[A note from your AWOL blogger: I got stuck with jury duty last week, plus, I am supposed to be working on the new book, ergo, blogging has been a bit infrequent of late. As penance, here's another monster post on a subject near and dear to my heart.]
For those with zero interest in the first presidential debate, Friday night's network lineup included a re-airing by CBS of its brand-new series The Mentalist. Like Phil Plait, who raved about it over at Bad Astronomy, I think this show is easily the most promising of fall's network debutantes, precisely because it overtly espouses what one might call the "rationalist mindset" -- and it does so via an especially dreamy (and sympathetic) mouthpiece: Aussie actor Simon Baker, who stars as Patrick Jane (a.k.a., "McSleuthy"), a former stage psychic turned police detective. (Jen-Luc Piquant sez: *swoon!*)
The pilot makes no bones about the fact that Jane's past "career" of "speaking to the dead" was a scam. He's just very observant and adept at reading people via their mannerisms, personal photographs and so forth, and was able to leverage this skill into a convincing act. He was pretty darned successful, too, until he made the mistake of insulting a serial killer during a TV appearance; the killer took revenge by murdering Jane's wife and daughter. Jane quit the psychic gig and became a detective, as well as a fervent antagonist of his former profession. And now he's the anti-Ghost Whisperer. 
In one telling exchange, he coolly tells a gullible young policewoman who asks how he reacts when he meets "real" psychics, "There are no such things as psychics." She persists, arguing that her own sister has "the gift" and has been "right" about things she couldn't possibly have known. He counters by pointing out the combined phenomenon of selective memory and wishful thinking: people tend to remember the "right" guesses and forget the wrong ones, thereby shoring up their propensity to believe in psychic phenomena. Cognitive psychologists call this confirmation bias. It's a very real phenomenon, but you're certainly not going to hear about it on The Ghost Whisperer.
That makes The Mentalist a refreshing departure from what used to be the usual prime time fare. I use the past tense because The Mentalist isn't the only show on network and cable television that unapologetically espouses a pro-science rationalist worldview. My inner geek thrills to a mix of science, compelling narrative, strong characters, and good writing; there are so many series now with these elements that said inner geek is positively intoxicated by the sumptuous feast laid out before her: the C.S.I. franchise ("follow the evidence"), House, Bones, Numb3rs -- and those are just the ones with the best ratings.
Here's why I think this is significant. Networks aren't altruistic; they're out to make money by appealing broadly to their viewers (not that there's anything wrong with that), and the kinds of shows, therefore, that become breakout hits reflect the preferences of the general public. The fact that so many successful science-themed shows are resonating with viewers is an encouraging sign that there is a significant fraction of folks out there who are interested in science and at least willing to listen to a rationalist viewpoint. Science is not only perceived as marketable -- it is perceived as cool and hip. I won't go so far as to call this a cultural paradigm shift, but as someone who cares deeply about science, culture, and communication, I find the current trend heartening.
The USA Network, for example, offers Psych, a light-hearted comedic version of The Mentalist, in which a young, brash private detective passes himself off as a psychic to help the police solve cases -- using many of the same powers of observation and "tricks" employed by Patrick Jane. (The premise is that he does this to get around the legal technicality of not having a PI license.) Psych strategically airs new episodes during network "off seasons," when much TV fare consists of reruns, which has helped it garner a healthy audience -- plus, it's a terrific, entertaining show.
Hearts and Minds
Most of the other prime time science-y series are rolling out their season premieres. Bones was first out of the gate a couple of weeks ago with a two-hour episode that found Booth and Brennan in Merry Olde England, on the heels of an explosive finale in May in which a major character turned out to be in league with a serial killer. This surprising development played into one of the show's central themes: the search for balance between head and heart, thinking and feeling, brain and brawn, personified in the various cast members. For instance, Booth evolves from sneering at the "squints" and their academic, cloistered view of the world, to appreciating their expertise and single-minded devotion to uncovering the facts -- even if it means accepting that one of their own is the guilty party. Brennan, for her part, started out as a coldly analytical scientist who squelched her emotions (although not her sex drive), learning through her collaboration with Booth to cut less-brilliant folks a little slack, and that it's actually okay to be human and just a little bit vulnerable.
In that sense, Bones follows in the footsteps of C.S.I., whose main character, Gil Grissom, constantly exhorts his team to "follow the evidence," put their emotions aside and rationally assess the facts of the case. But even Grissom has had to face the head/heart conflict, first by letting down his walls to fall in love with team member Sarah Sidle, and -- in the explosive season finale -- by losing a beloved team member. The season premiere promises to be a doozy as everyone deals with the fallout from the shooting death of a major character. [I am trying very hard to avoid major spoilers, although the truth is out there on the Internets for those who wish to know more details.]
Monday night was the season premiere of last year's breakout sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, which proved to be something of a lightning rod for controversy when it debuted last year, at least within the physics community. (My own take in Symmetry magazine can be found here.) Normally, scientists content themselves with nitpicking various aspects of the science in movies and TV shows, but in this case, the science is largely correct, thanks to the efforts of technical consultant David Saltzberg, a physicist at UCLA. So most of the complaints about TBBT have been of the "negative stereotype" variety.
As I've said before, such criticisms might have an element of truth but they are entirely missing the point: these characters appeal to viewers. They are likable just the way they are, and that is a Good Thing for Physics. If the goal is to make physicists feel good about themselves, then okay, maybe this isn't the best approach. But if the goal is make physics and physicists more palatable to the general public and win their hearts and minds, these characters are fantastic ambassadors. I vote for the latter.
Granted, the pilot episode painted the characters with the broadest possible strokes, but as I predicted, those characters have evolved into far more complex versions. It's no longer just about the nerdy physicist Leonard longing for the unobtainable pretty blonde, Penny. Turns out she might not be unobtainable. In Season 1, they became friends, as they learned to look past appearances, their own stereotypes, and the inevitable culture clashes. And in the season premiere, Penny and Leonard go on their first official date, with disastrous results. (C'mon, there's a long-standing tradition in TV to drag out the romantic suspense.)
They are now grappling with the unavoidable gaps in their respective educations, in an interesting role reversal from the first season. Penny confides in Sheldon (of all people) that she feels insecure about not even graduating from community college, worried that Leonard will grow bored with her because he's always dated women with PhDs. Once he finds out, Leonard blows it by handing her a brochure for college classes, thereby reinforcing this impression -- when he's really only trying to help address the issue. It's an entirely believable point of contention, and I'll be interested to see how it plays out.
Ambivalence Abounds
I was a hard-core fan of The X-Files, but I have mixed feelings about FOX's new series, Fringe. On the one hand, it's got a couple of great characters, most notably Walter Bishop, a brilliant scientist whose unethical (more accurately, criminal) experiments landed him in the loony bin for 15 years. He has a delightfully loony, macabre sense of humor, which balances out the sometimes over-heated plot lines. Much of the "science" goes well beyond speculative and slips into the realm of the silly and implausible, but this is the prerogative of science fiction, so one can't criticize that overmuch. On the other hand, it could be argued (and has been) that the best science fiction is speculative but doesn't cross that critical boundary. Furthermore, for all his charm, Bishop is literally a "mad scientist," and several of the plots thus far have involved the fallout from his earlier research -- he's kind of cleaning up his own mess.
Among the converts to the show are the irreverent folks at io9; a recent post listed four reasons why they think it is the "most reassuring show," at least when it comes to science fiction on television. Reason #1: "Everything weird can be explained away," with science, no less. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's a convincing explanation. I was especially struck by Reason #2, which I suspect cuts to the core of my ambivalence about Fringe:
Science is Magic and Can Do Anything. Need to see the last thing a dead person saw before they died? Need to psychically project your own mind into a coma victim's? ... It's all possible, with science! Yes, science can make the dead walk again (literally, as long as you do it within six hours) and fulfill all of your wildest ambitions.... So now there's quite definitely nothing that we can't do if we just put our minds to it."
Uh, no. That is not what science is about; it's what science fiction is about. I love both, but let's not confuse the two. By all means, confess your love for Fringe; we all have our guilty TV pleasures. I recently confessed my affection for the highly uneven, yet strangely compelling short-lived series Witchblade (about as supernatural and non-scienc-y as you can get, and more than a little silly at times), and I wrote a whole book about physics in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. But I would never claim that science is like "magic."
Fringe isn't anti-science, but it's not pro-science either. It's far more ambivalent, and thus potentially more interesting, depending on how the show develops. I definitely don't find it "reassuring." A prior io9 post described the science depicted therein as "out of control and scary." In fact, writer/producer Jeff Pinker is on record saying that he thinks science "doesn't seem to have a goal anymore." Of the kind of research being done today, Pinker observes, "Some of it seems to be morally good and some of it seems to be morally a little bit careless. But anything that we can imagine be it good or bad, seems like the real world is already two steps ahead of our imagination." I'm reserving judgment on Fringe -- it has yet to win me over -- but the scientific community should be paying attention to Pinker's sentiments. I suspect they reflect the mixed feelings of lots of other people when it comes to the brave new world of science.
The World is not Magic
The io9 folks applaud Fringe for being the antithesis to Lost: "removing paranoia and showing that there's no such thing as a magical time-traveling island anyway.... After all, House can't do it all alone." Say what? Comparing Fringe to House? (Quoth Jen-Luc, that faux-gallic hothead: "Oh, no, they didn't!") Look, Fringe has its way-out-there sci-fi charms, and House is a clearing house for the most bizarre, rare medical conditions imaginable, but the two are apples and oranges in terms of their worldviews. A more apt comparison would be with Eureka: it has the same near-term futuristic, "Ooh, isn't science kooky and kinda scary" vibe to it -- and the same charming flashes of dark humor. (The Website Notcot has an amusing interview via Twitter with S.A.R.A.H., the "smart house" on Eureka, in which S.A.R.A.H. dishes on the selection of beers on her premises.)
House has far more in common with The Mentalist than with Fringe. In fact, it could be argued that Patrick Jane exists because Gregory House proved such a popular, compelling character -- despite being an unhappy, embittered atheist who likes to manipulate people and pops way too much Vicodin than is good for him. This understandably bothers some atheists, but as with The Big Bang Theory and physicists, if the audience doesn't love the character, the show simply doesn't work. Audiences love Greg House, precisely because he's so nastily outspoken, saying and doing things we often fantasize about ourselves (except in the real world, he would be so fired). Which means there are plenty of folks out there for whom his stark rationalism resonates.
One of my favorite episodes is "You Don't Want to Know," when a magician's heart stops mid-performance for no apparent reason, and he ends up under House's curmudgeonly care. House's first theory is the magician faked his illness because he's a hack who botched the trick. The magician counters by performing a trick House can't explain (even though he dabbles in a bit of sleight of hand himself, we discover).
The magician refuses to explain how he did it: "Oh, if I explain it becomes mundane, and you lose the actual magic." This prompts a typical House observation: "Magic is cool. Actual magic is oxymoronic. Might not even be oxy..." The magician claims that the fun is not knowing; for House, the fun is in knowing. He demonstrates by making a series of astute observations about the patient's diet, dental care, and sleep habits, then explains how he deduced these facts. "That was way cooler before you explained it," says the magician. "It was meaningless until I explained it," House retorts. The magician explains, "People come to my shows because they want a sense of wonder. They want to experience something that they can't explain." But once again, House isn't buying it: "If the wonder's gone when the truth is known, there never was any wonder." Now that's a fantastic exchange that cuts to the heart of the Great Divide between scientific thinking and wanting the world to be magic.
Culture Clash
At least Fringe and its creators aren't openly hostile to science, unlike rising Hollywood player Mark Millar (Wanted and Kick-Ass), who recently penned the following screed on his message board, calling for a "jihad" on those involved with the Large Hadron Collider:
Am I the only person who thinks God Particle, possible Black Hole on the French/Swiss Border, Recreating the Big Bang, etc. are all phrases I only want to read in New Gods? ... These freaks genuinely risk ending the world!!! And for what? To see how the universe might have begun? Who gives a fuck? ... Get outta here, egg-head! I don't care about dark matter, dark energy or even other dimensions. Best-case scenario is we're sucked into a black hole, every atom in our body screaming as we die in a nanosecond. ... Europeans creep me out, but none more so than Euro-SCIENTISTS. I declare a Jihad on all these boffins who risk reality in the name of their curiosity. No wonder Pol Pot killed everyone with glasses.
I hope Mr. Millar managed to wipe all the spittle off his monitor after that sadly uninformed, xenophobic rant -- and then went back on his meds. He's pretty much Exhibit A for why we need some sort of long-term cultural exchange program between the scientific community and Hollywood. Granted, Millar and his ilk are a lost cause -- you can't reach out to teh crazy, they'll bite your hand off and then claim you attacked them first -- but I think the creators of Fringe, for example, would benefit from interacting with the real-world scientists who are actually conducting this "scary" research they find so interesting and yet unnerving. We fear the unfamiliar, so obviously, one of the best ways to allay people's fears is to better acquaint them with how science is actually done. And the Fringe guys could return the favor by enlightening scientists to how TV shows are actually made. Much of the criticism leveled at how science is depicted in Hollywood is a bit off the mark because scientists have no clue about the inner workings of television, or the criteria for what makes a hit series.
When I invited Saltzberg and TV writer David Grae to the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara for a workshop on science in Hollywood (streaming video is here), one of the most illuminating moments for the assembled scientists came when Grae laid out the standard framework for a one-hour TV drama. Metaphorical light bulbs went off all over the room: "Oh, there's an underlying theory!" Like physicists, TV writers have their models, and their work has to fit within those boundaries. For his part, Grae was enthralled by the KITP atmosphere of open inquiry, and excitedly took a picture with his cell phone when he saw two physicists arguing vehemently and scribbling equations on a chalkboard: "Oh my god, they really do that!" See? We need more cultural exchange.
For Saltzberg and his pals at The Big Bang Theory, it really is like a cultural exchange. Saltzberg brings a visitor to the set every week during taping of a new episode -- he calls it "the geek of the week." The Spousal Unit and I were featured geeky guests last year, and got to hang out with the cast and writers (a fun, creative bunch) afterward. It was a wee bit tentative on all sides, and we didn't all instantly become best friends, but as a first step in bridging the gap between two very different worlds, it served a useful purpose.
Saltzberg also influenced the set and wardrobe staff as the series was being developed, inviting them out to his lab at UCLA so they could see actual scientists working in their native habitat. You'll notice that Leonard mostly dresses like a typical physics grad student (a wee bit exaggerated for comic effect), and there is nary a white lab coat in sight. The wardrobe mistress came back from the visit and told her underlings, "No lab coats! I didn't see a single lab coat while I was there!" Set designers were astonished to find the equipment old and out of date, with researchers blocking laser beams with grubby business cards, and they designed their sets accordingly. As a result, when Leonard asks out female physicist Leslie in the lab one day, it looks far closer to an actual physics lab than one might expect from a TV sitcom. And Leslie is preparing a meal using liquid nitrogen. What grad student hasn't done that, given the chance?
Many scientists I encounter seem to incorrectly think that the scientific details are all that matter. While those are important for lending verisimilitude -- particularly for procedural dramas like C.S.I., Bones, or House -- network television isn't an educational vehicle. Hollywood's purpose is not to teach viewers about science, and TV shows are not documentaries, and should not be held to the same exacting standards -- although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, provided both sides are willing to compromise a little. Good television is ultimately about igniting the imagination with a truly kick ass story. If we can enhance the appreciation of science (and by extension, scientists) in the bargain, so much the better, but that is not the industry objective.
True story: a year ago, I met one of the writers for Bones at Grae's birthday party. He was initially pleased to find that I really was a fan of the show, and not just being polite. (I knew all the characters and plot twists -- a dead giveaway.) But when I mentioned I was a science writer, he suddenly became guarded and defensive: "Yeah, yeah, I know, we take liberties with the science, DNA test results never come back that fast...." I reassured him that I wasn't one of those sorts who compulsively nitpick the writers to death, and he relaxed a little. But the exchange saddened me a little. Here was this very smart, really nice guy who loves his work and finds the scientific elements fascinating. Yet his personal encounters with actual scientists have been unilaterally negative and alienating -- so much so, that he physically recoiled upon first learning about my science writing credentials. That has to change, or the cultural gap will just continue to widen.
Don't Blow Up Your TV
One last point: Scientists (and frankly, academics in general) need to get over their disdain for television. Honestly, I am so bored already with listening to folks insist they "never watch TV," or only watch NOVA (the Discovery Channel is just a bit too populist for them), etc. -- as if this somehow makes them morally superior to the rest of the unwashed lumpenproletariat. In reality, by ignoring such a hugely influential popular medium, you are cutting yourself off from a highly significant aspect of American (and, increasingly, global) culture. And that makes it far more difficult for working scientists to connect with the public at large.
Writing for The Smart Set, Morgan Meis (whom I know through 3 Quarks Daily) offers an apology of sorts to novelist/essayist David Foster Wallace, who recently committed suicide. Meis cites an essay by Wallace called "E Unibus Pluram: Television and US Fiction" (it can be found in the collection A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again), in which the author grapples with his ambivalence towards TV and popular culture. Per Meis:
"Bravely, he begins the essay talking about television. He likes television. Goddamit, we all like television. He will not join the ranks of those who simply dismiss the boob tube as nothing more than that. ... For Wallace, the central problem is not whether television is good or bad. Television, he wants to say, is constitutive of who we are, and that which is constitutive of who we are is beyond simple value judgments -- it has become the necessary ground from which we proceed.
"You can't be a writer, you can't write about how the people around you experience the world, without taking into account that simple but massively important fact. You have to deal with television and other aspects of American popular culture, truly deal with it. And yet, Wallace doesn't want to be reduced to television. He is confused about just how much he should accept it and how much he should reject it. He is trying to find the right balance in the midst of his confusion."
It's okay to be ambivalent about television, provided one doesn't ignore it. It's time for the scientific community to start grappling with that ambivalence and make its peace -- because there has never been a more auspicious time to reach out to the fine folks in Hollywood. Science-themed shows are a hot commodity. Scientific expertise is thus suddenly in demand, provided it's the right kind of expertise: a true collaboration, with no hint of condescension, and mutual respect between the two worlds. It's not an easy thing to achieve, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The long-term benefit of doing so is influencing millions of TV viewers, assuring them, in the words of Gregory House: "Trust me -- it's way cooler to know."
[Comic gakked from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, an excellent site!]
All science today has become Real World silly because populism rules! We are approaching precisely upside down in all things!
Posted by: lfmorgan | September 28, 2008 at 08:39 AM
I gave up on TV some time ago, with the exception of educational channels like NatGeo, History, Discovery, and also oddly enough Fox's Prison Break (it's so utterly ridiculous I'm totally addicted!) But I have read both your review and Phil Plait's of Mentalist, so I guess I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the informative post!
Posted by: GumbyTheCat | September 28, 2008 at 10:25 AM
This is a keeper post for me. I read you religiously but am always too intimidated to comment.
However, this time, there is so much resonance about bridging cultural divides that applies to my own rant cave of professional nursing and it's danger of failing that I at least want to offer a thank you.
Across professions we seem to silo communication, develop a substrata of idiom, context and insider lingo, and we rarely stick our noses out of our silos to sniff the air around us, call out a hello or two and invite others in.
In nursing, the intraprofessional siloing is extreme, given the practice structure as employees, further segregated by shift hours, geographically separated practice units, and even further isolating practice areas which are closed to outsiders due to patient confidentiality and safety issues (OR's, psychiatric units, neonatal, mother infant units, emergency departments, etc.).
Moreover, nursing is viewed by media as not-quite-legitimate, always referenced (in the rare occasions when it is even referenced) as a shadow apprentice helpmeet role three respectful steps behind the all powerful god-physician practicing holy medicine.
So far, no one even wants to know what we do, how we do it and what results from it (demonstrably lower morbidity and mortality rates, independent of medicine).
/rant
Thanks a million for this blog and for your incredible insights and perspective!
Posted by: Annie | September 28, 2008 at 10:44 AM
---Telling anyone how little physics one watches is a sure sign of insecurity, especially when said in preface to some commentary on the "rare" exception ala "I don't watch much TV, but I sure like -whatevershow-." And I'm surprised how often I hear it from other physicists.
---I've watched Fringe. My problem with the show isn't that it breaks any kind of science rules, but one needs a line somewhere to constrain the plot. Otherwise, there's no dramatic tension. It's kind of the same problem with the show Heroes. Certain characters have so much power over spacetime, that for any given plot element, you can just say "Why don't they just go back in time a few minutes earlier?." Back to Fringe, it's just not that great a show. Maybe it's just me, but the characters hold little interest.
---As for TBBT, I agree that it's good and I've little patience with those worried about stereotypes...it's TV and that's what TV does. I'm just worried that the show has..."jumped the shark." Not sure if I'm using that expression correctly, but it's just not clear that there's more to be told. They need something to keep it going...are their positions soft-money? Maybe the funding could dry up, and we could see how they react and see what life is like for so many young physicists. Or they could start teaching....students are so easy to make fun of and I'd be quite ready to watch them deal with students!
Posted by: AngryPhysics | September 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Hey, I like TBBT. Yes, it promotes the nerdy physicist stereotype, but that is perhaps not a bad thing. After all, as you say, the characters are likable. So, perhaps it might motivate people to look past the stereotype that they instantly get when they hear that you are a physics professor. And, besides, the characters do remind me of a number of good friends that I had in graduate school, and my fiancee thinks that I am a lot like one of them, too. If we can't laugh at ourselves, then we are in serious trouble.
Posted by: Astroprof | September 28, 2008 at 01:17 PM
First off, what's with that Mark Millar dude? Holy Christ! What a freak. Yeah I've been watching the Big Bang Theory since it started and I like it. I like the fact that it's pure old school sitcom, with a laugh track and all. And that's the very reason people shouldn't takes its portrayal of its characters so seriously. It's supposed to be over the top. Also I happen to be a surly atheist (well agnostic, but I don't like to get the hopes up of those who would convert me) who takes too many Vicodins (I don't take a lot but I don't need any) and I am fine with that portrayal. Now I've only watched half an episode of Fringe, but I found nothing redeeming about it. I thought a little science would come into play, but it didn't. D-
Posted by: Mike B. | September 28, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Actually The Big Bang Theory doesn't use a laugh track -- it's a live studio audience. I know, I was there, and they kept reminding us to laugh with equal gusto at every take.
Posted by: Sean Carroll | September 28, 2008 at 08:35 PM
I've seen maybe four episodes of House, and I enjoyed them; if I add up all the bits and pieces of CSI that I caught while visiting relatives who own a TV set, I've probably seen the equivalent of one episode; other than that, I have no first-hand data about any of the shows mentioned in this post.
Do I think that not owning a television makes me morally superior? No, life doesn't work that way. It just means that I found most everything in the cable package to fall in the spectrum between dreadful and boring, inclusive. If I'm visiting a friend's place and they have House on DVD, hey, I won't stalk out of the room in anger (I'd probably chip in for pizza). I just won't go out of my way for it, and investing in a giant electronic box definitely counts as going out of my way.
"In reality, by ignoring such a hugely influential popular medium, you are cutting yourself off from a highly significant aspect of American (and, increasingly, global) culture. And that makes it far more difficult for working scientists to connect with the public at large."
Gosh, what would a grumpy atheist like Dr. Gregory House, chewing as much scenery as he does Vicodin, say to that? Maybe something like, "It's not my job to connect with you. I'm here to keep your legs from rotting off."
See, I want to further the public understanding of science, but I'm not going to shoulder the burden of trying every possible trick somebody dreams up for reaching every last individual. That is neither practical nor necessary. Do I have to jam my brain full of Top 40 songs and up-to-the-second celebrity gossip factoids in order to wring out each drop of putative relevance to science communication? Well, if that job is up to me, then we're all screwed. I'm so far behind in swimming the tabloid stream that I'll never catch up. (Live a year in France, where even the magazines in the supermarket cashier aisles are talking about people you've never heard of, and you lose touch.)
Instead of trying to make somebody like me do a job for which he is thoroughly unsuited, let's divide the labour: if you, personally, CAN connect with an audience through references to pop culture I don't have a clue about, you have my blessing. I'll back you up: if you need somebody to fact-check the physics or the science history in your book, my services are available (and I'll trust that you're getting the TV references correct). If you have a question about a TV show's accuracy -- "Hey, can a terrorist really make a nuclear bomb out of common household items like such-and-so?" -- I'll do my best to answer it (and I'll trust that you're describing the episode correctly).
I do like cartoons, though. If anybody knows anybody who wants to make a book like "The Science of Avatar: The Last Airbender", have your people call my people.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 28, 2008 at 09:47 PM
Look, Blake, you're a regular reader of the blog, so you know I don't think everyone should all use the same approach to reach out to the public. So maybe it isn't "your job" to do so, but if you want to KEEP your job, it might be a good idea to try. I think you do that already, playing to your strengths (as outlined in your post), and I'm frankly surprised that you're so defensive on this score, because I wouldn't lump you into the category of scientists I was describing. You're a fellow Gaiman fan, after all. :) But if I had a dollar for every academic (humanities included) who sniffed condescendingly at my mention of anything TV related, I could personally bail out Wall Street. That attitude exists.
So what? That's a valid question. Stripped of excess verbiage above, my argument is this:
1. TV is quite possibly the most powerful communication medium in modern American society.
2. Anyone who is interested in broad communication to the general public ignores TV at their peril.
3. There is an unprecedented demand for science-themed shows right now, and hence a corresponding need for scientists to serve as technical consultants or participate in other efforts to better acquaint Hollywood with what "real" science looks like.
4. This is made more difficult by an enormous cultural gap between the two worlds: there is fear and distrust of science in Hollywood, and often open disdain by scientists towards mainstream TV, which writers and producers naturally find alienating and irksome.
5. We need more exchanges between the two worlds, and a shift in attitude on both sides, or we will lose an excellent opportunity.
Note #2 in particular. I care deeply about broad communication to the general public. Scientists don't have to. But more of them should.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | September 28, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Honestly now, if you think **I** sound "defensive" -- me, the amateur science-fiction writer who was one bureaucratic technicality short of a literature minor -- don't you think a great many scientists much more accomplished than I would feel slapped in the face?
In full seriousness, I find myself in good agreement with almost the entirety of your post. (Discussing the detailed character development in shows I haven't seen is pointless, and if I **had** watched them, we'd probably get off into questions of individual artistic "taste" which are beside the point here.) My issues mostly come down to questions of emphasis, phrasing and practicality.
"Anyone who is interested in broad communication to the general public ignores TV at their peril."
What if one does not "ignore" television, per se, but is simply indifferent to the vast majority of the material flowing through it and -- more importantly -- has no particular aptitude for dealing with it? That's certainly a better description of the fix I'm in. A great many scientists out there probably don't "ignore" television -- they watch this or that of an evening, like the average TV owner -- but don't see anything they personally can do with it, science-wise. You say that scientists should be more willing to work with television producers, as technical consultants and the like, which is a fine idea. However, the number of openings for formal relationships with film and TV studios is most likely quite small. I would like to see a list, or brainstorm the development of a list, of things which scientists lacking those opportunities could do to further the relationship between science and the visual media. What can Jane Q. Physicist do without watching a substantially larger amount of television than she already does (that amount already being limited by the workload of a research scientist)? And how can people who have the savvy which Jane and I lack benefit from the strengths we do have?
If we could pull together a few options which sound interesting and fun, then the science folks who have no particular antipathy to TV might get excited by the prospect and start thinking that the medium could be useful. The grumpy guys who derive their kicks from looking down upon the proles consuming their trashy prolefeed will have to be written off as inaccessible, in any case.
Even within the ivory tower, communication requires collaboration: a textbook might only have one author listed on the cover, but its Acknowledgements page will be brimming over. I don't see why public outreach should be different in this respect.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 29, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Jennifer - this was brilliant, a wonderful way to start the week. I couldn't agree more. I love "The Big Bang Theory" and wince only in painful recognition.
I imagine that you have heard of the "CSI Effect" in regards to jury expectations. (You might be experiencing this first hand!) That is, the belief in a juror's mind that every criminal investigation should involve the kind of high-tech procedures featured on television.
There is a related phenomenon I have encountered in the technical forensics community. I have had Very Important People call up and want to know why we can't extrapolate an undifferentiated blob on a video tape into a crisp unambiguous image of a license plate. I mean, if those folks on TV can do it, why can't we?
Posted by: RD Padouk | September 29, 2008 at 08:08 AM
Ah yes, "TV Science" is very different -- sometimes necessarily so, sometimes not. :) Actually, the tendency of some people to think TV is "real" is an entirely different problem. The show "24", for instance, has proven controversial because young guys training to be "just like Jack" think it's okay to, say, use his "interrogation techniques" and break the law for the greater good. (That might explain why "torture" was so cleverly redefined in the last 8 years.) But the solution is similar: poeple exposed more to real science and a rationalist way of thinking are better able to draw the line between fantasy and reality.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | September 29, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Interesting post, but alas, I gave up on TV a long time ago. Books are so much better! I did enjoy Numb3rs (hey, look, I'm not showing my age, I did the 3 for e thing!) and have been amused at "Big Bang" when I see it.
My only television seems to be "Good Eats" and whatever my daughter is watching in the morning (usually Pokemon and Bakugan, talk about "bad science"!)
Posted by: Fred Kiesche | September 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Books are awesome, I agree.:) But see, you're open to catching some new shows, which is all anyone has to do.... I would never suggest anybody has to be something they are not -- we all just need to be open and willing to move outside our habitual comfort zones occasionally.
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | September 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I was hired to write a classroom video series for a certain well-known educational media company a couple years back. The series was intended to be six 5-minute videos designed to introduce high school students to the basics of Quantum Theory in a fun, hip, funny way. I came into it knowing none of the science, actually had to learn it for the series, and I found myself constantly butting heads with the actual scientists who had final say over the project. There would be a line or a visual gag used to illustrate one of the more complex facets, to give just a general 5-second glimpse of what the science said (quick for instance, showing a nuclear blast flashing out of a black body to catch a scientist on fire)... but the line and visual would always get changed, the joke stripped out, the funny analogy changed to something that more accurately and precisely mirrored the scientific mechanics of the point (a diagram of black body radiation for the above example). In effect it turned the video into just another boring classroom video - perhaps 100% scientifically accurate, yet so boring and unengaging that students ultimately zoned out and retained none of what they watched.
It drove me crazy to no end how there could be no sacrificing of certain minutae of specific facts in order to ensure the broader points would be understood and retained. The project ended up getting killed anyway when the company was restructured, so the series never got completed, but I think the project illustrated that inherent disconnect between media folk and science folk. One wants to make sure the story is told and remembered while the other wants to hold scienfic integrity to the highest standard no matter what.
Posted by: Brian Hodges | September 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Wow, Brian, that sums it up very nicely. I've definitely had those experiences, too. It's really, really hard to be both entertaining and 100% accurate. The biggest problem with the focus on the minutiae is that, for scientists, this IS the simplified version. They don't always understand that the average viewer needs to learn the most basic broad concepts first before they even begin to MAKE distinctions. You can't close the knowledge gap in a 30-minute lecture. You have to break things down into baby steps and gradually move folks to higher and higher levels....
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | September 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I have high hopes for The Mentalist, too, but Fringe? When they went off on that Foxian "See? Torture works!" bit they lost me. (Which is kind of too bad, because Walter Bishop looked like he might be fun...)
Posted by: The Ridger | September 29, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Not to be condescending about TV, but when mine broke, I didn't get it fixed.
When you really, really don't watch TV (never had more than 5 channels growing up, which attenuated to two, then zero. Went to a University that didn't provide cable to the dorms. No working TV feed now), you realize that watching TV is actually a learned skill. TV shows are actually horribly uncomfortable to watch, most of them. Sitcoms are the worst, I feel so embarrassed for the people on them that I think I ought to look away, like you would for someone whose pants fell down in public.
Although there is a condescending bit to the "academic" attitude towards television, you have to learn & maintain the skill of watching it, and a lot of academics probably don't "get" TV, in the same sort of way that your parents probably didn't "get" your music.
Posted by: MPL | October 03, 2008 at 05:41 PM