy is much easier if you already have an alternative to fall back on. Why bang your head against the wall if there is a hole in the fence next to it?

Pareciera una obviedad, pero permíteme decirte lo siguiente: El fracaso duele no por fallar en sí, sino por lo que genera en el cuerpo al vivirlo. Si un cantante, cada vez que tiene que ir al escenario, acepta este estremecimiento como parte de su trabajo, y sigue adelante, ¿por qué habríamos nosotros que retroceder ante este sentir? El fallar, aparezca o no, es una sensación previa antes del acto en sí; aprende a atravesarla. Si aparece, y fallas, vívelo, y convierte el fallo en la virtud necesaria para seguir adelante.

Leveraging knowledge from one team / department to others is an underestimated aspect of R&D. In my PhD thesis, I was looking for an enzyme from a hard-to-cultivate microbe to produce a specific metabolite in vitro. It turned out that the enzyme could not be applied for its intended use, but I learned a lot about the metabolic requirements of the microbe itself. At the time, cultures in the several m3-scale stalled quite regularly without obvious reasons, resulting in significant loss. My results and insight could have helped to control the process, but the idea was rejected – and the opportunity lost. Again, fostering knowledge management and exchange of ideas depends on personalities and mindsets rather than scientific excellence.

Imagina que, de improvisto, te acaba de llamar una revista de investigación muy prestigiosa y tienes que hacer en 15 minutos, una exposición en video conferencia sobre tus investigación; han sabido de tu investigación, y desean darte soporte para que la lleves acabo. ¿Cómo lo gestionarías? Cuando te enfrentas al tener que exponer tus conocimientos, te expones a que otros digan lo que piensan (sean más o menos expertos), y si has hecho una buena exposición, estos, te compartirán una visión de lo comprendido (aunque no profundizado), que podría ayudarte a sacar una perspectiva que no se te había pasado por la mente. Atrévete a compartir lo que llevas, nunca sabes cuando te escuchará la persona indicada...