Sci-Fi London
2007

John Dennen
posted 9 May 2007

This year's Douglas Adams Memorial Debate, produced in conjunction with the Institute of Ideas, asked whether science-fiction is good for public debate. Neil Hook, from the Centre for Astronomy and Science Education in the University of Glamorgan, framed the argument by pointing out that, since 1977, the list of highest grossing movies has been dominated by science fiction films. This, of course, was the year of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Both of these provide prime examples of different kinds of science fiction; futuristic fantasy and hard SF. Since then science fiction has appeared to capture the zeitgeist of the age. As a lot of the public’s understanding of science derives from science fiction, Rev Hook suggested that filmmakers have a responsibility to avoid mistakes. He accepted that there was typically a tension between the desire for accuracy and the need to entertain. Although now films like An Inconvenient Truth appear to be an exception to that rule.

Stephen Foulger, the curator of the Science Museum’s ‘Science of...’ exhibitions, questioned whether science fiction had any such responsibility. Science is not the job of a filmmaker. Rather these films set the agenda for how people approach areas of science. Disbelief is happily suspended for a science fiction film but what the genre can do is to generate an interest in the factual truth, which is catered for by exhibitions like Foulger’s. Dr Geeta Nargund is a consultant in reproductive medicine and was consulted by the producers of the recent film Children of Men. That film didn’t engage much with the science itself but it did raise the possibility of global infertility in the future and depict its social consequences. This is the ‘what if…’ structure of science fiction. It can provide a space to explore our fears, as well as our hopes.

Professor Mark Brake, also from the University of Glamorgan, explained that the relationship between science and science fiction is as old as modern science. Copernicus revealed that the earth was no longer at the centre of the universe. The first true science fiction literature emerged in the 17th century and can be characterised as an attempt to address man’s place in this new, alien universe. This has set the form for much of science fiction. It’s often about the human versus the non-human. Sometimes man allies with nature against science out of control. As in War of the Worlds, where, in the face of vastly superior technology, the human race receives unsolicited aid from Darwinian natural selection and the common cold virus. Or the human can ally itself with science to resist a hostile natural environment. In recent science fiction we see depictions of both the science-hero, eg Sunshine, and the science villain, or at least the science fool working for evil corporations, as in 28 Days Later.

Lizzie Burns, from Hollywood Math and Science Consulting, was tired of the cliché of the mad professor. She agreed that the only responsibility a filmmaker had was to make a good film. But she argued that poor science detracts from a film. A ludicrous plot device can undermine the integrity of the film. Science is an imaginative process too and doesn’t necessarily have to limit a piece of science fiction. It can open up new possibilities. Geeta Nargund agreed with this point on the inspirational quality of science fiction. She pointed out that Brave New World anticipated in vitro fertilisation. Cloning is a concept that is frightening for humanity, which makes it great subject matter for science fiction. This generates debate, which leads to better science. Dr Nargund was far more worried about the lack of scientific communication, which is hugely important for progress.

Steven Foulger agreed, saying that the big issue was the falling numbers of people studying science. He asked, if science has an image problem, whether there is anything that films can or should say about the process of science. Neil Hook suggested that a problem arose in the presentation of scientists in the media. Unlike politicians, scientists were not prepared to make absolute statements. Much misunderstanding arises from the preconceptions the media already demands of scientists. An advantage of television shows such as the CSI series is that they dramatise the scientific method. The program is about different possibilities and the consequences of those actions. Their scientists do not say that there is only one possible answer and sometimes they even get it wrong. Mark Stevenson, a scientific comedian, endorsed this point. He said that through film and TV you are able to illustrate the way we think about things, the possibility of being wrong and being glad about being wrong. A good question from the audience was about how we view science in culture. How in current trends there is a lost belief in what science can give to society. Mark Brake answered that science is sceptical about the world, which is also a good thing, and it is sceptical about the power of science. Technology is not necessarily neutral, it depends on how you use it.

While the panel came to no firm conclusions about the question at hand, it was clear that science fiction does not have to be mainly about science, but at its most excellent it provides an arena to engage imaginatively in the implications of science and to explore the positive and negative consequences of ideas.