Bickmore and Grady make an excellent point, we are always looking for “scientific” evidence, but we have no real parameters to describe what science is. When we hear the word science we are more likely to take in the information as factual, as something real. However, science itself means thinking and exploring new ideas, imagining ways that things can be possible and testing those ideas to the best of our abilities. When science is juxtaposed with storytelling, the differences are not as broad as they may seem. Wasn’t Greek mythology just a way of explaining what was unknown; a way to fill in the blanks?
If you think of science as a story, as the authors of both papers are suggesting we do, it makes it much easier to think of in terms of visualization. For example: if instead of animating the process of mitosis you animate the story of mitosis, you bring it to life.
I love the idea of science as a story, even just thinking about it from that perspective ignites my imagination, which Bickmore and Grady point out is one of the most important parts of the scientific process.