Our nation, nay, our world, needs a new kind of hero.
Although the aliens are still keeping a low profile amongst us, and the robot armies have yet to attack, we still face a large number of problems.
Global warming. Bioweapons. Stem Cells. Cloning. Pollution and waste. Agricultural sustainability and genetics. National defense. Affordable HDTVs. Financial collapse. Talking apes.
And of course everyone’s talking about green energy — which I hope means we’re all going to get Green Lantern rings, because that would be way cool. But even if it doesn’t, it still sounds pretty sciencey to me.
In short, folks, we need scientist heroes in our media to inspire the Einsteins (or at least the Neil deGrasse Tysons) of tomorrow, and to make science literacy cool for everyone.
In the 1950s, during that golden age of angst over atomic energy and communism (as opposed to global warming and terrorism), we saw a number of classic science fiction movies with scientist heroes. And no, I don’t mean as a sidekick or minor team member. I mean the man with the plan, the lady who gets paidy.
War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide, This Island Earth, It Came from Outer Space — Golly gee whiz, they just don’t make them like that any more.
In fact, they even Unmake them. War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise replaced a scientist hero with an average Joe Sixpack.
But its time to put the sexy back in science. And no, I don’t mean scantily clad lab assistants.
Why We Need to Be More Scientifical
Just as an indication of how badly America is in need of a science image makeover, consider that the US was ranked 29th in Science and Math education behind countries like the Czech Republic, Croatia, and Liechtenstein. And before you ask, yes, Liechtenstein is a real nation, it is not a Marvel Universe invention.
And adult scientific literacy isn’t doing so well either. A recent study found, for example, that one in five American adults think that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Seriously. And only Turkey was found to have lower public acceptance of evolution than the United States, attributed to the dominance of Fundamentalist religions in our two nations.
In fact, one of our US vice presidential candidates, a potential leader of our nation, reportedly believes that man walked beside dinosaurs on Earth just after it was created a mere 6,000 years ago, and that priests who speak in tongues can put a shield against witchcraft around you.
Now, equally low adult scientific literacy rates were found in Europe and Japan, so we are not alone. But that is not exactly reassuring.
I want all people of all nations to be equally well educated and informed. But, living in America, I do have a vested interest in our nation not going to crap — you know, worse than it is.
So beyond inspiring new scientists, why should non-scientists be science literate?
For one, it makes a smarter, more flexible workforce. You can adapt better to new jobs and new technologies, and attract employers in need of skilled labor.
Scientific literacy also means an electorate who can make better informed decisions on subjects ranging from stem cell research to transportation to natural resource management.
And scientific literacy means smarter consumers, better able to evaluate marketing claims and understand the dangers of credit consumerism.
How Science Fiction Will Save Us All
Show of hands – who wants to retire to their grandchildren’s sub-prime one-room hovel in the decayed urban warzone that was once America?
Or perhaps roam the sweltering wasteland looking for gasoline while the mutants hunt you down?
Yeah, thought so.
Then let’s inspire some smart folks to get scientifical and create smart solutions to our stupid problems.
Sure, we have a couple of shows with scientists now. There’s Eureka, Stargate Atlantis… and, um … Doctor Suresh from Heroes. Oh yeah, and plenty of “forensic” science shows like Bones and CSI.
But most “science” shows, including new ones like Fringe, too often play up the dangers of science and evil scientists, rather than the positives.
So come on, how about we have a television show called American Scientist? Think razzle-dazzle science fair!
Paula: “I think your attempt at bringing trepanning into the 21st century was very admirable, I really like where your heart was at. It was just slightly, well … better luck next time.”
Randy Jackson: “Wow dawg! That portable time machine was da bomb. I think it is going to be a real tough choice for voters between that and my girl Suzie’s instant cheese maker.”
Colin: “My god! I haven’t seen a hypothesis that weak since ‘Mayhap nuts make squirrels brown’.”
And of course, we need a return to the glory days of scientist heroes in movies. Coming soon we have The Day the Earth Stood Still, remade with Keanu Reeves. Dare I hope that this movie will retain the themes of reason and rationality being key to our survival, and scientists being our heroes? Oh, dare I?
They are also remaking Fantastic Voyage, and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, both science fiction classics.
When creating these scientist heroes in the media, it will also be important to make them racially and ethnically diverse — not only to reflect simple reality, but also to provide heroes to those who need them the most.
Because in those education evaluations that the US failed so badly, American Black and Hispanic students scored well below Caucasians on average. This is not due to any mythical inferiority, of course, but reflects factors such as the unequal and sad state of schools in poorer minority-heavy neighborhoods.
And who better to write scientist characters than scientists? That’s what the Pentagon thought, anyway. As reported in a 2007 USA Today article, in addition to generally pushing for more scientists characters in film, they were actually sponsoring screenwriting classes for scientists. Why? Well, you can’t have foreign scientists working on sensitive US defense technology, and there is a growing shortage of physicists and engineers in America.
So hey, any of you science fiction writers out there, maybe you can get the Pentagon to back your television or movie script, or the film rights to your novel. I hear they’ll still get plenty of funding, no matter which way our economy goes.
Of course, the best thing you could do is become a scientist yourself.
But failing that, be sure when you write your next story or script to show how the different levels of science literacy affects the options and choices of your characters. And consider writing a scientist hero who uses reason and scientific method to triumph over badness and stoopid evil.
You might just help save the world.
…let’s inspire some smart folks to get scientifical and create smart solutions to our stupid problems.
I think it’s dangerous to assume that technological solutions will save us from ecological and social problems. Many of the problems you mention (global warming, bioweapons, pollution, the need for sustainable agriculture) stem in part from increasing technology and dependence on centralized, industrial systems. While I do think that it’s important to increase scientific literacy and research things such as solar energy, I think it’s equally if not more important to increase people’s awareness of the trees and animals and landscapes that surround them, the web of relationships that makes life on Earth possible. Some of this needs to be the kind of intellectual “head” knowledge of science, but I think there’s also a need for bodily and emotional interactions with nature. I also think that some solutions involve the use of less technology–growing and eating food locally and sustainably as much as possible, without the use of fossil fuels as fertilizer or for long-distance transportation, riding bikes rather than driving cars, exercising and practicing preventative health care rather than relying on pharmaceutical companies and drugs to treat preventable conditions.
Scientist heroes tend to appear on the Discovery channel, if not in science-fiction dramas, these days.
I like what you stated about the old movies where Scientist were the heroes that saved us from things that went wrong. Maybe that’s why I love them so much… the geeks became the heroes.
Don’t get me started about all the bad plot twists of Heroes, but I didn’t like what they did to Mohinder. He was a respectable character that got turned into an evil scientist. Like you said, writers tend to make scientist evil now so I shouldn’t have been surprised.
I was arguing with a friend the other day who didn’t believe that humans could have changed into different races over time. He said if that’s what happened then why haven’t white people in South Africa turned darker yet. I knew it was pointless to try to explain the details of natural selection, though I did try. He had the nerve to tell me that he studied what evolution was. He wondered why I became so frustrated. America desperately needs to increase the knowledge of it’s citizens. Even dealing with nature and natural resources needs as the other commenter said needs an understanding of the sciences of it all. It’s a shame that some people in the US don’t understand that when you increase the education of the individual then you we all benefit.
Willow;
Thank you for the response. I agree that science must be balanced by ethical and moral decision making, personal responsibility, as well as social, emotional, and environmental consciousness. Science, at its heart, is driven by human curiosity and our ability to dream, imagine and think symbolically. These are wonderful traits, and can lead to wonderful discoveries and results.
I would also love to see “soft sciences” like 101-style psychology and sociology, as well as introduction to philosophy, required for all students at the high school level. Teach children to think for themselves, to better understand their fellow human beings and to question why things are the way they are.
And it does frighten and disgust me that, for example, pharmaceutical companies are being allowed to patent human genes, and that our for-profit health care system is too often focused on medicating problems (if your insurance even approves the treatment, of course) rather than preventing them.
As for your point about local farming –
Science Doesn’t Always Mean Genes and Pesticides
I also am unthrilled with companies like Monsanto (makers of Roundup weed killer) who create genetically modified grains that reduce biodiversity, put ecosystems at risk, have suicide genes that prevent replanting, push out heirloom crops, and then sue decent farmers who don’t even intend to use their product. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/05/63555
This was well covered in the move The Future of Food.
However, science doesn’t just mean genetically modified foods or new chemical pesticides. Agricultural science has been around since man first began to grow and harvest crops rather than hunt and gather.
While I agree that local, organic farming is a wonderful thing, and for example interspersing insect-repelling plants among crops is a good natural solution for smaller farms, the simple fact is that it is not a sufficient model to feed over 6 billion humans worldwide. So additional solutions must be found and used.
Some examples of how science and technology continues to positively impact agriculture:
Farmers today can use satellite imagery of their land to assess moisture and nitrogen distribution and concentrations, etcetera, to optimize watering systems, fertilizer use, and crop selections.
Advances in farm equipment can continue to increase production and reduce waste for all sizes and types of farms. And there’s no reason that as electric cars and alternate fuel sources become more common that diesel-guzzling tractors cannot be converted to green machines as well.
The USDA offers farmers a calculator to determine optimal crop rotations.
Iowa University has an online tool that Iowa farmers can use to assess the yields, energy costs, profits and environmental impacts of growing a particular type of crop and using particular growing and harvesting methods: http://i-farmtools.org/i-farm/
Also, many developed countries already use half or better of all available arable land for agriculture. But in places like sub-Sahara Africa or South America, they use less than 20 percent. Not only can these areas be developed to better feed themselves, but to also contribute more to the global food resources.
A quarter of a dairy farm’s energy use goes just into refrigerating their products. Improvements and innovations in refrigeration technology and methods would lead to huge energy savings.
Improvements in areas like fish-farming are helping to protect our dangerously depleted Ocean resources.
It takes about 6 tons of grain and a whole lot of energy and water to raise a single beef steer. So concerns about animal cruelty, deforestation and other problems aside, it would be good for our planet if everyone became vegetarian, or at least reduced their meat consumption. But since that is unlikely to happen, perhaps someday we will be able to grow beef through cloning or other methods. And in the meantime, continuing to find ways to optimize productivity without resorting to growth hormones would be nice.
Improvements in transportation technology will also lower the costs and impacts of transporting the food to distant markets, a practice that may be reduced but will never go away.
Science is also required to assess the real costs and impacts of both “natural” and technological solutions, such as cross-pollination of genetically engineered DNA strands, the real lasting effects of bovine growth hormones on both the cows and human consumers, the environmental impacts related to farming such as watershed impacts, runoff impacts, methane impacts, effects of pesticides and landscape changes on the biology and behaviors of insects and the ecosystem, optimal nutrition and energy conversion and preservation through the food chain, etcetera.
On and on.
It has been pointed out to me that I said “Colin” instead of “Simon” in the American Idol spoof.
This is one mistake I am anything but embarrassed about. Yes, I admit — I don’t watch American Idol. I have only absorbed a general knowledge of its usual content via webmosis.
Pro-Science Anti-Stem Cell?
I smell hypocracy,
and Im lookin at you.