Tag Archives: Matthew C. Nisbet

Science and scientists in the movies and on tv

Leave a reply

I find it easy to miss how much science there is in the movies and on television even though I’m looking for it. Here are a few recent examples of science in popular culture.

Inside Science of Iron Man 2, an article by Emilie Lorditch on physorg.com explains some of the background work needed to create a giant particle accelerator with a new way to power the reactor pumping Iron Man’s heart. From the article,

“I went to Marvel Studios to meet with one of the film’s producers (Jeremy Latcham) and even brought a graduate student along,” said Mark Wise, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena who served as a technical consultant for the film. “There was a specific set of scenes that I was consulting on; the story had to get from this point to that point.”

Wise was surprised by Latcham’s and the film crew’s interest in the actual science, “I attempted to present the science in a way to the help the movie, but still get a little science in,” said Wise. “They wanted the scenes to look good, but they also wanted elements of truth in what they did, it was nice.”

The producers for the film found their scientist through The Science and Entertainment Exchange (which is a program of the US National Academy of Sciences). From Lorditch’s article,

“Scientists can offer more than just simple fact-checking of scripts,” said Jennifer Ouellette, director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange. “Get them involved early enough in the production process and their input can be invaluable in developing not just the fundamental scientific concepts underlying a scene, but also — since film and TV are a visual mediums — scientists can help filmmakers more fully realize their visions on screen.”

I have blogged before about Hollywood’s relationship with science here although my focus was largely on mathematics and the Canadian scene.

Dave Bruggeman at the Pasco Phronesis blog regularly highlights science items on television. Much of his focus is on late night tv and interviews with scientists. (The first time I saw one of his posts I was gobsmacked in the best way possible since I’d taken the science element of these talk show interviews for granted.) There’s another Pasco Phronesis posting today about the latest Colbert Report and a series Colbert calls, Science Cat Fight.

All of this is interesting fodder for thinking about how scientists (and by extension science) are perceived and Matthew C. Nisbet at the Framing Science blog has some interesting things to say about this in his posting ‘Reconsidering the Image of Scientists in Film & Television‘,

Contrary to conventional wisdom that entertainment media portray science and scientists in a negative light, research shows that across time, genre, and medium there is no single prevailing image and that both positive and negative images of scientists and science can be found. More recent research even suggests that in contemporary entertainment media, scientists are portrayed in an almost exclusively positive light and often as heroes.

Nisbet goes on to offer four ‘archetypes’ and ask for feedback, (Note: I have removed some of the text from these descriptions.)

Scientists as Dr. Frankenstein: …  Examples of this image include Gregory Peck as Dr. Mengele in Boys from Brazil, Marlon Brando as Dr. Moreau in The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Jeff Goldblum as the scientist in The Fly.Scientists as powerless pawns: … Examples include Robert Duvall as Dr. Griffin Weir in the 6th Day and several of the scientists in Jurassic Park who work for Richard Attenborough’s character John Hammond, CEO of InGen.

Scientists as eccentric and anti-social geeks: … Examples of this image include Christopher Loyd as Doc in Back to the Future, the nerdy boys in John Hughes 1985 film Weird Science who use science to create the perfect woman, and Val Kilmer and his fellow grad students in the 1985 film Real Genius who serve as graduate students to a professor who is determined to master a Star Wars-like satellite technology. [my addition: The characters in The Big Bang Theory.]

Scientists as Hero: …  Examples include Dr. Alan Grant as the main protagonist in Jurassic Park, Spock in the new version of Star Trek who takes on leading man and action hero qualities to rival Captain Kirk, Jody Foster’s character in Contact, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Avatar, Denis Quaid as the climate scientist hero in The Day After Tomorrow, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the geologist hero in 2012, Morgan Freeman in the Batman films as inventor Lucious Fox and CEO of Wayne Industries, and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in the Iron Man films.

Serendipitously, I’ve returned to where I started: Iron Man. As for all this science in the media, I think it’s a testament to its ubiquity in our lives.

Public opinion doesn’t shake easily; Wilson talk on Artificial Intelligence

Leave a reply

Over on the Framing Science blog, Matthew C. Nisbet has posted about the impact that ClimateGate has not had on public opinion about climate change. From the post,

The full report [by Jon Krosnick, professor at Stanford University, on most recent public opinion poll about cljmate change and ClimateGate] should be read, but below I feature several key conclusions. Despite alarm over the presumed impact of ClimateGate, Krosnick’s  analysis reveals very little influence for this event. More research is likely to come on this issue and this is just the first systematic analysis to be released.

Yet there is an even more interesting question emerging here than the impact of ClimateGate on public opinion: If communication researchers have difficulty discerning a meaningful impact for ClimateGate, why do so many scientists and advocates continue to misread public opinion on climate change and to misunderstand the influence of the news media? As I argue below, an additional object of study in this case should be the factors shaping the perceptions of scientists and advocates.

—>Krosnick’s analysis estimates that the percentage of Americans who believe in global warming has only dropped 5% since 2008 and that ClimateGate has had no meaningful impact on trust in climate scientists which stands at 70% (essentially the same as the 68% level in 2008).

A 5% drop isn’t to be sneezed at but taken into perspective it is predictable and, assuming these are ‘good’ figures, then in the short term, there has not been an appreciable impact. Makes sense, doesn’t it? After all, most people don’t change their opinions that easily. Oh they might have a crisis of confidence or a momentary hysterical response (I confess) but most of our opinions about important issues tend to persist over time and in the face of contradictory evidence.

Nisbet’s post makes reference to some other work, this time on scientists’ ideologies (liberal or conservative [not the Canadian political parties]) done by the Pew Research Center and released in July 2009. (Nisbet’s comments on ideology and scientists here and the Pew Research Center study here) Intriguingly, there’s a larger percentage of scientists (50%) self-identified as liberal than members of the general public (20%).

According to work published shortly after and mentioned on this blog here in a comment about the public’s focus on the benefits of nanotechnology while scientists focus on risks and economic value, by Elizabeth Corley (Arizona State University), this difference in focus may have something to do with ideology,  from the news release,

Decision-makers often rely on the input of scientists when setting policies on nanotechnology because of the high degree of scientific uncertainty – and the lack of data – about its risks, Corley says.

“This difference in the way nanoscientists and the public think about regulations is important for policymakers (to take into consideration) if they are planning to include both groups in the policymaking process for nanotechnology,” says Corley.

The study also reveals an interesting divide within the group of nanoscientists. Economically conservative scientists were less likely to support regulations, while economically liberal scientists were more likely to do so.

This suggests that a more nuanced approach to measuring public perception may be emerging despite  the rather disappointing meta analysis by Dr. Terre Satterfield of public perceptions about nanotechnology benefits and risks (mentioned on this blog here).

On a completely other note, I recently attended a lecture/presentation by Elizabeth Wilson, professor of Women’s Studies at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia, US) given at the Green College at the University of British Columbia about artificial intelligence circa the early 1960s, titled, “Extravagance of affect:; How to build an artificial mind. I’m not sure who this lecture was aimed at. While I was deeply thankful for her detailed explanations of basic concepts, presumably people in the field of Women’s Studies wouldn’t have needed so much explanation.  Conversely, her presentation had some gaps where she jumped over things which you can only do if your audience is well versed on the topic.

I haven’t seen much about emotions and artificial intelligence prior to this talk so maybe Wilson is forging into new territory and over time will get better at presenting her material to audiences who are not familiar with her specialty. In the meantime, I’m not sure what to make of her work.

Later this week, I’m hoping to be publishing an interview with Peter Julian the NDP member of Parliament (Canada) who recently tabled a member’s bill on nanotechnology.