Summary
The post examines the vital role of creativity in the domain of intellectual property and the legal profession. It discusses recent research from King's College, London, which suggests a genetic link between creativity and certain psychological disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The author reflects on personal experiences as an IP attorney, noting the challenges and rewards of working with creative individuals. The analysis highlights the correlation, not causation, between creativity and mental health issues, cautioning against drawing broad conclusions. The post concludes that while IP attorneys may encounter complex personalities, the relationship between creativity and madness remains nuanced.
Creativity forms the foundation of intellectual property and intellectual property law. The latter has no existence in the absence of the former. Intellectual property attorneys earn their professional livelihood from creators and inventors, and one of the distinctive joys of the profession is the opportunity to work with individuals of exceptional creative ability. That opportunity, while rewarding on most occasions, also brings an IP practitioner into contact with personalities that can be very difficult to manage.
A study carried out by King’s College, London found that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder share genetic roots with creativity. Drawing on data from approximately eighty-six thousand creative individuals belonging to the national artistic societies of actors, dancers, musicians, visual artists, and writers in a Nordic country, the study found that the risk of psychological disorders was considerably higher among creative individuals than in the general population. For the purposes of the study, a creative person was defined as someone who takes novel approaches requiring cognitive processes that differ from prevailing modes of thought or expression. The study posits that, given certain biological and environmental circumstances, a creative person has a statistically higher probability of developing a psychological disorder. Earlier research had suggested a similar correlation: that individuals with psychiatric conditions manifest higher creativity, and that highly creative individuals have a greater likelihood of psychiatric difficulty.
The study has practical implications for intellectual property practice. One of the primary indicators of an IP attorney’s performance today is the ability to manage relationships with creators and inventors effectively. The King’s College findings do not establish that all creators have psychological disorders or are in any sense impaired; they simply identify a statistical correlation between creativity and a predisposition to certain conditions. Increased neural activity may correlate with increased neural dysfunction. News coverage that drew stronger conclusions was not supported by the study itself.
The appropriate response for IP practitioners is not alarm but awareness. Understanding the particular stresses and vulnerabilities that may accompany exceptional creative ability is part of the professional competence required to serve inventors and creators well.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.