People in the humanities often seem to be allergic to the sciences. There are brilliant students who, in spite of their impressive knowledge of 13th century Polish agricultural economics or the battle tactics used by the Assyrians against Hittites in the Battle of Nihriya, cannot tell you the difference between translation and transcription, or what the three laws of thermodynamics are.

Not that scientists don’t also show an ignorance of the humanities—there are some scientists who know almost nothing beyond their field. But for the most part it is the scientists who learn history and literature, and the arts that let sciences get on with their thing. And this is partly due to the volume of information which prevents any one individual from being knowledgeable in many fields. However not all individuals stick to that dichotomy. There are polymaths out there, such as Jared Diamond or Joseph Needham, who have achieved great work in sciences and humanities.

But those polymaths aren’t the subject of this article. Instead, it is those whose public careers seem to have nothing to do with the sciences, yet who studied science at university. When you begin looking, there are a number of surprising literary intellectuals, who could also be described as scientists.

Perhaps the most surprising of these is Christ Church’s W.H. Auden. Yes, the poet who wrote: “The automobile, the aeroplane / Are useful gadgets, but profane” wanted nothing but to be an engineer as a teenager. He came to Oxford on a scholarship for the degree I am studying, biology. Sadly for biology, Auden had already fallen in love with words, and in his second year switched to English. Auden was barely a scientist—he took a year of biology at the university level. But he kept his love of science, his luddite views notwithstanding, and of the natural world, which occasionally, very briefly, leaps into his poetry.

Trotsky isn’t often thought of as a literary intellectual, but his book Literature and Revolution is still considered one of the foundational texts of Marxist literary criticism. And even most of Trotsky’s political works, on the theory and practice of Marxism, falls squarely within what C.P. Snow would have called the literary camp of the two cultures. Yet Trotsky himself had no formal training in history or literature, Instead, he was a mathematician, and not a bad one either. His biographer, Isaac Deutscher, said Trotsky was the brightest in his course on pure mathematics in the University of Odessa, and one of his classmates after the revolution thought he could have been one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century had he not been a revolutionary. Trotsky never became a great mathematician, but the rigour of mathematics stayed with him his whole life. Even in his most abstract works of politics you can see a mathematician’s rigorous mind at work, trying to make everything correct and consistent.

Vladimir Nabokov is the most scientific of these three figures. Before gaining notoriety for writing Lolita, Nabokov was curator of Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. Nabokov described a number of new species of Lepidoptera, and was renowned worldwide as the leading expert on Polyommatini. Ironically though, this most scientific of the literary intellectuals had the least scientific influence on his written work. Though he wrote Lolita on the evenings of his butterfly collecting expeditions, he never let the insects influence the romance of Humbert Humbert and Lolita. Instead the same personality drove both works: the emphasis on the particular which is essential for a taxonomist is what made Nabokov a great novelist, with a taste for particularities in words.

Science is not literature, and literature is not science: the two cultures will be entrenched for awhile to come. But sometimes, individuals, who in their work may be firmly in one camp, can straddle the divide as individuals. Auden the biologist, Trotsky the mathematician and Nabokov the entomologist show how one can start off a scientist and end up a novelist, poet or political theorist of the first degree. So remember that next time you’re in a pub complaining how scientists are boring—you may be talking to a poet or historian in the making.

In the midst of a presidential election that has at best been like a Charlie Brookeresque farce, what better way to reconcile yourself to the imminent degeneration of US politics than through satire? I’ll be examining the best election-themed comedies to get you in the mood for the dystopic reality that will descend upon us on Tuesday.

An obvious place to start is Dave, a 1993 comedy about a look-alike for the president who is forced to stand in as his double after a stroke takes the president out just before a big conference. Although the politics are slightly hazy and the romantic sub-plot a tad predictable, its lighthearted presentation of an every-day guy being given the most powerful office in the world is hopeful and cheery, the perfect antithesis to the sad reality of the rise of Trump. With a 93 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and several cameos from senators and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dave is the perfect film if you want a nostalgic view of politics in which being friendly is more important than any understanding of how to run a government.

For a slightly less rose-tinted depiction of the world of politics, In the Loop is solid. A spin-off from long-running satire The Thick Of It, In The Loop combines the biting satire of the original TV show with the ambition of the film industry, shifting focus from the workings of Westminster to a darkly comic portrayal of the politics surrounding the invasion of Iraq. While the comedy is perhaps slightly more obvious than the TV show, the central plot, a strained US/UK relationship, characterised by miscommunication, is as relevant as ever, packing a punch while prefaced as dark comedy. Oh, and it also contains some top notch swearing from Peter Capaldi, if any further convincing was needed.

For a more direct focus on the canvassing and public side of the election, The Campaign is a refreshing 2012 film about a North Carolina senator whose campaign for a fifth consecutive term is challenged by a local tour guide and comparative nobody. The focus of the film is on the varying PR tactics used by the two opposing sides, including smear campaigns that involve Al-Qaeda, the release of a sex tape, and an incident of punching a baby. The humour may be base, but Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis are convincing as the rival statesmen, and sometimes a bit of slapstick comedy is what you need to distract from the fact that the legitimate presidential candidates for 2016 wouldn’t seem out of place in this farce.

My final pick is the 2004 cult classic Napoleon Dynamite, the story of a nerdy high school kid campaigning to get his best friend elected Class President. Although not technically about the presidential election, the stereotypical high school dynamic acts as a microcosm for wider scale US politics, and so this quirky film is a good bet. Shot on a budget of less than $400,000—the main actor, Jon Heder, was originally paid only $1,000—the film was picked up by Fox at the Sundance Film Festival and went on to win various Teen Choice awards, so as an option for a night in you’re very much in safe hands with this one.

It leaves me to say only “enjoy”, and let’s all hope that, whatever happens, America makes the sensible decision.