Introduction: Beauty, a scientific challenge?"Appearance rules the world". Friedrich Schiller .The question of beauty reality and truth was raised by the Journal "Nature" in a few articles (Supplements in vol. 526, October 2015). It indeed may well surprise laymen, as mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, biologists, geneticists…are commonly perceived as gatekeepers of objectivity and accuracy. As the latter terms hardly apply to beauty, attempting to give it a clear-cut definition, under authoritative statements, comes utopic for many reasons.Even if beauty is real and influent, its definition remains puzzling. At first, the very term beauty applies in common conversations to a wide range of very different elements (a human face, a baby, a landscape, and an animal, a vegetal...). Second, its roots are much anchored within ethnic cultures, history, fashions…and its perception is thought dictated by a central region of the brain (amygdala), i.e. the epicentre of "aesthetic brains". 1 In brief, the perception of beauty, anchored within the human conscience, undoubtedly strives emotions. However, beauty may own an objective part, according to physicist D Deutsch 2 who takes the beauty of flowers as his favourite example: these are attractive to insects (the objective part/pollination) and humans (their subjective part) through shape, colour, and fragrances. 2 The standards of this beauty objective part are subjected to permanent improvements, like in science. The "beautiful" Newton theory was a first standard that was further enclosed and enlarged by another "beautiful" Einstein theory, like two successive Russian dolls. In both cases of beauty and science, standards' improvements tend to reach an objective truth.