Kirby, Scientists on the set

Kirby, Scientists on the set: science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction

EP: What I like, what I’d like to play up here is the contrast between the innocuous, healthy tissue and the villainous, evil, writhing virus.
Cline: A virus is . . . They can’t actually move.
EP: They can’t?
Cline: No, they can’t.
EP: Oh. (Roach, 1995: 81) (p.269)

Introduction

• There is concern among scientists as well as within the NSF that science in fiction has polluted public understanding of science. In truth, it is more likely that, “the presentation of science in fictional narratives provides an environment in which preexisting attitudes are readily cultivated and reinforced” (p. 263) attributed to Shanahan and Morgan. Kirby believes that such relationships lead not just to the presentation of existing knowledge, but the creation of new knowledge.

• Ultimately, Kirby says that it is not the content along, but the mediation among scientists, the entertainment industry, and audiences that produces the representation of science in entertainment media (p. 263)

Compensation for Consulting

• Movies hire scientists to add realism and legitimacy to their films

• Scientists participate in films for a number of reasons. Most prevalently, scientists do so as a “public service” to improve the public understanding of science. Often they take no compensation at all. However, some scientists make up to $200 an hour for their consultation. Still other scientists feel it is unethical to accept money, and instead accept grants and funding for further research.

• “On the one hand, they believe that as scientists they should give scientific advice freely to anyone who seeks knowledge. On the other hand, they are providing a specialized service for filmmakers and believe they should receive compensation of some type” (p. 266)

• Science organizations have also worked with films, lending or donating expertise, equipment, and locations in exchange for publicity, grant money, etc. An extreme example is NASA, who have an “Entertainment Industry Liaison”

The Role of the Science Consultant in Fictional Science’s Depiction

• Though scientist consultation is highly valued, according to Kirby, a compromise must be struck between ultimate scientific “reality” on the one hand, and the business of film-making on the other. Budgetary constraints as well as stylistic choices both tend to clash with scientists’ advice to a degree.

Science Consultants and the Presentation of “Science” in Fictional Films

• Kirby discusses several ways in which a consultant can advise filmmakers

• Playing a scientists: actors who want to create a ‘realistic’ scientist often work with scientists to develpe their character
• The “look” of science: consultation on the set decoration and props design
• “Factual” content and the inclusion of disputed science: scientists can advise on the accuracy of scientific information. In essence, they are “fact checking.” In many cases, they are advising on information widely agreed upon by the scientific community. In some cases, they are advising on “facts” that are not as widely accepted.
  

Conclusion and Discussion

• With such a large number of films and televisions shows produced about science, many of which include “inaccurate” science, the public will not be able to tell the scientifically accurate depictions from the wildly inaccurate. In this way, science consultants will not “improve science literacy”

• However Kirby attributes the need for improving literacy to scientists’ view of the deficit model, which has come under heavy criticism. Ultimately, he believes this will not help the deficit view of literacy, but will help with public understanding of science:

• “While increasing ”scientific accuracy“ in fiction may not enhance the public understanding of science as proscribed by the deficit model, the presence of scientists in the filmmaking process can improve the public understanding of science; that is, if we take scientists’ concern with ”public understanding of science“ to mean more than public ”appreciation“ of science. (p. 274)

My Thoughts:

• It was very interesting and fun, and he makes some very strong points about the actual impact on science literacy.
  
• I wonder if Kirby’s methodology leads to the kind of generalizations he makes about scientists relationship with filmmakers.
• I think he might be oversimplifying the relationship between filmmakers, consultants, and the public.
• While he discusses to the idea that science consultants and films play a role in creating new knowledge, I don’t think he discusses this in enough depth. If I were writing a paper on the subject, I would look elsewhere for a serious discussion, though he does provide one example.
• It seems as though the “appreciation of science” as science literacy model has also come under attack recently.