If you want to annoy a scientist, show them a movie that gets the little details wrong—like the fact that sound doesn’t travel in a vacuum, or biologists always have a box of Kim Wipes within arms-reach.

If you want to annoy anyone else, put them in the same room with the scientist!

Scientists love to pick apart the poor depiction of science in movies and TV programs—I know, I’ve been there.  It’s irritating, it suggests someone in authority who needs a crash course in scientific reality, and it raises very real fears that audiences will come away with warped ideas of what science is all about…

And as a result, scientists as a species tend to have a religious zeal for converting scriptwriters, producers and directors in Big Media to using literal depictions of science that would make a Creationist proud.

I bring this up because I decided to attend a session on science in the media at this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago.  The session—“You Ought To Be In Pictures: Science as Entertainment in Movies and Television”—attracted a large crowd.  But while many of attendees were clearly reveling in the camaraderie of scientists versus the rest of the world, I left with something of an uneasy feeling about the whole enterprise.

Let me try and explain.  I don’t mind a bit of harmless science snobbery when it comes to entertainment.  I’m excited that real scientists are consulting with scriptwriters and directors to make sure the depiction of science is at least plausible.  And, to be honest, if Hollywood called to ask me for advice, I would be off like a shot.

But what worries me is a push for realism that threatens to undermine people’s understanding of science through misplaced trust.

I suspect that few people seriously base their understanding of science and scientists on blockbuster movies—it’s generally accepted that these are works of fiction, that bend reality to tell a story.  What happens though when you begin to inject science-literalism into movies and TV shows, and let people know that what they are seeing is close to the truth?  You end up building trust within the audience—they begin believing that what they see is a literal rather than figurative representation of what science is about and how it works—which is great when the science is spot on.  But really bad when it deviates even slightly from reality.

This gets to the nub of my concern.  Once the audience trusts what they see, they will be fully justified in believing everything—because what this new science literalism does not teach is critical thinking.  And as a result, even the smallest inaccuracies—the speed with which science progresses, the complexity of the discovery process, the limits of information recovery from data—become a betrayal of that trust.

In effect, you get a CSI effect that extends to all of science—not just forensic science.

The answer—I suspect—is to think critically about the role of science in entertainment.  Unless someone can point me to clear evidence to the contrary, I don’t think it’s a good idea to use it as an educational tool.  On the other hand, I do believe everyone benefits where the thoughtful input of a science consultant adds to the plausibility and internal consistency of a movie or show.  And the idea of enthusing people about science and thinking more broadly and critically about their surroundings thrills me.

At the end of the day, entertainment is not science, and should not be seen as something to hijack for science education.  Using science to tell a story, convey a perspective or explore an issue is great—it should be encouraged.  And using entertainment to communicate science also has its place.

But science-evangelism?  Knock on someone else’s door—please!

Footnotes

I should add that while the AAAS session prompted these ruminations, a number of the speakers did seem to have their heads screwed on—and were clearly enjoying their work with shows like The Big Bang Theory and Numb3rs.  Jonathan Gitlin covers the session comprehensively here.

Both the National Science Foundation and the National Academies of Science have programs linking scientists with professionals in the entertainment industry.  Details on the National Academies Science and Entertainment Exchange can be found here.

And I should add that, while I really enjoy scientifically inaccurate and implausible movies—if the story and characters are strong—I’m longing for the day when someone makes a really good science movie!  I guess I’m still a science-snob at heart!