SCIENCE + CINEMA
SCIF1004
XXXXXXX
zXXXXXX
Word Count : 1888
Supporting Statement
I have written a magazine article that is targeted at the wider public,
specifically those with a non-scientific background. Therefore, I have
used a colloquial style of expression to make the article accessible
and engaging. Through the article I aim to inform the average
person about problematic representations of science in the cinema.
I hope to encourage the broader public to be critical of what they are
viewing, rather than taking Hollywood’s portrayals of science as the
absolute truth.
1
Hello. I’m a scientist in a movie. I dress like I’m stuck in the 70’s and wear
dorky glasses. I have no social
skills and people respond to
anything I say with “Um, English
please”. All my experiments in-
volve bubbling blue and red
liquids in beakers and I am an
expert (with equal knowledge)
in mathematics, physics, biolo-
gy, chemistry and psychology.
A recent twitter trend has seen
scientifically minded people re-
volting against the portrayal of
scientists in films, posting sa-
tirical hypothetical scenarios
starting with “Hello. I’m a scien-
tist in a movie…” (Neill, 2019).
Although I must confess that I
spent over an hour chuckling
at dozens of such posts, this
trend has opened my eyes to
how detached screenwriters
are from the scientific world.
Science is based in fact and
truth, whereas films (even many
documentaries) are based in il-
lusion (Weingart, 2003). Due
to this inherent conflict, films
should not be the primary basis
upon which society develops
its scientific awareness. How-
ever, very few real scientists
are well known to the average
person. I challenged my friend
(with no substantial scientific
background) to name as many
scientists she could think of in
20 seconds. She only came up
with Albert Einstein, Stephen
Hawking and “Neil deGra – that
guy”. It is, therefore, not hard
to see how highly accessible
representations of science in
pop culture may be overly in-
fluential in shaping the broader
public’s perception of science.
So, what images of science is
Hollywood putting out there?
Portrayals of science in film
vary greatly. Some films strong-
ly caution against a rapidly de-
veloping scientific field. Others
are rife with scientific inaccura-
cies. However, once in a blue
moon, we are blessed with a
film that provides a complex
and balanced view which more
strongly accords with the reality
of the scientific sphere. Why is
this so rare? Well, the point of
fictional cinema is not to devise
accurate or educational materi-
als, but rather to concoct imag-
es of science that are entertain-
ing and profitable (Kirby, 2003).
Perhaps portraying scientists as
they actually are – careful, me-
thodical and exercising incredi-
ble foresight – would be boring
(Neill, 2019). Perhaps it is eas-
ier for filmmakers to fall back
on culturally embedded stereo-
types of mad scientists working
in their basements, resembling
something more like Doc Brown
from Back to the Future (1985).
LIGHTS! CAMERA! SCIENCE!
BY XXXX
2
The Cautionary Tale
The ‘cautionary tale’ is a fre-quently used template for
representing science in the
cinema. Such films can pro-
vide a compelling and effective
means of spreading import-
ant messages. We have seen
this in An Inconvenient Truth
(2006) which follows Al Gore’s
quest to educate the world on
the disastrous implications of
climate change. It cannot be
disputed that Gore was well-in-
formed and the film was a real
wake-up call. Yet, we more of-
ten see films using this tem-
plate to deliver an excessively
negative and imbalanced per-
spective on scientific themes.
The field of genetics has re-
ceived a particularly bad rap.
Ever since Shelley’s Franken-
stein (1818), there has been a
public distrust in the artificialisa-
tion of humans which has been
reinforced, time and again.
Blade Runner (1982) predicted
that humans will bioengineer
artificial beings (replicants),
solely to be exploited as slaves.
Tyrell, the scientist who created
Doc Brown in Back to the Future (1985) is a classic example of the
‘mad scientist’ stereotype.
the replicants, is depicted as
power-hungry and short-sight-
ed. Similarly, GATTACA (1997)
also cautions that genetic en-
gineering may revive unethical
notions of eugenics, creating
a world rampant with genetic
discrimination. The audience is
encouraged to relate to the pro-
tagonist, Vincent, as he rebels
against the hardships inflicted
upon him by the scientific world.
It is no wonder that the bulk of
society views genetic scientists
as tampering with the sancti-
ty of the natural human form.
In reality, genome editing tech-
nology such as CRISPR-Cas9 is
being developed as a means of
preventing inheritable diseases
such as cystic fibrosis and hae-
mophilia (Genetics Home Ref-
erence, 2020). Moreover, ge-
netic modification of stem cells
could soon allow us to grow
transplantable tissues and or-
gans to treat disease (Bethes-
da, 2016). However, Hollywood
appears to neglect the promis-
ing medical applications, con-
tinuing to condemn science
as a force of evil. This has left
public mistrust in science at an
all-time high (Gauchat, 2012).
On the other hand, ‘cautionary
tales’ often hold some reason-
able concerns. For example,
lack of regulation could see
genome editing being used for
cosmetic purposes and GATTA-
CA may become all too real. We
might find ourselves in the age
of ‘designer babies’, triggering
a genetic class system based
on who can afford the tech-
nology (Ball, 2018). Although
‘cautionary tales’ provide imbal-
anced and arbitrarily negative
portrayals of science, they can
be excused as they often hold
thought-provoking messages.
Scientific Accuracy
What cannot be excused,however, are the count-
less films that get the science
embarrassingly wrong and as
a result, decrease the public’s
scientific literacy (Bucchi &
3
Trench, 2014). We regularly see
impossibilities like the forensic
scientist who can instrumentally
analyse evidence in mere sec-
onds and conclusively identify
the murderer and what they had
for breakfast this morning. We
see the medicinal chemist who
develops a miraculous cure to a
deadly virus in 24 hours by mix-
ing random chemicals togeth-
er and saves the world. These
films spread false perceptions
of reality and misinformation.
Some argue that films are a
form of entertainment and have
no duty towards reality (Ruth-
erford, 2010). The Guardian’s
Adam Rutherford states that
“if we strive towards realism in
cinema, much wonderful fiction
is swept into a bin of nerdish
snorting. The Shining? Gone,
because ghosts don’t exist…”.
Rutherford further asserts that
most people are smart enough
to realise that science in the cin-
ema approaches the realm of
fantasy. To this I say, there is no
problem with films which openly
and unmistakeably defy reality
– It would be ridiculous to call
for Spider-Man to be banned
based on the biological impos-
sibility for a spider to transfer its
abilities to a human. The prob-
lem lies with films which pur-
port to comment on scientific
themes, promoting themselves
as such, but are rife with absur-
dities. People may leave such
films with a genuinely skewed
understanding of the science
involved. This happens all too
frequently when Hollywood at-
tempts to merge climate change
and fiction (I won’t even both-
er talking about 2012 (2009)).
A prime example is The Day
After Tomorrow (2004) which
grossed over $500 million
worldwide, misleading a size-
able audience (Needham,
2017). The film exploited rap-
idly growing fears surrounding
climate change and predicted
some environmental catastro-
phes that could result. Although
the film correctly identified the
mechanism behind the North
Atlantic Current and predicted
the collapse of the Larson B Ice
Shelf, this was where the sci-
entific legitimacy stopped. The
film went on to show 100 metre
storm surges engulfing the Stat-
ue of Liberty and atmospher-
ic temperatures decreasing
at 10 degrees Fahrenheit per
second. Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt
recalls that “there’s a scene
where an atmospheric hurri-
cane freezes everybody solid
in ten seconds, would that hap-
pen? No, it’s laughably stupid,
and when it’s laughably stupid
nobody gains from that” (Need-
ham, 2017). Yet, since the film
focused on a very real scientific
issues, people potentially went
home genuinely fearing that a
new ice age was imminent. In
a time when it is crucial for so-
ciety to be well-educated on the
threat of climate change, there
are lasting impacts of this. Ulti-
mately, it is the ordinary person
“there’s a scene where an atmospheric
hurricane freezes everybody solid in ten
seconds. It’s laughably stupid and nobody
gains from that.”
Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
4
who elects policy makers and
thus, misinformation may well
find its way into climate policy.
Scientific consultants have
been employed more and more
frequently to combat inaccura-
cy in films. For his role in Out-
break (1995), Dustin Hoffman
worked extensively with epi-
demiologist, Donald Francis,
to gain an essence of what
the profession entailed (Kir-
by, 2003). This was evident in
Hoffman’s balanced and rea-
sonable portrayal of a scientist
in the film. However, in other
cases, filmmakers may “con-
jure science” and subsequently
borrow the scientific authority
of consultants to claim that their
films have a legitimate scien-
tific foundation (Kirby, 2003).
When Hollywood Gets It
Right
Cautionary tales and appall-ing inaccuracies are proba-
bly what we see most regularly
when Hollywood attempts to put
science under the microscope.
But if the stars align, we may be
blessed with a well-researched,
balanced and complex explo-
ration of science. These rare
films challenge the misguided
belief that realistic representa-
tions of science are not enter-
taining enough for the cinema.
Most notably we see this in
films about space travel. Why?
Films tend to feed upon cultur-
ally embedded values. Whilst
not masking the dangers of it,
it has been drilled into us that
by travelling into space we are
shattering the limits of human-
kind. This is a rather balanced
perspective that films inevitably
adopt. We see these values ex-
emplified in John F. Kennedy’s
‘Race for Space’ speech, ex-
claiming that “we choose to go
to the moon in this decade and
do other things, not because
they are easy, but because
they are hard...” (Wall, 2012).
Inspiring, isn’t it? Even after
the tragic demise of the astro-
nauts in the Challenger which
exploded 73 seconds after
take-off, US President Ronald
Reagan delivered an uplifting
address – “we’ll continue our
quest in space… Nothing ends
here; our hopes and our jour-
neys continue” (NASA, 2007).
Hollywood has monopolised
upon these sentiments and pro-
duced space films that evoke
feelings of inspiration, solidarity
and patriotism (if you’re Ameri-
can). For example, in stark con-
trast to the ‘mad scientist’ trope,
the astronauts in Apollo 13
(1995) were depicted as coura-
geous heroes who worked to-
gether and made it back home
against all odds. Even the
NASA engineers on the ground
were depicted as working tire-
lessly to get the crew home –
“if they don’t get to sleep, nei-
ther do I”. The commitment to
realism even extended to film-
ing in Florida’s actual Kennedy
Space Centre (Kirby, 2003).
The Martian (2015) is also ex-
tremely impressive. Despite be-
ing purely fictional, it delivers an
accurate and balanced portray-
al of space travel. Veering away
from damaging stereotypes of
scientists, astronaut and bot-
anist, Mark Watney, is shown
to exercise incredible creativity
and innovation. Equipped with
his knowledge of chemistry and
botany, he synthesises his own
“we choose to go to the moon in this decade
and do other things, not because they are easy,
but because they are hard...”
John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the USA
5
water and grows food to keep
himself alive on Mars. The film
also showcases the resilience
and unity of Watney, his crew,
and the engineers on the ground
who fight to bring him home.
It is admirable how Ridley Scott
does not trivialise the inher-
ent perils of venturing where
no human has gone before. I
mean the whole premise of the
film was Watney being hit and
wounded by debris during a vi-
olent storm on Mars, causing
him to be left behind by his crew
as they evacuated. Additionally,
beneath the space suit, Wat-
ney had a remarkable sense
of humour but also underwent
periods of intense frustration as
we all do. The sheer humanity
of his character subverts harsh
stereotypes of scientists in cin-
ema. Ultimately, aerospace
engineer, Dr Robert Zubrin
(2015), named it “the first mov-
ie that attempts to be realistic
and that is actually about hu-
man beings grappling with the
problems of exploring Mars…
it does not engage in fantasy”.
Overall, the defamatory nature
of Hollywood upon the scien-
tific sphere is clear. The next
logical question is “what can
we do about it?”. Regulating
films has been the most com-
monly suggested solution. How-
ever, this might be viewed as
censorship, increasing distrust
in the scientific community. Per-
sonally, I would argue that it is
up to us, as viewers, to be crit-
ical about what we watch. After
all, filmmakers are only answer-
able to their audiences. It is up
to us to keep them accountable.
“The Martian is the first movie that attempts to be realistic and that is
actually about human beings grappling with the problems of exploring
Mars ”
Dr. Robert Zubrin, Aersospace Engineer
6
REFERENCES
Ball, P 2018, Super-smart designer babies could be on offer soon. But is that ethical?, The Guardian, accessed 1
February 2020, lection-intelligence>
Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health 2016, Stem Cell Basics VII., U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, accessed 1 February 2020,
Bucchi, M & Trench, B 2014, Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology, 2nd ed,
Routledge, Abdington.
Gauchat, G 2012, ‘Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States,
1974 to 2010’, American Sociological Review 77(2), 167-187.
Genetics Home Reference 2020, What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9?, U.S. National Library of Medi-
cine, accessed 1 February 2020,
Kirby, DA 2003, ‘Scientists on the set: science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction’,
Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 12:3 pp 261-278.
NASA 2007, President Reagan’s remarks following the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger and her crew, accessed
4 February 2020
Needham, J 2017, In a post-truth world, science films keep messing up science big time, Wired, accessed 3 Feb-
ruary 2020, < https://www.wired.co.uk/article/science-movies-climate-change-facts-accuracy>
Neill, US 2019, Hollywood’s Portrayals of Science and Scientists Are Ridiculous, Scientific American, accessed 2
February 2020, tists-are-ridiculous/>
Rutherford, A 2010, Lights! Camera! Scientific accuracy?, The Guardian, accessed 2 February 2020, < https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/22/scientific-accuracy-hollywood-blockbuster>
Wall, M 2012, JFK’s ‘Moon Speech’ Still Resonates 50 Years Later, space.com, accessed 4 February 2020, < https://
www.space.com/17547-jfk-moon-speech-50years-anniversary.html>
Weingart, P 2003, ‘Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: science and scientists in fiction film’, Public Under-
standing of Science, Vol. 12:3 pp 279-287.
Zubrin, R 2015, How scientifically accurate is The Martian?, The Guardian, accessed 4 February 2020, www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/06/how-scientifically-accurate-is-the-martian>
7
Images
Apollo 13 (1995) [Image], accessed 5 February 2020. Available at: lo-13/>
Back to the Future (1985) [Image], accessed 5 February 2020. Available at: the-future/>
Genetic Modification Artist’s Impression, 2018 [Image], accessed 5 February 2020. Available at: design.com/genetic-modification-ethical-decision-making/>
Ohman, W 2020, Blade Runner Fan Art [Image], accessed 5 February 2020. Available at: tion.com/projects/qW5aN?album_id=1247600>
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) [Image], accessed 5 February 2020. Available at: com/the-day-after-tomorrow-2004-20272>
The Martian (2015) [Image], accessed 5 February 2020. Available at: ment/archive/2015/10/the-martian-wild-west/409519/>