Jennifer writes, “It’s the RNA world hypothesis, but I took a little poetic license and used DNA instead of RNA just because I thought double stranded would be more aesthetic.”
Carl: Here’s an article I wrote for Discover about the RNA world hypothesis for how life got started. And another for Science.
On Friday I wrote about how good science fiction (at least to my tastes) often relies on bad science. I was glad to see my ravings triggered a lot of responses over the weekend, both here and abroad at sites like Science Made Cool and io9 (see the comments to their first and second posts). There’s no way I could respond to all the comments, but one in particular stuck in my memory–
Tim Bryon wrote:
I think Carl has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science fiction is – it’s not fiction about science per se, or necessarily fiction with accurate science (what about Jurassic Park?It taught me as an 11 year old about raptors) but fiction about the way advances in technology and knowledge might influence our lives (well, it’s more complicated than that, but anyway). In my mind, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is the perfect science fiction movie. It’s vaguely plausible that neuroscience will advance to a state where the memory deletion in that movie is possible, and the ramifications of the technology are central to the story and well thought out.
I liked Eternal Sunshine too, and just fired it up on Netflix’s instant viewer to recall why. (Dangerous…must stop watching movies during working hours…) I don’t want to ruin the movie for those who haven’t seen it; suffice to say that the crux of the movie involved Jim Carrey going to a doctor to have memories of his relationship with Kate Winslet erased. But midway through the procedure he changes his mind and tries to hold onto his memories.
Tim thinks that I just don’t understand that science fiction is supposed to make us think about how advances in technology may alter our lives, and that Eternal Sunshine makes us consider the dangers of letting neurologists wipe out targeted memories. I just can’t see the movie that way. The “science” is intentionally silly–a low-rent doctor’s office filled with a bumbling dysfunctional staff. It’s just a way for the movie to get inside Jim Carrey’s head and create all sorts of wonderful images of how we assemble our lives from memories, and how terrifyingly sad it can be to forget them. Watching Winslet fade out of Carrey’s life reminds me of deep losses of my own, and offers the consolation that movies at their best can offer. I’m glad that the people who made Eternal Sunshine were able to produce such a wonderful story by riffing on neuroscience, but I’m also glad that they didn’t get hung up about the science itself.
Here’s a clip from Hulu…
Julie writes, “It’s a map of Galapagos, which obviously resonates with me as a biologist. I also spent a month working there on a volunteer project a couple of years ago, and fell in love with the place so hard I’m determined to go back! San Cristobal is a bit off to the right, and wasn’t really captured on this photo, unfortunately. However, you will notice the two outlying islands, Darwin and Wolf, on the back of my neck!”
She also adds–”By the way,if you do publish this, could you make sure you credit Fatty’s Custom Tattooz in DC somewhere? He did a great job from a handful of maps and pictures and my vague descriptions of how I wanted the piece to look!”
Christina writes, “After passing our neuroscience PhD candidacy exam, my friend and I decided to get neuron tattoos. This tattoo was sketched while in research ethics class.”
Jim writes, “This radiolarian (of the Polycyttaria) represents for me the staggering complexity, beauty and wonder of life. That such an amazing looking critter can evolve, and be so amazingly intricate and small blows my mind. I love talking science, and so far (have had it for less than 24 hours) heaps of people have asked, ‘That is great; what is it?’ And after the brief explanation, they are always amazed.”
Here are drawings of Polycyttaria by Haeckel. And here is an entire web site dedicated to radiolarians.
I was in New York yesterday to give a talk about evolution, which was simultaneously a Rockefeller University Science and Media Series Lecture, and a New York Skeptics Society Public Lecture. We had a great turn-out: as I told the crowd, there’s nothing a public speaker likes to see more than a serious fire hazard. The talk was recorded, and I’m hoping soon to be able to direct you to it.
One of the many reasons I enjoy giving these lectures is that I can meet people before and after my talk. Yesterday I met a number of interesting folks, including Alexis Gambis, who somehow manages, all at once, to pursue a Ph.D. by researching neurons, make science-themed movies, and even run a festival of science movies. We got to talking about movies and science–there is a lot of buzz these days about how scientists can get involved in the movie-making process. The National Academy of Sciences has even dispatched emissaries to Hollywood “to help bring the reality of cutting-edge science to creative and engaging storylines.”
Scientists who get involved in these kinds of projects hope to do some good. They hope that they can get rid of misleading representations of science in movies, and help movies to convey what science really tells us, or what science really is. (This is my impression from speaking to these folks and reading some of their blogs, etc. If you’re one of those scientists, leave a comment to tell me if this is wrong.)
When I get on this subject, as I did with Gambis yesterday, I turn into a raging skeptic. It’s probably not a very helpful response, and I’m not sure why it gains so much momentum inside of me. But I started raving yesterday. My favorite science fiction movies generally deal in some really, really bad science. Laws of physics are regular flouted. Aliens make no physiological sense.
That’s because the directors are just using fragments of science to assemble fiction that reaches down deep inside us, not to our internal database of scientific facts, but to our addiction to beautiful images and human stories. Science fiction movies are not really about science. I just watched Wall-E and liked it very much, not because I learned about robotics (I didn’t), but because the movie’s creators paid close attention to how Buster Keaton made love stories. On the other hand, I watched GATTACA years ago and found the science side relatively clever and the plot as tedious as a tax form. You can’t just add good science to Hollywood like pixie dust and get good movies.
I do think it’s great for scientists to help steer Hollywood away from pernicious myths about science. But there are limits to how far this fact-checking can go. Another grad student who was talking with Gambis and me yesterday complained about how bogus forensics is on CSI. Results of DNA tests just pop up in minutes. He complained about all the people who would crowd around a machine waiting for the results–”All that hair!” he said in horror.
Fair enough. But let’s imagine CSI with all the tedium and dreariness that goes into good forensic work. Tonight on CSI: our heroes wait for results. And wait. And wait! Next week: the samples were lost, so our heroes have to run the test again! We watch movies and TV shows to escape reality, not to be enslaved by it.
I will also grant that Hollywood can find huge amounts of inspiration in science. I myself ended up writing about science because it was far weirder than things I could think of myself. But (yes, there’s always a but) I think a good Hollywood director can find inspiration in economics, politics, crime, and the lives of bored housewives. What matters most, however, is whether the director knows how to turn the raw ingredients into a good story.
Once I was done with this riff with Gambis, I wondered if I was making any sense. Perhaps there’s a kind of science-based movie that transcends my skeptical take. By eerie coincidence, I just got an email from Netflix saying that with my Mac I can now watch an unlimited number of free movies on my computer. I’m now scanning through their science fiction collection (everything from Contact to Plan 9 From Outer Space) to conduct a little “research.” In my heart of hearts, I know that what I’m really doing is setting up my own professional downfall, because I’m going to watch movies all day long. But if anyone thinks I’m totally off the mark, please suggest to me a movie that proves me wrong.
[Image of Buster Keaton: Silent Gents' Buster Keaton Gallery]
Alice writes, “This is an Aztec speech glyph that dates back before the conquest. I’m a linguist, and I believe this glyph embodies the impossible elegance of spoken language as well as the intrinsically artificial and cumbersome nature of written language.”
Billy, a psychology major, writes: “I love all forms of science, my favorite being evolutionary biology. So I decided to get this tattoo of Charles Darwin with a mohawk. I put a mohawk on him because I love punk rock music, and view him as revolutionary. ”
If you live in New York, please come join me tomorrow night at 7 for a free lecture called, “The Darwin Beat: Reporting from the Frontiers of Evolution.” I’ll be talking about what I think is most exciting in evolutionary biology these days, as well as the interesting position a journalist ends up in by reporting on the topic–such as getting letters from people who tell you Satan has blinded you to the truth. I guarantee deadly snakes, zombie cockroaches, creationist throw-pillows, and a couple Darwinian tattoos (although they won’t actually be on my own skin).
And it’s free!
Here are the details:
When: Thursday December 4 @ 7:00 PM
Where: Rockefeller University
Weiss Building Room 305
1230 York Avenue @ 66th St. (Campus Map)
NYC Skeptics page
Hope to see you there.
Lindsay writes, “It’s from Edwin Abbott’s Flatland. The idea is that if your eye was one the same 2D plane, looking at the circle from the tip of the point on the right, you would actually perceive the 2D shape (the circle) as a 1D shape (the line). It’s a reminder for me that if you’re so entrenched in something, you won’t be able to see the big picture and, therefore, you should try to keep perspective.”
Flatland at Google Books. More at Wikipedia.
Here’s a new review of Microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life in The Journal of Clinical Investigation. (Open access–most excellent.) The reviewer likes the book: “Mr. Zimmer has woven a fascinating tapestry, intercalating the energy of world-changing scientific discovery with the fascinating complexity of a well-understood living organism. His work will be welcomed by the scientist and the science enthusiast.”
On the other hand, it’s a little queasy to read that I’m “an American science writer at the zenith of his profession.” Does that mean it’s downhill from here?
All authors get nervous a few months after a book comes out, wondering if it will make the leap to a continued life in paperback. Fortunately Vintage will be publishing Microcosm in paperback, and it already has a page on Amazon. You can order now, although it won’t be out till July. So if there’s someone in your life who deserves an E. coli Christmas (and, really, who doesn’t?), you should get a hardback.
Mike, a geologist, writes: “Various stages of human evolution around a take of Da Vinci’s Vitruvian man.”
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
"Celebrated curiosity monger"
Carl Zimmer writes about science regularly for the New York Times and magazines such as Discover, where he is a contributing editor and columnist.
He is the author of twelve books, the most recent of which is Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed. His website is carlzimmer.com and his address is blog at carlzimmer dot com .
Recent Posts
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
