Conclusion Design is an extensive discipline that has uses in many different areas for the sciences. Currently, it is primarily utilized in the final stages of the scientific process, where the conclusion of a study or experiment of ideas needs to be communicated clearly and concisely. Design was intended for this purpose and does it well. As a designer, one of the personal challenges that I faced was my own education in the predominant notion that design should operate in one particular way, a way that Edward Tufte points out in his books regarding graphical integrity. In The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Tufte states, Graphical excellence begins with telling the truth about the data. [15] This principle has merit and provides a strong foundation from which design can operate. However, it is short-sighted because it does not leave room for the other ways that design can function. With accessible programming platforms, designers can visualize data through a flexibility of forms that enable new ways of visually engaging with data. As such, design can be utilized by scientists at a different end of the scientific process, where it can help to discover the ideas to be articulated. It is not the job of design to diagnose or take the place of science. Rather, working in tandem with the science, design becomes an ideal means for exploration, analysis, and discovery. Witnessing and partaking in the synthesis between disciplines deepened my own appreciation and respect for design. One of my own personal discoveries was to attest to how design would expose what might have been previously unknown or taken for granted. Each of the volumes reveal insight, attitude, knowledge, social context, critique, interest, beliefs, and even history about the subject at hand. They become pondering pieces, where art, science, and history can mingle and merge. My personal delight has been to see how pieces from neurographica provide the opportunity for viewers to engage with science in a way that moves beyond the anesthetized presentation of objective fact to make room for imagination, observation, reflection, and supposition. Equally important was the process of designing neurographica. A large percentage of the work that was created for neurographica could be viewed as utter aesthetic disaster. And yet, I am deeply gratified in recounting or exposing them because they, too, are a part of design that does not get as much limelight as what they contribute towards, the final form. They act as markers for the thought process. Working in a discipline where our merits depend ultimately on the aesthetic quality of what is finally delivered, it was not easy to feel comfortable working with visual materials that might not fit standards of "beauty" or good design. My own reliance on appeasing the eye versus the process of design was exposed several times throughout this process. If anything, resisting the "bad" and the "ugly" had the tendency to propel me quickly past evaluating or exploring beyond the visual expression that has materialized for the moment. And yet I discovered that those very moments, when design was stripped down to its barest and basest were the moments when the design could be reacted to, evaluated, and explored for new potential. This, I found, is the inherent paradox in our discipline, where at its least, it is its most. This is also the apex of where design can be combined with science, where its function is equally valued and appreciated in figure and form*. neurographica seeks to acknowledge these very principles and ideas. It is a body of work that extends design as a bridge between disciplines.