From Sheril Kirshenbaum‘s blog, The Culture of Science.
Popular Mechanics has a nice article by David Kushner about the portrayal of science in Hollywood. It’s a topic I’m extremely interested in because the scientists that appear on film and television inform a great deal of public opinion about who we are and what we do.
In Unscientific America, Chris Mooney and I devoted an entire chapter to this topic called “Hollywood and the Mad Scientists.” We described how most Americans cannot even name a living scientists and do not know one personally. And unfortunately, on the big screen, they are most often freaks, geeks, or villains.
Kushner does a good job with the subject, outlining where we’ve made strides and why science doesn’t always win at the movies–which can at times be the fault of the science community. Biomedical engineer Malcolm MacIver is quoted describing the way that some scientists do not respect filmmakers, while some filmmakers find scientists difficult to hard to work with.
I’m also included in the article:
Most scientists are willing to advise not only because it allows them to be gate-keepers of their disciplines, but because they want to be portrayed accurately on-screen. “It’s rare that you have a relatable character,” says Sheril Kirshenbaum, a research associate at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin. That’s why James Cameron created Avatar’s xenobotanist, Grace. “Scientists are usually shown as geeks or losers or evil,” he says. “I wanted to celebrate the mind and the passion of a scientist.”
Hollywood is about entertainment and not everything onscreen needs to be completely plausible. That said, when science is portrayed well and motivated by realistic goals and interests, everyone wins.
Go read the entire piece..
