Last month at least two celebrities were caught expressing their love for science and technology. Both James Cameron and Kevin Costner got major publicity for their first-hand involvement in trying to solve the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico -- Cameron for lending his expertise in deep sea transportation and photography; Costner for sponsoring a machine that’s designed to separate oil and water. Although ultimately their contributions may not amount to much in terms of cleaning up the Gulf, it’s unusual for celebrities to be actively engaged in the development and application of scientific solutions to an environmental disaster. In interviews, both Cameron and Costner claim to have spent years getting acquainted with scientists and engineers and what they do for a living. They’ve expressed their appreciation and admiration for their work. Self interest certainly plays a role in their cultivation of relationships with researchers, but their enthusiasm is unmistakable when they talk about the discovery and development of new technologies.

It’s difficult to think of a celebrity who doesn’t take an active role in drawing attention to, or raising money for, a good cause -- or two, or maybe many. There also seems to be a trend of Hollywood celebrities becoming more involved physically in helping out, not just lending a hand in raising money. Look at the celebrities who showed up in Haiti to help residents cope with the aftermath of the earthquake. Cameron and Costner seem to be on that path, taking an approach that happens to involve science and technology. Like other celebrities, they are drawing attention to a good cause.

It’s easy to be cynical of the motives of people who make a living in front of a camera. More than likely, some get involved in charitable activities for the publicity, to boost – or repair – a public image. Tarnish on that image can send managers and publicists into overdrive coming up with ways their clients can mitigate damage, including becoming the face of a noble cause.

But many celebrities genuinely feel an obligation to give back to society because of the success they’ve achieved. Whatever their reasons, they’ve helped raise billions to fight poverty, disease, and devastation caused by natural disasters, and to support public policy initiatives, including environmental protection. Their activism is probably most valuable in calling attention to the need for others to take action.


Maybe science is in need of more celebrities to campaign for it? Cameron and Costner were good cheerleaders last month. And, M*A*S*H star Alan Alda, who also played a presidential candidate on The West Wing and needed a kidney on 30 Rock (not to mention his hosting of PBS’s Scientific American Frontiers for a dozen or so years), has certainly lent his celebrity to promoting science. Another example that’s recent is actress Amanda Peet using her voice to call attention to medical research on the proven safety of vaccines. But not a lot of celebrities go around openly advocating the importance of science and encouraging the public to support it.

Celebrities have always been used to draw attention to worthy causes. Why not science? They could be particularly effective on the talk show circuit, promoting science as well as their latest projects. Maybe the science community needs to secure the services of more celebrity advocates? Is that what we need? And, if so, how do we go about getting those endorsements? Any thoughts or ideas?

Maybe the success of “The Big Bang Theory” started a backlash. Because now there seems to be a campaign underway to sell the public on the notion that scientists don’t have to be geeks, nerds, or white men. The latest assault on the stereotype comes from the new PBS online only series, “The Secret Life of Scientists,” the title co-opted from the critically acclaimed ABC Family network show “The Secret Life of the American Teenager.”

So far, more than a dozen profiles of scientists have been posted, with the promise of more in a few months. Viewers are entertained by clicking on four brief video segments for each scientist, one of which features answers to 10 questions.

On screen, the scientists speak passionately about their research and discoveries, but that’s not what the series is really about. Instead, the message is that scientists have more going on in their lives besides their work. They do have other interests. And, they do like to have a good time.



First up is Neil deGrasse Tyson’s secret. The host of PBS’s long-running series NOVA is an avid collector of neckties. Although the ties have nothing to do with wardrobe coordination, they do have something in common besides being ties. Who knew that Tyson, THE face of science on PBS and The Secret Life’s only familiar face, likes a little whimsy in his life? Sure, he’s personable and all that, but when he talks about an important discovery or how he became interested in science as he does in this series, people listen. The astrophysicist has become sort of an unofficial spokesperson for the science community, aided by his almost regular appearances on the talk show circuit. In fact, “Stewart” was the answer to one his 10 questions, as in “Jon Stewart,” host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.” His preference for Stewart’s show over that of Comedy Central’s other late nite talk show host, Stephen Colbert, generated a number of comments on the website.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Several scientists talk about the role music plays in their lives. That’s not particularly surprising, because there’s always been an overlap between the two interests, especially interest in classical music. The series features a bassoonist and an engineer who plays the clarinet. Music as a hobby doesn’t usually put much of a dent in the stereotype, but the confessions of two young scientists are more intriguing.

Teen astronomer Caroline Moore, the youngest person ever to discover a supernova, likes to sing. No, she doesn’t appear interested in trying out for American Idol, but neither would she be booted from that stage for sounding “pitchy.” Ms. Moore also gives one of most surprising 10-question answers when she identifies Fox News as her favorite news network. Another of her video segments makes it clear why she gave that answer.



On screen physics student Joe DeGeorge appears determined to convince viewers that scientists are not nerds. He plays guitar and performs in a rock band, but the name of the group, “Harry and the Potters,” doesn’t do much to make his case. When prompted, he composes and sings a song about Nobel laureate Richard Feynman. When was the last time there was a song about a scientist? Probably never.



Also featured are scientists who are into sports, cooking, dancing, and photography. Just like our friends and neighbors, scientists are shown to be everyday people, although most of us are unlikely to know someone who has set sail across an ocean with just a spouse in tow, or a photographer who specializes in taking pictures of hands and feet.

Probably the most unusual “secret” is that of biochemist Erika Ebbel who became the first person from MIT to compete for the crown of Miss America. Never having competed in a pageant and egged on by friends, she reluctantly entered a local contest. After not winning, she came back for a second try and ended up being crowned Miss Massachusetts of 2002. In the video, Ebbel defends her pageant experience, claiming it wasn’t a waste of time because “competition…encourages you to improve [and] try harder [and makes you a] a more well-rounded person.” She also demonstrates how to wave correctly, and why it’s important to wave correctly.



The group represents scientists at various stages of their careers, although none are over 50. They’re exploring the universe, building robots, and studying leeches. Eran Egozy started his own company after graduation and a decade later invented the wildly successful video games Guitar Hero and Rock Band.



In addition to youth, there’s an emphasis on racial and ethnic diversity. Nanoscientist Rich Robinson talks about getting his start in science by being a beneficiary of affirmative action programs. “I think anyone who wants to be a scientist can be a scientist,” he says to the camera. Yes, it’s smart to send out a reminder every once in awhile that scientists don’t have to be geeks, nerds, or white men.



Fortunately, the movies are now doing their part. In “Reconsidering the Image of Scientists in Film and Television,” communications professor and blogger Matt Nisbet makes note of changes that have taken place in Hollywood during the past two decades. Studies show that the image of scientists on both the large and small screen has improved dramatically. They still don’t populate a lot of movies and TV shows, but when they do, “they are almost exclusively shown in a positive light.” Not only that, but research using data collected by the National Science Foundation shows that among the adult population in general, negative stereotypes of scientists are less prevalent than they once were.

Of course, it’s still a bit early to declare victory, but popular culture seems to be moving in the right direction. “The Secret Lives of Scientists” is the successful execution of a clever idea. As more profiles of scientists are uploaded to the PBS website, the series should continue to contribute to the intersection of science and entertainment.

Scientists didn’t exactly rejoice when The Big Bang Theory got picked up by CBS a few years ago. Actually, they probably weren’t paying attention and may still be unaware of the show’s existence, even though it’s now become a major hit for the network. During the three seasons Big Bang has been on the air, it’s been pretty easy to dismiss as just another silly TV show with no mission other than to entertain. Never mind that most people spend a lot of time being entertained by watching TV.

As a result, TV is where most people learn whatever it is they know about science. But not from watching PBS or one of the Discovery networks, which have relatively small audiences. They’re far more likely to be viewing entertainment programming, including sitcoms such as The Big Bang Theory.

Three of the show’s main characters are scientists and one is an engineer. Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj have become familiar faces to millions of Americans. The same cannot be said for real scientists. In fact, very few people say they know a scientist in real life, and only about one-third can actually name a living scientist.

A generation or two ago, Dr. Kildare and Perry Mason inspired kids to study medicine and law. They may have been among the first, but there’s never been a shortage of fictional doctors or lawyers on TV or in the movies.

In contrast, scientists have been a pretty rare sight, especially on the small screen. And, when they do appear, it’s almost always in one-hour drama shows. CSI and Numb3rs are known for their positive portrayals of scientists and mathematicians; CSI has even sparked growing demand for degrees in forensic science.

But until Big Bang, there hasn’t really been a character on a sitcom who made a living as a scientist – unless you count Ross Geller on Friends. Ross had a PhD in archeology, and a few storylines did focus on his work. For example, one episode took place in a museum, and in another, the publication of his dissertation was not actually cause for celebration. But Ross’ occupation was not the focus of Friends.

Science, however, is what The Big Bang Theory is all about. And, according to a recent New York Times article, the sitcom has been making scientists squirm. Not because the science on the show is portrayed inaccurately (it’s not), but because most of the jokes come at the expense of the profession. “[P]hysicists are [seen as] geeky losers, overwhelmingly male and ill at ease outside the world of Star Trek.”





Chances are the show wouldn’t be so successful if the writers weren’t getting it right. The stereotypes are all there, week after week. These fictional scientists lack the looks, social skills, and female companionship that make most sitcom characters appealing to their audiences. And, they’re all white guys, except for one who’s from India and speaks with an accent.

Also on the show, the work of science itself is most often represented by a poster covered with rows of neatly written equations that occupies a prominent position in the living room of Sheldon and Leonard. When the two discuss their work, they speak in a language that only another scientist could understand, leaving viewers with the impression that science is anything but exciting or glamorous, just the opposite of how medicine, law, and about every other profession are portrayed on TV.

To their credit, however, the show’s writers have been making the effort to make the characters likable, endearing, and even lovable. A few years ago, the reality series Beauty and the Geek got its audience to embrace the social misfits on that show, and Big Bang has certainly done its part on behalf of nerd acceptance. Leonard even got the girl, Penny, the pretty blonde waitress who lives across the hall. Just like other sitcom couplings, they now seem to be involved in an on-again, off-again kind of relationship.



The characters also seem to love what they do for a living. They feel passionately about their work, and the audience does get the impression that science is important – and can be fun, as evidenced by an episode that featured the staging of a robot race.

Nevertheless, scientists aren’t sure that the show doesn’t represent a setback when it comes to improving the public’s image of their profession. Children especially are greatly influenced by what they see on TV. If characters don’t come across as attractive, cool, and successful, kids may be turned off by what they see on the small screen. That means they’re less likely to consider science a desirable career. Over the years, “Draw-a-Scientist” tests have shown just such an image problem, that is, the stereotypical image of a scientist has been well-established in the minds of children. “The charming and charismatic scientist is not an image that populates popular culture.”

So, what do you think? Are scientists benefiting from the exposure? Is it enough that scientists, long underrepresented on TV, are finally prominently featured in a successful and critically acclaimed sitcom that reaches millions of people? Or, is the show doing a disservice to the science community and society in general by reinforcing already well-entrenched negative stereotypes? The Exchange would like to hear your thoughts.

If you're one of the millions of people who flocked to the cinema this weekend to see Iron Man 2, you're no doubt wondering how much of the plot is based in fact, and how much is pure science fiction.

It’s hard to believe, but 2010 is the 50th anniversary of the laser. In 1960, Theodore Maiman, at the Hughes Research Labs in California, first applied a 40 year-old theoretical insight from Einstein to produce an intense beam of red light from a chunk of solid ruby. Einstein’s idea was used in the 1950s to make powerful microwaves with a device called a maser, for “microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.” When Maiman similarly made visible light, his device became the laser, with “light” replacing “microwave.”

Science fiction was right on top of this new development and even foresaw it. In 1898, H. G. Wells introduced an invisible but powerful heat ray as the weapon of choice for invading Martians in his story The War of the Worlds. Today, that would be an infrared CO2 laser. In the 1930s, space swashbucklers Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon used hand-held ray weapons in their movie serials. In the 1950s, The Day the Earth Stood Still and the film version of The War of the Worlds also featured weapons that used beams of light.

After the laser was invented, films were even quicker to use its dramatic possibilities and sometimes predicted its potential. In 1964, a scene in Goldfinger showed James Bond (Sean Connery) tied to a table as a laser beam threatens to bisect him, starting at his groin. Bond manages to escape, but not before audiences see the laser beam slicing through the solid gold tabletop. This anticipated the widespread industrial uses of lasers that began in the 1970s.



Naturally enough for a device initially called a “death ray,” however, most science fiction lasers appear as weapons. Probably the biggest laser ever imagined on screen is the gargantuan Death Star with which the evil galactic Empire destroys a whole planet in Star Wars: Episode IV, a New Hope (1977). Other imaginary weapons, though not exactly beneficial to society, are less horrific. These include various laser hand weapons and cannons, and in the film Real Genius (1985), a small, lethal laser designed to be mounted on an aircraft and used to assassinate selected targets with surgical precision.



Sometimes fictional and real laser science become so interconnected that you can hardly tell them apart. When President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983, which would use lasers to shoot down hostile nuclear-tipped missiles, the program instantly became known as “Star Wars.” Reality turned back into science fiction when director Paul Verhoeven satirized SDI in his film RoboCop (1987), in which a space-based SDI laser goes badly awry and takes out acreage near Santa Barbara, California – probably not coincidentally, the area where President Reagan owned a ranch.

A few on-screen lasers are benign, contributing to the goal of generating clean non-polluting energy by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium, as happens in the Sun. The latest attempt to do this on Earth is to bombard hydrogen with terawatts of ultraviolet light from the world’s most powerful lasers, located at the National Ignition Facility, Livermore National Laboratory, California. The same idea shows up, though confusedly, in Chain Reaction (1996), where a laser somehow extracts energy from the hydrogen in water. And in Spider-Man 2 (2004), physicist Dr. Octavius (Alfred Molina) initiates fusion with lasers. But the film can’t resist throwing in a touch of disaster. Instead of helping humanity, the reaction runs amok and wrecks Octavius’ lab.

Science fiction films thrive on disaster and we probably won’t be seeing many on-screen examples of beneficial uses such as laser fusion and laser surgery, though these dominate the history of lasers (development of laser weapons continues, however). But we won’t miss them as long as we can hear that destructive but satisfying, or should I say electrifying, science fictionish “zap” – even though real lasers are generally silent; and even though nothing, laser or not, can be heard in space.