Riding the wave:
Science fiction
media fandom and informal science education
Moira O'Keeffe, Bellarmine University
Abstract
Popular entertainment media about
scientists can inspire interest in real-world science. This has led science
communicators to develop books, television shows, and traveling exhibits that
tie informal science education to works of fiction, framing their tools as “the
real science” of fictional universes. Scientists and science writers
involved in these projects argue that science fiction, in particular,
creates a sense of wonder that can fuel the desire to learn more about the
world and even inspire people to pursue a science career. Science fiction
does not have to present realistic science in order to be used for informal science
education, but science communicators should define the separation between
real-world and fantastic science. This paper examines a book and two
documentaries that attempted to portray the "real science of" the
television series Doctor Who and analyzes how these works establish credibility
for both the science and entertainment content, as well as how aspects of the
fictional world of Doctor Who are
incorporated into the educational content.
Keywords: entertainment,
fandom, media studies, science communication, science fiction
Popular
interest in entertainment media about scientists can, in turn, inspire interest
in real-world science. This interest has led science communicators to create
books, television shows, and traveling exhibits that tie informal science
education to works of fiction, framing them as tools that explore the
"real science of" a fictional universe. Science communicators (i.e.
scientists, science writers, and others involved in presenting science to a
non-expert audience) argue that science fiction, in
particular, creates a sense of wonder that can fuel the desire to
learn more, or even to pursue a science career (O'Keeffe, 2013).
Before going
on to write his own science fiction novel, Contact
(1985), scientist and science popularizer Carl Sagan recalled being
inspired to think about science by the fiction of Edgar Rice Burroughs,
wondering if it would ever "be possible—in fact and not in fancy – to
venture with John Carter to the Kingdom of Helium on the planet Mars" (Sagan,
1980, p.111). Other scientists, including physicists David Brin and Gregory
Benford, have turned to writing science fiction. Brin estimates that 10% of
science fiction writers come to the field with a background in science (N.
Jones, 2010).
In addition to writing science fiction of their
own, scientists who see value in fostering connections between science fiction
and real-world science can do so through media productions. The documentaries
analyzed in this article feature physicists Jim Al-Khalili, Maggie Aderin-Pocock, Brian Cox, and Michio Kaku.
Why would prominent scientists get involved with projects based on fantastical,
make-believe science? It may be because of their own feelings about the
inspiration that science fiction can foster. Kaku recalled his
early consumption of and affection for science fiction: "I was mesmerized
by the possibility of time travel, ray guns, force fields, parallel universes,
and the like. Magic, fantasy, and science fiction were all a gigantic
playground for my imagination" (Kaku, 2008, p. ix). In considering the
potential for commercial space exploration and space tourism, Aderin-Pocock
sees science fiction as a window to possible futures, noting that "science
fiction can become science reality, and really quite quickly" (Maggie Aderin-Pocock goes boldly,
2014, para. 2.). More wondrous concepts from science fiction can also inspire
young scientists. Al-Khalili argues that the concept of time travel, in
particular, is “just the topic to fire the imagination… it provides an ideal opportunity
to introduce some of the ideas behind our most beautiful and fundamental
theories about the nature of space and time” (Al-Khalili, 2003, p. 14).
This
paper will first generally consider research about the portrayal of real-world
science in fictional media, and then focus on three recent productions—one book
and two British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) television specials—that use the
popular and long-lived program Doctor Who as a basis for
informal science education.
Portrayals of Science in Science
Fiction
Much
of the research on how science appears in entertainment media has focused on
how scientists are represented as characters. Research in this article draws on
theories and concepts such as cultivation theory (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan &
Signorielli, 1985), which explores how cultural values are learned through
media exposure, or the role of character
identification on the viewer’s experience (e.g. Steinke, Applegate,
Lapinski, Ryan, and Long, 2012). Researchers have also examined scientist
portrayals in terms of gender (e.g. Flicker, 2003; Jackson, 2011; Kitzinger,
Haran, Chimba & Boyce, 2008; Steinke, 2005) and other demographic
factors such as social class (R. Jones, 1997) or stereotypes about physical
traits such as unkempt hair (e.g. Frayling, 2005).
Many
scientists, science communication scholars, and science educators are concerned
about the potential influence of "bad science" in entertainment media
because they believe inaccuracies presented on-screen can undermine public
science literacy (e.g. Perkowitz, 2007; Szu, Osborne, & Patterson, 2016). Barnett, et al. (2006) suggest that
these concerns are justified; they found that students exposed
to a single viewing of the science fiction disaster film The Core had more misunderstandings of concepts from earth science
than those who did not watch the film. To examine the impact of science fiction
on science education, both scholarly and popular sources have addressed the
extent to which works of fiction convey scientific information accurately (e.g.
Glassy, 1997; Lambourne, Shallis, & Shortland, 1990; Rogers, 2007). Is the
information presented accurate when scientific principles are explained, when
tests are conducted, when a scientific theory is used as the basis for saving
(or destroying) the world? Do futuristic technologies represented on-screen
operate according to the known laws of physics? Very often, the answer to these
questions is no.
To
address this dilemma, some scientists have chosen to involve themselves in the
process of media production by serving as science consultants on films and
television shows. Interview-based research has explored the work of science
consultants in Hollywood (e.g. Frank, 2003; Kirby, 2003), providing another
perspective on the relationship between fictional and real-world scientists. By
trying to help filmmakers get the facts right, scientists who work as
science consultants may hope to influence public opinion or educate viewers.
Kirby found that many science consultants "felt it was their 'duty' [...]
to impart knowledge to an uneducated public" (2003, p. 266).
While
science consultants are concerned with accuracy in how science is communicated
to the public, some educators take a broader view, arguing that fictional media
do not have to feature accurate science in order to be used as educational
tools. Even media with little or no overt science content can be used for
educational purposes. Perales-Palacios and Vilchez-Gonzales (2005) examined the
potential for using cartoons as teaching aids in physics classes and found that
physics lessons based on how physical principles are violated in cartoons
encouraged student motivation, provided a useful basis for analyzing physical
phenomena, and promoted critical thinking. Other scholars have taken the
position that comparing accurate and inaccurate portrayals of science is
valuable in and of itself. Barnett and Kafka argued:
When showing movie scenes, it is
important to expose students to a variety of clips that represent both good and
bad science, and particularly those scenes that attempt to create a scientific
reality that is in contrast to currently accepted scientific beliefs. By
examining a variety of movie scenes, we found that students will be in a better
position to evaluate the scientific validity of science as predicted in film.
(2007, pp. 34-35)
Another
strand of research about science in entertainment media considers not the
accuracy of the scientific content, but its potential to inspire. Michio Kaku’s aforementioned description of his early experiences with
science fiction as a "playground for [his] imagination" (Kaku, 2008,
p. ix) embodies this perspective. In popular sources such as magazines and
websites, it is easy to find anecdotes about role of science fiction in inspiring
scientists to pursue science careers and to tackle particular areas of research
(e.g. Howard, 2014; McLaren, 2013). A few studies exist about such inspiration
at the personal level (e.g. Fleischmann & Templeton, 2009; O'Keeffe,
2013). The European Space Agency (ESA) decided the inspirational nature of
science fiction was worthy of serious study and commissioned a report to
identify science-fictional technologies with important, real-world potential
(European Space Agency, 2001).
While
researchers such as those working with the ESA see value in exploring the
potential found in the implausible ideas of science fiction, scholars with a
traditional approach to science communication that emphasizes the "public
understanding of science" orientation believe appropriate science
communication is intended to foster informed citizenship. These
scholars might consider books or documentaries about the "real
science" of Doctor Who to be
part of a potentially dangerous trend that erodes the distinction between
actual science and fictional science. Barnett and Kafka (2007) developed an
interdisciplinary college course utilizing media clips specifically to counter
the entertainment model that "often creates misunderstandings regarding
the nature of science and leads to a blurring between fact and fiction"
(p. 31). While they acknowledge the potential of science fiction movies to
inspire students, Barnett and Kafka are more concerned about how
realistic-looking special effects and the overall visual appeal of SF films
will encourage students to accept uncritically inaccurate science concepts from
the movies. Nowotny (2005) suggested that "selling science as sexy has
gone too far, amusing as it may be to explain the magic in Harry Potter in
scientific terms […] Sexy communication is not going to be enough to inform
good decision-making" (pp. 1117-1118). Despite these
critiques, science communicators continue to try to harness the broad
appeal of science fiction by using popular media as a tool to increase science
literacy.
Informal Science Learning and Media
Tie-Ins
Broadly,
informal science education is any kind of science education that occurs outside
of a school environment (Stocklmayer,
Rennie, & Gilbert, 2010). Here, I am concerned with informal science
learning that is connected to media consumption. Some of the common components
of informal science education that are relevant in the context of learning
through mediated texts are that it is learning that is not restricted by age,
that takes place outside of a school setting, that is voluntary and
self-directed, and that is not driven by a formal curriculum imposed from the
outside (Stocklmayer, Rennie, & Gilbert, 2010).
There is a
growing awareness among scholars outside of media and film studies that
entertainment media can play a critical role in the development of attitudes
about and interest in the sciences and that more research is needed in this
area. A National Research Council report on informal science learning found
that "representations of science in the popular media have rarely been
studied in the context of learning, yet it seems obvious that most Americans
are more familiar with fictional scientists like Dr. Frankenstein or the
medical staff of ER than recent Nobel laureates" (National
Research Council, 2009, p. 259). Although interest in turning to science fiction and
other forms of entertainment media for science education is positioned as a
recent development, one could argue that the production of educational science
materials based on popular entertainment predates the era of mass media
broadcasting. Arabella Buckley’s 1879 children's book, The Fairy Land of
Science, is one example of
several Victorian-era efforts to expose children to scientific ideas through
fairy tales. These works strove to make science texts both "instructive
and amusing" as part of a "melting pot of facts and fantasy that
brought education and entertainment together" (Keene, 2012; see also
Keene, 2015 for an in-depth look at the genre).
Similarly,
authors of today's media tie-in books aim to educate readers by
utilizing the inspirational qualities of science fiction and the audience's
affection for visual media, as evidenced by a surge in "real science
of" projects that began with Lawrence Krauss's successful The Physics of Star
Trek (1995).
Krauss, a prominent physicist, acknowledged that Trek's popularity is the
reason it may serve as a useful tool for exposing people to physics, but he
implied some frustration at the enthusiasm with which the general public seems
to readily absorb fictional, rather than real, science. At the same time,
Krauss included the show's catch phrases in his book to establish himself as
a Trek "insider"
as well as a respected scientist:
When we consider that the Smithsonian
Institution's exhibition on the starship Enterprise was the most popular
display in their Air and Space Museum—more popular than the real spacecraft
there—I think it is clear that Star Trek is a natural
vehicle for many people's curiosity about the universe. What better context to
introduce some of the more remarkable ideas at the forefront of today's physics
and the threshold of tomorrow's? I hope you find the ride as enjoyable as I
have. Live long and prosper. (1995, p. xvi)
Lawrence
followed The Physics of Star Trek with a sequel, Beyond Star Trek (1997); other authors,
perhaps inspired by Lawrence’s success, also tackled the fictional science
of Twister
(Davidson,
1996), Jurassic
Park (DeSalle
& Lindley, 1997), The X-Files (Cavelos, 1998), CSI (Ramsland, 2001),
and superheroes (Kakalios, 2005).
Such
analyses of fictional science have not been limited to books; there have been a
number of touring science center exhibits related to mass media products as
well. Star Wars: Where Science Meets
Imagination was
developed by The Museum of Science (Boston) and toured from 2006-2014 (Museum of Science, 2016).
Global Experience Specialists’ Harry Potter: The Exhibition began at the
Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago in 2009 and has been booked at other
science centers, as well as non-science venues; most recently the exhibit was
at the Brussels Expo in September 2016 (Global Experience
Specialists, 2016). Jurassic World: The Exhibition developed by Imagine
Exhibitions, Inc., premiered at the Melbourne Museum in March of 2016 and is
scheduled to be at Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute in November of 2017 (Franklin
Institute, 2016).
Credibility
Science
popularization is a broad project that encompasses journalism, websites,
museums, television shows, books, blogs, and films. In classic conceptions of
science communication, it is assumed that the process of popularization
involves the communication of information from "scientists" to
"the public," but this limiting binary reduces the ability of science
communicators and the general public to understand the actual ways that science
operates in culture (Hilgartner, 1990). In contrast, current approaches to
science communication take into account the differing backgrounds, experiences,
and knowledge sets of different publics, allowing for new forms of
collaboration between scientists and the general public, as well as between
scientists and government, scientists and funding institutions, and among
different branches of science (Scheufele, 2013). These collaboratively-based
models of science communication could be expanded to include different
engagements with media texts, including considering how "real science
of" projects fit within the domain of science communication.
What
model of science communication do "real science of" texts follow? These texts tend to make the basic assumption that the
reader lacks scientific knowledge and will be unable to distinguish
fact from fiction in entertainment media. At first blush, these works may
seem to utilize a traditional "deficit model" which assumes science
literacy is the main factor driving the public’s attitudes toward science. In
the deficit model, if science communicators can provide the public with facts,
the public knowledge deficit will be reduced and attitudes towards
science improved. Scholars of science communication have long criticized the
limitations of the deficit model and continue to grapple with its enduring
appeal among scientists, journalists, and the general public
(e.g. Scheufele, 2013; Sturgis & Allum, 2004).
Strict
adherence to the deficit model would emphasize only real science in these
educational media tie-ins and ultimately fail to find any value in the science
fiction source material, thus failing also to inspire the target audience of
these texts. A more appropriate model for conveying information about the
science behind science fiction might be the "contextual model" of
science communication. Brossard and Lewenstein (2010) argued that using the
contextual model acknowledges that people "process information according
to social and psychological schemas that have been shaped by their previous experiences,
cultural context, and personal circumstances" (p. 14) and that media
representations play a role in this process as well.
I
argue that the target audience for works about the "real science" of
fictional television shows is one that is highly interested in the source
material, that this audience is, in large part, constituted by people who are
fans of the material, at least to some degree. If the "real science
of" products are intended to educate fans about true science behind the
media they readily consume, it makes sense to position these educational media
tie-ins as fan-oriented texts. An in-depth discussion of the shifting meaning
of the word "fan" is beyond the scope of this article, but when I say
"fan-oriented", I mean to emphasize the way that the producers of
such texts acknowledge and speak to an active audience that is ready to grapple
with real-world concepts introduced by cherished fictional texts. Jenkins
(2007) emphasized that in an interactive, digital, and convergent media environment,
"fan culture" is becoming an important part of mainstream culture.
Even casual viewers of a television program may visit a website about the show,
comment on a blog, and share or even create a meme based on the show. These are
all "fannish" activities, even when performed by a person who will
never attend a science fiction convention, which some might consider a key
factor in defining one as a “fan”. Treating the "real science of"
products as part of a fan culture is simply an acknowledgment that, for fans,
the science is imbued with greater meaning by being filtered through the
fictional work with which they are already so familiar. By tying the
educational material to a valued text, the potential for both inspiration and
learning may be enhanced.
To
employ the contextual model, and utilize the value of fannish interest in the
work, the science communicators’ strategy needs to include a demonstration that
fans' cultural contexts are understood and valued. To be convincing as a
popular science text, then, these “real science of” products need to establish
credibility regarding both the science and the fiction they address.
Credibility regarding science is established through traditional means—noting
that the author has held scholarly positions, published research or other
popular science texts, and engaged in scientific research. Establishing
legitimacy within context of a fan-oriented text can be trickier.
Throughout The Physics of Star
Trek,
Krauss indicated his knowledge of the lore of Star Trek fandom, thus providing
a successful example of how to establish credibility as a fan without
diminishing credibility as a scientist. In addition to using the phrase
"[l]ive long and prosper" in the book’s introduction, he referred to
fans as "Trekkers" rather than the more widely
known—but sometimes insulting— term "Trekkies". Krauss
cites specific Star Trek episodes by title, demonstrating a broad
knowledge about the show and an understanding that such details matter to his
readership. The credibility of The Physics of Star Trek in both the
world of physics and that of Star Trek fandom is further established by
its forward, which was written by prominent physicist Stephen Hawking.
Hawking's efforts to popularize science have not only made him one of the most
recognizable names in science, but also landed him a cameo role on
"Descent," an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation (Echevarria & Singer, 1993), cementing his place in Star Trek
fan culture. His forward to Krauss's book ended with the inspirational lines,
"[Today's] science fiction is tomorrow's science fact. The physics that
underlies Star
Trek is
surely worth investigating. To confine our attention to terrestrial matters
would be to limit the human spirit" (Krauss, 1995, p. xiii).
Science and Fiction
If
the media product features fantastical science, how is the fictional
narrative incorporated into an educational format? The "real
science of" products must distinguish fact from fiction, while also
drawing meaningful connections between these two realms.
Traveling
exhibits—which are essentially science center-style exhibits with a media
nexus—exemplify the intersection of fictional texts and informal science
learning. These exhibits examine the science related to popular media products
such as Star
Wars,
Indiana Jones, CSI, and Harry Potter. Like
"real science of" books and programs, these exhibits must address how
to incorporate fiction while teaching facts to visitors.
The traveling exhibit Narnia: The Exhibition, produced by Global
Experience Specialists, ran from 2008 to 2012 and offered visitors to science
centers and other venues visitors the chance to learn about science and Narnia
(Global Experience Specialists, 2012).
C.S. Lewis's seven-book fantasy series has enchanted generations of readers
since the publication of the first book in 1950, and recent film adaptations
offered fans new ways to engage with these classic stories. Both the original
books and the movies, however, are firmly rooted in the world of fantasy;
crafting a science center exhibit from the story of Narnia presented a
significant challenge for its designers.
In
a photographic and positive review of Narnia: The Exhibition during its
stop in Louisville, Kentucky, Nash (2011) explained how the designers tried to
connect the individual displays with a broader discourse of science. One
display featured a fossilized bear tooth shown alongside a couple of lines of
paleontological information, including that the fossil was from the Pleistocene
Era and that it had been found in Wyoming's Green River Formation (Nash, 2011,
para. 12). There was also some information about climate science, with
informational signs about the dangers of deforestation and a display about
climate change called "Winter in July." Nevertheless, much of the
exhibit featured costumes, props, and set recreations on display without
apparent educational aims. One exhibit featured a replica ice throne used on
set; in the caption of her photograph of the ice throne, Nash wrote, perhaps
with a touch of humor, "Science tie-in: Real ice palaces do exist"
(2011, para. 11). In short, the science content was unconvincing and the
relationship between the science and the fantasy was thin, lending support to Nowotny's
(2005) concern that attempts to make science “sexy” by emphasizing its
connections to popular media could undermine rather than contribute to science
literacy.
Are
media tie-in exhibits and books which feature science doomed to exist only as
amusing yet shallow attempts to market a "sexy" and potentially
meaningless representation of science? Such a perspective foregrounds the
financial interests behind the books, shows, and exhibits that attempt to link
science education to entertainment media. Narnia: The Exhibition and
similar projects are known as "blockbuster exhibits" intended to draw
large crowds to the science centers at which they are programmed (Lui, 2011).
Some argue that their role in informal science education is not to educate, but
to get patrons in the door, perhaps in the hope that they will view other
exhibits as well (Smithsonian Institution, 2002). Because they need to appeal
to the broadest audience, the blockbuster exhibits do not speak to the fan
community directly. Nevertheless, the Narnia exhibit illustrates some of the
challenges that any "real science of" product could encounter, namely
that it can be difficult to present engaging, real-world science information
while staying true to a fantastic narrative.
To
succeed as both a fan text and a text of science communication, these creations
need to demonstrate an authentic and responsible treatment of both the
fictional and the non-fictional content. The Narnia exhibit made only
tenuous connections between the narrative and the science concepts.
Krauss's “real science of” Star Trek books were
successful because they tapped into the belief fans already held about the
source material: that Star Trek had something
important to say about the future of science and technology, and even that it
has served as inspiration for real-world science (J. Jones, 2005).
Key aspects
of the source material need to be incorporated into the discussion of
real-world science, because they can help authors create an authentic
connection between science and science fiction in an educational context. Such
incorporation does not depend on the accuracy of the science content in the
source material; rather, it must reflect the perspective of the curious viewer
wondering how an interesting aspect of a fictional story compares to real-world
science. In his chapter on Star Trek's transporter
technology, Krauss did not simply mention the existence of the transporter and
call upon broad cultural familiarity with the phrase "Beam me up,
Scotty!" Instead, he turned to the whole canon of Star Trek to examine
whether the transporters move the actual matter of an individual's body, or if
the transporter encodes the person as pure information—a debate Krauss
summarized as "atoms or bits?" (Krauss, 1995 pp. 65-83). Speaking to
his knowledgeable reader, Krauss wrote:
You might wonder why I make this
point, since the Next Generation Technical Manual describes the process
in detail […] [the] transporter […] apparently sends out the matter along with
the information.
The only problem with this picture is
that it is inconsistent with what the transporter sometimes does. On at least
two well-known occasions, the transporter has started with one person and
beamed up two. In the famous classic episode "The Enemy Within" a transporter
malfunction splits Kirk into two different versions of himself, one good and
one evil […] If a transporter carries both the matter stream and the
information signal, this splitting phenomenon is impossible. (Krauss, 1995, pp.
67-68)
Having
established both the contradictions within the fictional universe and his own
familiarity with that universe, Krauss examined transporter technology from the
vantage point of real science, touching on "quantum mechanics, particle
physics, computer science, Einstein's mass-energy relation, and even the
existence of the human soul" (Krauss 1995, p. 83) in the process. The fact
that he ultimately concluded that transporters will remain the stuff of fiction
does not diminish the sincerity of the chapter; what makes this discussion work
is that he dealt with the source material as something worthy of thoughtful
consideration. Rather than dismissing the idea of transporters as an
impossibility, Krauss conducted a systematic consideration of how they would operate, using this thought
experiment to introduce a number of science topics. In this way, he emphasized
the value of fantastical science in the context of informal science education.
"Real Science" and Doctor Who
The
television series Doctor Who has a strong fan base and the show’s
narrative offers great potential for significant science content. Consequently,
there are several “real science of” media tie-ins focused on it.
Produced
by the BBC, Doctor
Who has
an elaborate canon, as its first run occurred between 1963 and 1989, and the
new series has been ongoing since 2005. The show's protagonist is referred to
as "The Doctor"—not, as the series name would indicate, "Doctor
Who." To date, twelve different actors have played the role. The Doctor is
a time-traveling alien from a race called the Time Lords. Like all Time Lords,
The Doctor has the ability to regenerate, taking on a new physical appearance
(and conveniently providing the narrative justification for the casting
changes). The Doctor’s time ship is generally trapped in the shape of a
London police box and is called a Tardis,[1] which stands for
"Time and Relative Dimension in Space." The Tardis is much
larger on the inside than it appears from the outside, leading some to
hypothesize that it is actually a doorway to a wormhole, new dimension, or an
alternative universe.
For each of the "real science" productions,
I will consider the question of credibility—how both scientific authority and
fannish authenticity are established, along with evaluating how science
concepts are integrated with the fictional source material. This analysis
includes one book and two hour-long television specials; comparison across
media formats presents some inherent problems—obviously, the hour-long
television specials have less room to provide detailed scientific explanations
than a 342-page paperback. My purpose is not to compare these texts with
respect to the volume of science-based information; rather, I am interested in
how the producers of these works navigate the tension between fact and fiction
in a genre devoted to explaining one through the lens of the other.
The Science of Doctor
Who (2007)
In
2007, science writer Paul Parsons published an unofficial guidebook to the
science of Doctor
Who.
This book, The Science of Doctor Who, is divided into four main sections
that weave aspects of Doctor Who’s lore—its aliens, its technologies,
and its cosmology—with discussions of relevant, real-world science research.
The first section is "The Doctor in the Tardis," which covers some
fundamental aspects of the show's premise, including the personality and
biology of the alien Doctor and the basics of the Tardis as a time-traveling
machine. The second section, "Aliens of London, and Beyond", features
individual chapters discussing many of the most memorable aliens from the show.
The third section, "Robot Dogs, Psychic Paper and Other Celestial
Toys", covers the technological capabilities and inventions seen
on-screen. The fourth section, "Mission to the Unknown", deals with
the cosmology of Doctor Who. Individual chapters within each of
these sections examine specific elements of the series and analyze the relevant
scientific research those elements evidence. Given that Parson’s book is
"unofficial"—that is, not published by the BBC—its front cover lacks
visual cues that would attract Doctor Who fans and establish its
legitimacy. There are no trademarked images or typefaces, no logo from the show
itself, no image of the Tardis, and no photographs of any of the actors or
recognizable trademarked elements of the show. This could be a barrier to
reaching the book's target market. Instead of trademarked elements, the cover
image of The Science of Doctor Who is an abstract blue design with a
shadowy figure falling toward the design’s center, evoking the falling Tardis
and "wormhole-like" animation that features prominently in the show's
opening credits. The Science of Doctor Who’s cover features
bulleted text identifying some of the topics covered in the book that
(apparently) cannot be pictured: the Daleks, the Tardis, the Time Lords, and
the Doctor's robotic dog, K-9. At the bottom of the cover a quote from Colin
Baker, one of the actors who has played The Doctor in the television series,
vouches for the book’s indispensability. These textual elements help to
anchor the book as a text for fans, despite the missing visual depictions of
key symbols from the show.
The
cover of The Science of Doctor Who also promotes the fact that the
forward was written by science fiction author and science writer Arthur C.
Clarke. Although best known for his science fiction, Clarke published a number
of nonfiction books on space travel and other science topics relevant to
science fiction. As such, his introduction serves to establish the relevancy of
Parsons' book to the intersection of science fiction and science fact. However,
unlike Star
Trek fan
and guest star Stephen Hawking who contributed to Krauss’s The Physics of
Star Trek, Clarke is not interested in Doctor Who. He knew "many
die-hard fans" and noted that "some have gone on to become top
scientific experts in their chosen fields" (Parsons, 2007, p. xi). Rather
than discussing Doctor Who itself,
much of Clarke’s forward to Parson’s book is devoted to the debate about time
travel—whether a time-travel story such as Doctor Who can be classified
as "science fiction" or if it must be relegated to
"fantasy". Clarke takes the latter position: "Science fiction is
something that could happen—but usually you wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is
something that couldn't happen—though often you wish it would" (p. xii).
Yet ultimately, Clarke agrees that a science writer exploring a
"fantasy-based realm" for scientific concepts could be rewarding for
those interested in both science and science fiction.
In
part, Parsons establishes the credibility of The Science of Doctor Who
by referencing Krauss's The Physics of Star Trek. In his own preface,
Parsons explicitly discusses this earlier text by Parsons, hoping that the
reader will "find that [he has] done similar justice to the Doctor Who universe" as
Krauss's did with his treatment of Star Trek. Parsons also outlines
his qualifications as both a science writer and a fan of Doctor Who in the preface,
writing, "I've been a Doctor Who fan since the
early years of Tom Baker, a science writer and journalist since 1996, and a
keen science student and post-grad researcher for almost a decade before
that" (Parsons, 2007, p. xv). By treating all of these credentials as
equally important, Parsons demonstrated his understanding of how the balance of
science and fiction made Krauss's book successful. Parsons also emphasized that
he contacted a variety of scientists as part of his research for The Science
of Doctor Who, and that these scientists contributed information that
appears throughout his text.
The
organization of the book is respectful of both the show and the science. Each
short chapter takes on a concept from the show—either a running theme or an
incident from a specific episode—and describes relevant research on the
topic. The chapter on regeneration, for instance, describes how The Doctor
has been able to defy death through regeneration, then goes on to present
research about the freshwater hydra, a small organism able to repair and regrow
damaged body parts (Parsons, 2007, pp. 47-54). Chapter 16 covers an alien
monster called the Krynoid, a hostile and carnivorous plant. This chapter
includes information on the Venus flytrap, research on "plant
neurobiology" (Parsons, 2007, p. 156), and genetic research into the possibility
of "human-plant hybrids" (p. 159).
Of
the three "real science" of Doctor
Who productions being examined, Parson's book is the one that most
closely follows the deficit model of science communication. Perhaps
because this text does seem to embody the deficit model, this is also the one
of the three examples that explicitly denies doing so. In The Science of
Doctor Who’s conclusion, Parsons writes:
It's probably somewhere around here
too that I'm meant to say something profound about the noble pursuit of science
[…] This book was written first and foremost to entertain, to boost enjoyment
of the show, and to answer questions that it may have raised in the minds of
intelligent fans. I hope I've fulfilled those aims. If I did manage to educate
anyone along the way, I sincerely apologize. (Parsons, 2007, p. 317)
Here,
Parsons denies that the aim of the book is to teach the reader a
little bit of science and offers a tongue-in-cheek apology for doing so
inadvertently. Although the text is successful in presenting a wide range
of real-world science research through the lens of Doctor Who, "entertainment" and "education" are
still presented as forces that may be in conflict, rather than mutually
beneficial elements of the text.
The
Science of Doctor Who (2012).
In
2012, BBC America aired an officially-licensed television special about the
science of Doctor Who (O'Connor, 2012), which, unlike Parsons's
unofficial 2007 book, was able to make extensive use of the BBC’s copyrighted
materials. The one-hour special The Science of Doctor Who features
interviews with actors and other media personalities as well as with
scientists. It is peppered with segments entitled “Let’s Ask the Scientist” as
well as short clips from various Doctor Who episodes. No interviewer is
featured on-screen; the documentary identifies interviewees when they are first
introduced by including their name and job titles on the screen; clips from
their interviews are split up and interspersed throughout the episode. Over the
course of the special, the diverse group of interviewees discusses
science-oriented themes from Doctor Who. When interviewees
mention specific moments from Doctor Who,
short clips from the episodes in question are intercut with the interviews.
This provides a frame of reference for viewers who may not be familiar with or
who may have trouble remembering the specific scenes being invoked. After each
thematic segment, some of the interviewees vote on how likely it is that
the science-fictional theme or technological advance will become reality;
not all interviewees vote after each segment. Represented by Tardis icons at
the bottom of the screen, the votes are presented on a scale of one to five,
with one indicating that that particular advance will be impossible for
humanity to achieve and five indicating that it will definitely occur. Votes
from scientists and non-scientists are weighted equally, ignoring the potential
influences of scientists’ specific disciplines.
The
variety of interviewees includes scientists, actors, comedians, and members of
the show's production staff. By featuring actual snippets of Doctor Who episodes
as well as interviews with a variety of media personalities, The Science of
Doctor Who foregrounds entertainment value over science education. At the
same time, one of the documentary’s interviewees, scientist and science
popularizer Maggie Aderin-Pocock, noted that interest in Doctor Who can lead to
interest in the sciences, proclaiming, "Watching Doctor Who made me the space
scientist that I am today!" (O'Connor, 2012). The other scientists
interviewed in The Science of Doctor Who also articulated their
familiarity with and interest in the series. Nowotny's (2005) concern that
media tie-in products erode the important barrier between science and
non-science can also be observed here in O’Connor’s The Science of Doctor
Who, which makes little effort to privilege the knowledge of scientists
over that of actors and comedians.
Although
this approach may undermine the program's science legitimacy, this style of
presentation—that is, treating the opinions of scientists and non-scientists as
of equal merit—does have an advantage; it suggests that science and difficult
concepts are nothing to fear and they are easily accessible to anyone—scientist
or not—who wants to learn about them. O’Connor’s The Science of Doctor Who presents
viewers with scientists, actors, and producers who are all interested in and
grappling with wild concepts from Doctor Who, which, as the non-scientists
acknowledge, is not an easy thing to do when it comes to concepts such as
understanding space-time.
The Science of Doctor
Who with Brian Cox (2013)
The Christmastime special The Science of Doctor Who with Brian
Cox (Cohen
& Harrison-Hansley, 2013) features a lecture by well-known physicist and
science popularizer Brian Cox, delivered before a live audience at the Royal Institution of Great
Britain (RI). The RI was founded in 1799 and is known for supporting
public engagement with science through a variety of initiatives, including a
Christmas lecture series (founded in 1825); these public lectures are intended
to present a scientific topic to a general audience, with special attention
paid to young people (Royal Institution of Great Britain, n.d.).
Cox
introduces his talk by discussing the RI Christmas lecture of 1860, Michael
Faraday’s "The Chemical History of the Candle." Cox is speaking at
the Royal Institution during the holiday season; by drawing on the history the
Christmas lecture and its role in science popularization, Cox establishes
credibility for his own lecture. He says, "This building, this lecture
theatre, has a past that is inextricably bound up with our present and our
future. Not only through the great discoveries that have shaped our scientific
civilisation, but also through the countless generations of children and adults
alike who've been inspired, by lectures given in this theatre, to explore
nature and to find new worlds to conquer" (Cohen &
Harrison-Hansley, 2013).
Cox's summary
of Faraday's lecture itself also establishes a narrative structure for his
presentation. Cox admits that if he had access to a working time machine, he
would like to visit the RI in 1860 so he could see Faraday's lecture in person;
he returns to this fantastical goal several times to illustrate various
concepts, such as the speed of light and the geometry of spacetime.
As
in the 2012 television special, this BBC-produced program intersperses
scientific information with fictional content about Doctor Who. In a creative twist,
however, this program does not use existing clips from the show. Rather, The
Science of Doctor Who with Brian Cox features a series of scripted
scenes that show conversations between Cox and the 11th Doctor (played by Matt
Smith). The two men banter in the Tardis, discussing matters of time travel and
space exploration, and the Doctor invites Cox to take the position of his
assistant. Thus, Cox's legitimacy to speak on matters related to Doctor Who is not based on childhood
fandom or any particular knowledge of the show; Cox is given approval within
the fictional universe by The Doctor himself. Through these scenes, a fictional
"Brian Cox" character is created, one who can visit with the Doctor
and travel with him. Suddenly, Brian Cox is not merely explaining the science
of Doctor
Who—he
may be the closest thing that we have to a real Time Lord, or at least a
companion.
Unlike the
more casual discussion of time travel that appeared in O’Connor’s The
Science of Doctor Who (2012), Cox’s content is more narrowly
focused on the physics necessary to discuss the possibility of time travel.
This refined scope allows Cox to undertake a more in-depth presentation of the
science behind time travel, and because Cox is giving an actual lecture before
a live audience, there is no pretense that this program is not meant to be
educational. However, the educational orientation of the television special
does not necessitate the rejection of the science-fictional elements. The
detailed explanations of scientific ideas are interspersed with the scripted,
fantastical scenes from inside the Tardis and, in closing, Cox moves the
lecture itself explicitly into the area of speculative science:
Could we design some configuration of
matter and energy that would curve the light cones around, so I could get back
into my own past? The answer is: We don't know. But nobody has been able to
prove that it cannot exist, at least in principle--although most experts
believe that it must in some way be forbidden. But there's still the faintest
possibility, given the laws of physics as we understand them today, that
someone, someday, maybe a young girl, a young boy, will be inspired to try. And
even if they fail, by the very act of trying they might just go on to change
the world. (Cohen & Harrison-Hansley, 2013)
Cox
provides a clear distinction between known science and speculation; he is also
explicit about his goal of inspiring children to investigate the wonders of the
universe. In Cox's model of the relationship between science fiction and
science communication, science fiction can provide the sense of awe and wonder
that can inspire young people to reach for the stars.
Conclusion
This
paper has employed analysis of three “the real science of” media tie-ins to the
Doctor Who franchise to suggest that there are several elements that
science communicators should consider in developing or evaluating projects such
as these, namely the needs: to clearly delineate between fact and fiction; to
establish the credibility of science communicators; to create an authentic
product; and to carefully evaluate methods of science communication prior to
undertaking them. The demarcation between science and non-science should be
clear. Impossible or wildly improbable science should be labeled as such and
then explained with careful attention to the fictional world. Individuals
interviewed or quoted in media tie-ins should be clearly identified by name and
their credentials as science communicators established. This will allow the
audience the chance to evaluate critically the contributions of each
participant, and this itself is an important element of science literacy. Media
tie-ins—be they books, lectures, or exhibits—must take an authentic,
respectful, and thorough approach to the examined work’s world of science and
its fictional universe. Authors and producers of “real science of” media
tie-ins should consider the models of science communication they
ultimately employ, so that decisions regarding how to incorporate science facts
into a fictional narrative are made with clarity.
Scholars
of science communication should continue to consider fictional entertainment
media, particularly science fiction, as one venue for science communication
alongside the more commonly-studied science journalism. Just as a newspaper
article cannot be evaluated with the same criteria as a textbook, “real science
of” media tie-ins constitute a unique form of science communication that must
be considered on its own terms. These efforts
demonstrate that looking at science through the lens science fiction could
provide useful tools for science communicators who aim to promote to science
literacy and the popularization of science. The inspirational influence of
science fiction is a powerful tool for public science communication.
References
Al-Khalili, J. (2003). Time travel:
Separating science fact from science fiction. Physics Education,
38(1), 14-19.
Barnett,
M. & Kafka, A. (2007). Using science fiction movie scenes to support
critical analysis of
science. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 36(4), 31-35.
Barnett, M.,
Wagner, H., Gatling, A., Anderson, J., Houle, M., Kafka, A. (2006). The impact
of
science
fiction film on student understanding of science. Journal of Science
Education
and
Technology, 15(2),
179-191.
Brossard,
D. & Lewenstein, B.V. (2010). A critical appraisal of models of public
understanding of
science: Using practice to inform
theory. In L. Kahlor & P.A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating
science: New agendas in communication (pp.11-39). New
York: Routledge.
Buckley,
A. (1888). The fairy-land of science. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company.
Cavelos,
J. (1998). The
science of The
X-Files. New York: Berkeley Trade.
Cohen,
A. & Harrison-Hansley, M. (Producers) & Cox, B. (Director).
(2013). The
science of Doctor
Who with Brian Cox [Television
special]. England: BBC Two.
Davidson,
K. (1996). Twister: The science of tornadoes and the
making of an adventure movie.
New York: Pocket.
DeSalle,
R. & Lindley, D. (1997). The science of Jurassic Park and The Lost World.
New York:
HarperPerennial.
Echevarria,
R. (Writer) & Singer, A. (1993). Descent [Television series episode]. In R.
Berman
(Executive producer), Star trek: The next generation. Los
Angeles: Paramount Television.
European
Space Agency. (2001). Innovative technologies from science
fiction for space
applications. Retrieved from http://www.esa.int/esapub/br/br176/br176.pdf
Fleischmann,
K. R. & Templeton, T. C. (2009). Past futures and technoscientific
innovation: The
mutual shaping of science fiction and
science fact. Proceedings of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology.
Flicker,
E. (2003). Between brains and breasts--women scientists in fiction film: On the
marginalization and sexualization of
scientific competence. Public Understanding of
Science, 12(3), 307-318.
Frank,
S. (2003). Reel reality: Science consultants in Hollywood. Science as Culture, 12(4), 427-
443.
Franklin
Institute. (2016). Jurassic World: The exhibition. Retrieved from
https://www.fi.edu/exhibit/jurassic-world
Frayling,
C. (2005). Mad,
bad and dangerous? The scientist and the cinema. London: Reaktion.
Gerbner,
G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1985). Television
entertainment and
viewers' conceptions of science. Report from The
Annenberg School of Communication,
University of Pennsylvania, Cultural
Indicators Project.
Glassy,
M. C. (1997). The biology of science fiction cinema. Jefferson: McFarland
& Company.
Global
Experience Specialists. (2012). Narnia: The exhibition. Retrieved from:
http://www.narniaexhibition.com/AboutExhibition.aspx
Global
Experience Specialists. (2016.) Harry Potter: The exhibition. Retrieved from
http://www.harrypotterexhibition.com/
Howard,
J. (2014, August 14). 15 real-life scientists share their favorite science
fiction books,
movies. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
Jackson,
J. K. (2011). Doomsday ecology and empathy for nature: Women scientists in “B”
horror movies. Science
Communication,
33(4), 533-555.
Jenkins,
H. (2007). The future of fandom. In J. Gray, C. Sandvoss, & C.L. Harrington
(Eds.), Fandom: Identities
and communities in a mediated world (pp. 357-364). New
York: NYU Press.
Jones,
J. (Writer) (2005). How William Shatner changed the world [DVD]. Canada:
Discovery
Channel.
Jones, N.
(2010). Q &A: David Brin on writing. Nature 463(18), 883.
Jones,
R. A. (1997). The boffin: a stereotype of scientists in post-war British films
(1945-
1970). Public Understanding
of Science, 6(1), 31-48.
Hilgartner,
S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political
uses. Social Studies of
Science, 20(3), 519-539.
Kaku,
M. (2008). Physics
of the impossible. New York: Anchor Books.
Kakalios,
J. (2005). The
physics of superheroes. New York: Gotham.
Keene,
M. (2012, July 11). The Victorian-era fairy science books: Making science
instructive and
amusing [Video file]. Retrieved from
the YouTube channel of the Chemical Heritage
Foundation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6EY0Bd-xfg
Keene, M.
(2015). Science in Wonderland. Oxford:
Oxford UP.
Kirby,
D. A. (2003). Scientists on the set: Science consultants and the communication
of science
in visual fiction. Public Understanding
of Science, 12(3), 261-278.
Kitzinger,
J., Haran, J., Chimba, M., & Boyce, T. (2008). Role models in the media: an
exploration
of the views and experiences of women
in science, engineering and technology. Cardiff
University. Report of the UK
Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and
Technology (UKRC). Retrieved from http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/Kitzinger_Report_1.pdf
Krauss,
L.M. (1995) The physics of Star Trek. New York: Basic
Books.
Krauss, L.M.
(1997). Beyond Star Trek. New York:
Basic Books.
Maggie Aderin-Pocock
goes boldly into space exploration. (2014, June 5). Institute of Physics
News. Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/news/14/jun/page_63348.html
Lambourne,
R., Shallis, M., & Shortland, M. (1990). Close encounters? Science and science
fiction. Bristol: Adam Hilger.
Lui,
D. (2011). Evaluating pop culture museum engagements: Pedagogies of, about, and
with
Harry Potter. Working Papers in
Educational Linguistics, 26(2), 111-131.
McLaren,
S. (2013, August 28). NASA is turning science fiction into fact. New Scientist, 2932.
Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929320-300-nasa-is-turning-science-fiction-into-fact/
Museum
of Science, Boston. (2016). Star Wars: Where science meets imagination exhibit.
Retrieved from: https://www.mos.org/star-wars
Nash,
N.B. (2011, July 21). Narnia exhibition connects great stories with real
science [Review
of The Chronicles of Narnia: The exhibition].
Tech Republic. Retrieved
from http://www.techrepublic.com/pictures/narnia-exhibition-connects-great-stories-with-real-science/
National
Research Council, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of
Behavioral
and Social Sciences Education. (2009). Learning science in informal
environments: People, places and pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in
Informal Environments, P. Bell, B.V. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, & M.A. Feder
(Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nowotny,
H. (2005). Science and society. High-and low-cost realities for science and
society. Science, 308(5725), 1117-1118.
O'Connor,
P. (Producer and director). (2012). The science of Doctor Who. United
States: BBC
America.
O'Keeffe, M.
(2013). Science fiction and the big questions. Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society, 66(7-8), 202-207.
Parsons,
P. (2007). The
science of Doctor
Who. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books.
Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vilchez-Gonzales, J. M.
(2005). The
teaching of physics and cartoons:
Can they be interrelated in secondary
education? International
Journal of Science Education, 14(18), 1647-1670.
Perkowtiz,
S. (2007). Hollywood science: Movies,
science, & the end of the world. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Ramsland,
K. (2001). The
forensic science of CSI. New York: Berkeley Trade.
Rogers,
T. (2007). Insultingly
stupid movie physics. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Royal
Institution of Great Britain. (n.d.). History of the Christmas lectures.
Retrieved from
http://www.rigb.org/christmas-lectures/history
Sagan, C.
(1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House
Sagan, C.
(1985). Contact. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Scheufele,
D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the
National
Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3),
14040-14047.
Smithsonian
Institution, Office of Policy and Analysis. (2002). Marketing
exhibitions: Will they
come? Retrieved from: https://www.si.edu/Content/opanda/docs/Rpts2002/02.06.MarketingExhibitions.Final.pdf
Steinke,
J. (2005). Cultural representations of gender and science. Science
Communication,
27(1), 27-63.
Steinke,
J., Applegate, B., Lapinski, M., Ryan, L., & Long, M. (2012). Gender
differences in
adolescents’ wishful identification
with scientist characters on television. Science Communication, 34(2), 163-199.
Stocklmayer,
S. M., Rennie, L. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and
informal
sectors in the provision of effective
science education. Studies in Science Education,
46(1), 1-44.
Sturgis,
P. & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model
of public
attitudes. Public Understanding
of Science, 13(1), 55-74.
Szu, E.,
Osborne, J. & Patterson, A.D. (2016). Factual accuracy and the cultural
context of
science
in popular media: Perspectives of media makers, middle school students, and
university
students on an entertainment television program. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662516655685
[1] Although it is usually written as TARDIS, the book
examined below identifies it as a "Tardis" (without the
capitals), so that usage has been adopted throughout the remainder of this
paper.