Correcting Hollywood Science and Research- Real vs. Reel.
Movie scientists and researchers seem to really have it easy. Have you ever found whilst watching a movie, how truly effortless science and research is? Masterminds and geniuses tackle dire problems, making light work of life-threatening situations. At most, movie scientists generally need about 15 minutes to solve all of earth’s catastrophes or a few months to create genetically modified species. Wouldn’t that be grand?
Science is often portrayed unscientifically in movies. There are a lot of subjects that are not shown accurately in many movies, for example, most lack historical accuracies, portrayal inaccuracies amongst others. Why does this even matter? Movies, dramas, and books have a huge audience, and as such, are a powerful portrayal of scientists and researchers- and in turn, can alter what people think of science overall.
It also poses a question of how plausible movie science and research actually is. There has to be some sort of truth hidden within them. So, when writers and directors create a film, are real scientists and experts consulted? Take a look at the few examples of science fiction vs reality below:
Hollow Man (2000):
This is a science fiction horror/thriller film. It revolves around the life of a brilliant j̵e̵r̵k̵ scientist, Sebastian Cane. After years of experimentation, he discovers the invisibility serum and in order to achieve the ultimate breakthrough, Caine lies to the board of funders about the serum not being complete so that he can self-experiment and gain all the fame for it. He pushes his team to move to the next phase — using himself as the subject. Now, wait a minute… In real life, that is not entirely possible! The scientists and researchers can not lie and hide things like this from their investors and board. It is a punishable offense. Another problem lies in the stereotyping of scientists in movies such as this. They are often portrayed as closed-minded individuals, who create troubles but cannot solve them. Some scholars think that this helps to create an anti-science environment.
Having said that, there are a few things about how science and scientists are portrayed in movies like these which are… less than ideal. Sebastian, apart from having a huge ego, superiority complex, and being very arrogant, also thought he could get away with anything. He could do whatever he wanted, and manipulated whoever he wanted to? The scenario is very unlikely to happen in real life.
Splice (2009):
Splice is a science fiction/horror film about genetic experimentation gone wrong. Clive and Elsa are scientists working to splice the DNA of multiple animals to create a new organism that will generate proteins required by their funders. They were successful with animal experimentations but their funders decided to shut-down further research and focus on protein research rather than DNA research. Clive and Elsa decide to continue with their DNA research and in their ambitious attempts to create a new animal hybrid gene, they break protocol and add some human DNA into their gene-mix- the recipe for disaster. A lot happens in that movie due to that creature they create but the question remains, they went against the orders of their board and continued experimenting in secret? That too, in the same lab where many other researchers worked in? The seems unlikely to happen in a real-life scenario.
Researchers do require funds and that the constant fighting for funding undermines their work, by encouraging researchers to overpromise and engage in questionable practices, over incentivizing publication in top journals, disincentivizing replications of existing work, and stifling creativity and intellectual risk-taking. But that does not mean they do not pay for that or get away easily.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011):
This is a science fiction/action film that features a scientist, Will Rodman, who is experimenting with a drug that he hopes will cure his father’s Alzheimer’s disease. Due to insignificant results and overseen consequences, the board rejects all the research done by him. This does not necessarily happen in reality as the funders usually fund other researches and ask for improving the results of failed inventions. Another unlikely fact was no other scientist or member of the board finding of the existence of Ceaser? Unbeknown to these researchers, was the fact that their subject Bright Eyes had a baby. The researchers in this movie definitely made some astoundingly dangerous choices that might seem completely implausible.
Jurassic World (2015):
This is an action-packed adventure movie. It is set in a theme park showcasing genetically-engineered dinosaurs, which turns into a nightmare when one of the dinosaurs, the Indominus Rex, escapes its enclosure. An ex-military animal expert, Owen, steps up to save the day with Claire, the operations manager of the Jurassic World. Indominus Rex was the result of the investors and funders demanding new species that were more ferocious than ever before.
In real-life, the investors need experts and real scientists to review the research they are looking to fund, and only after a full risk assessment, the research is funded.
The Indominus Rex, was a consequence of a research the investors themselves were unaware of. They did not know the full potential of the creature they had created and it resulted in a disaster.
Hence, we can surely say that “Reel” life (the world as it is reflected on TV and movie screens) often bears only a passing resemblance to real life (the world most of us live in). Another fact is that there are such people out there as science advisors. A science advisor is dedicated to guiding the show or film creator along the correct scientific path. Still, we often see such scientific inaccuracies. But, considering movies are for entertainment and science fiction would not be much fun if movies never took any liberties with facts and science, I think these can be overlooked if it is nothing too bizarre :)
