This article is quite exciting. I never really thought about the close relation between artists and scientists. It would really open up a world of endless possibilities if that combination was common. Because the practises of arts and sciences are so far apart yet somewhat similar, it may yield tremendous results if artists and scientists collaborated with one another. It almost seems common sense to group individuals with one another based on their own unique skills to combine them to produce something even more. Perhaps an artist has some insight on design which may never have even occurred to an architect. Because both practises are very disciplined in their own way, having them collaborate each other would expand the overall knowledge of the collective group of artists and scientists.
However, this idea of interdisciplinary research may not always be of maximum benefits towards a final goal. For example, scientists must always be precise, accurate and logical with their approach to problem solving. In mathematics, there is always an answer. 2 + 2 = 4. On the other hand, artists creating their artwork as a form of expression, is there a right or wrong answer with the design of the Mona Lisa? Artists seem to express themselves more than scientists. Can an artist really give any insightful knowledge for a project on nuclear fusion, for example? If collaboration stays within the arts or only in the sciences, the end results will be most likely different than if they combined arts and sciences. Will that end result be better or worse?