INTRODUCTION LETTER

You are on the frontlines of Humanity's scientific and technological progress. Such progress depends on the testing of innovations, but the capacity to create innovative ideas, per se, is known as "creativity."

There is a large literature on the topic of creativity, what it is, who has it and so forth. However, this survey, for which we are soliciting your cooperation, is unprecedented. We are seeking your opinion on different aspects of the creative process that, in our view, have not been studied before. We want to know how scientists, themselves, conceive of the creative process.

The Project Mind Foundation plans to support particularly far-reaching creative research projects in all scientific and technological disciplines by providing an environment uniquely nurturing to creativity. One of our hopes for the survey is to gather new insights that will help us shape this environment. The questionnaire is brief, designed to be interesting and we trust you will enjoy completing it. Perhaps you will even discover a new window into your own creative process. The questions are "multiple choice" to facilitate the survey both for you and for TELESEKER that will be tabulating the results. However, in many cases, you will have the opportunity to elaborate upon your response and we will certainly appreciate any insights that you can offer us.

As a reward for taking the time to particpate in this survey, we are offering you the gift of the book PROJECT MIND. The answers you provide will be for the Project Mind Foundation only and will not be used for any other purpose. We thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, The Project Mind Foundation

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Methodology
Interviewing was conducted by TNS Teleseker.
Fieldwork was coducted from July-September 2007.
A total of 237 scientists were interviewed.

Summary
The majority of the scientists expressed positive intentions to use methods that could put them into a creative state and keep them in this state as long as desired. Factors such as using methods to reduce possible risks, as opposed to economic incentives, were more effective in promoting the willingness to experiment with methods of entering a creative state (42% gave a grade of 7-10, indicating willingness to accept these risks).

These scientists also gave higher grades in most of the parameters: they are more independent in their work, more idealistic and attach more importance to creativity than others. It seems they believe creativity can improve their work. 83% of this group also requested a copy of the book. A statistic regression was made in order to determine those parameters that most influence the intentions of using methods to induce creativity.