Mark Brake – Chair of the Earth and Space Sciences field in the School of Applied Sciences, University of Glamorgan, UK. He is also the course tutor of the BSc in Science and Science Fiction.
Julie E Czerneda – Science fiction author and author of No Limits: Developing Scientific Literacy Using Science Fiction.
Dick Doyle - Project Manager for the Millennium Conferences (Canada) and editor of the report on them, including Science/Science Fiction Conference.
Prof. Mike Edmunds – Department of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, UK.
Martin Griffiths – Graduate of Science and Science fiction degree, University of Glamorgan, UK.
Dr Mike Reddy – Lecturer, School of Computing, University of Glamorgan. UK.
Brian Stableford – Science fiction author.
- “Science in general is different from science in particular” (Edmunds). Popular interests are in dinosaur palaeontology, astronomy, cosmology, medical issues and specific areas that are of direct relevance to the public's lives.
- A high level of interest is thought to be evident from the growth of the popular science market and the number of science based TV programs such as Space, currently running.
- Levels of interest are high but whether the public are understanding the information is another thing.
- But they are much less interested in it as a general subject, how science and technology "work" or who does them, the more straightforward stuff and the method of science.
The experts were split in their answers. Some believed that:
- It would be the main exposure, or at least in part, to science and technology.
- It perhaps provides some people's main exposure to the word 'science'.
- It may provide “their main and possibly only exposure to speculation about the consequences” of science and technology. (Czerneda)
- Sometimes people would not realise that science fiction was their main exposure to science and technology. The effect, almost being subliminal.
On the other side of the argument:
- Others were more doubtful believing that “the average person gains most exposure to science and technology through the media in the form of news reports”. (Czerneda)
- Brian Stableford believing that there is no science or technology in most science fiction TV and Films, so it provides no exposure at all.
As mentioned in earlier chapters to define science fiction is notoriously difficult, with everyone having a different view. This was very clear from the interviews.
- The wider overall vision appears to produce the definition as:
A speculative literary or visual genre, partly based on the extrapolation of scientific premises or scientifically justifiable technology, in which humans are put in unusual circumstances, playing on their emotions, feelings, reactions and their thinking. It suspends your disbelief. A 'What if' scenario.
- Good science fiction is seen as looking at the moral, ethical, political and social issues of the placement of science and the effect that it has on society, both now and possibly in the future. Trying to look forward to how society or the world will look in future or different eras or in different places and explores those differences.
- The public are seen as probably just “liking it as a good yarn, watching things or listen to things that take them out of the ordinary, allowing them the luxury of forgetting or sublimating either an ordinary existence, or a dull existence or worried existence for a period of time.” (Edmunds).
- Worries were aired that it is now just moving towards “embracing futuristic costume drama, techno-thrillers and jargonized fantasy”. (Stableford)
It's seen as an important tool because, firstly there's a public fascination with science fiction, and secondly because it has been used by both scientists and by writers to comment on the social position of science in society.
The majority of the experts see science fiction as something that can be used to educate in several ways.
- Maybe just to present something to children that they can debate in the classroom.
- Perhaps “principally to make artistically inclined students feel more comfortable with science and technology. They can be invited to write or visually express stories that are judged in part by the science and in part by the quality of the art putting both science nerds and artistic kids on equal footing in an endeavour”. (Doyle)
- It is argued that it can be used “to develop scientific literacy, in particular critical reading skills, understanding of scientific processes, and creativity”. (Czerneda)
- The story-telling method of science fiction can be used to have students speculate on the consequences and potentials of advances in science and technology. Detaching the student from the speculation, it is said to make them more willing to consider a variety of ideas that might otherwise be too alarming or revealing. (Czerneda)
- It can be used to highlight “interrelationships between science and society, including how perceptions of science and scientists have changed (and are changing)”. (Czerneda)
- And it can be used in the teaching of philosophy (nature of identity, intelligence, consciousness, ethics and political philosophy). (Stableford)
Brian Stableford points out that even though he agrees with the ideas for teaching philosophy, he sees “attempts to use books such as The Science of Star Trek to engage the interest of science students as ludicrously misguided. “
- The main answer was yes. With science fiction being seen as something that at least partially inspired many professional scientists and engineers in their youth. Many of them “discovering a wonder about science and the natural world through science fiction, not their science classes“(Czerneda).
- But the problem seen is that very often it's very difficult to actually move between watching or finding a bit of science fiction interesting and changing that into a followed up interest in science. People may find things interesting but then don't have a way of taking that further to learn more about things.
- “Most science fiction authors would readily admit that 99% of science fiction is absolute rubbish, it's that 1% that has to be used in a perceptive way that'll then generate the ideas that we need to be taken on board. So not all of it is useful but much of it could be.” (Griffiths)
- In contrast, Brian Stableford believes in the answer to be no, finding that now that the space age is over it very difficult to imagine another aspect of science fiction that could act as an ad for a career in science.
- Some took the view “that science fiction is at it's best when based upon real science “. (Doyle)
- But it is not always clear what is fiction and what is real. Edmunds thought it might be good for books on science fiction to include an appendix that summarises the main facts and main fictions. Reddy argued against it, thinking that it was counter-productive because it broke the spell.
- The science being extrapolated into the future needs to be solidly grounded (for it to be useful), or the world building around that science needs to be internally consistent.
- There's a spectrum of "real science" one end contains only what we know and some thoughtful extrapolations into the near future. At the other, nothing is remotely tied to real science. One has little "fiction" the other little or no "science” (Czerneda).
- “What it may be better doing is representing real science questions rather than real science. Science fiction is more about 'look where we are going to go' or 'what are the consequences of going there'. So in that respect it shouldn't necessarily represent real science” (Reddy).
On the other side of the argument were the no's
- So long as it's clear what's being talked about is science fiction then it doesn't need to represent real science (Edmunds).
- “Putting real science in science fiction is a certain route to economic disaster as magic has always sold much better and probably always will” (Stableford).
- “Science fiction is particularly important as a barometer of public perception about science issues because much of it is unconscious” (Brake).
- “I don't think many of the fans appreciate the science within it because they realise it's not science anyway, which is good” (Griffiths).
- The majority of the experts thought the public would believe that it does predict the future, even though they personally all believe it does not, it is just an idea fabricated by the media. “For every issue that you identify one accurate prediction, there are probably a thousand that are completely and utterly wrong” (Brake).
- Science fiction writers who are scientifically literate are interested in science and where it's taking us. They tend to write about what is changing or new. Thus science fiction may appear ahead in terms of what to worry about. So it can seem predictive (Czerneda).
- “We are all affected by science fiction in that way and that we see something we think is a really cool idea, then there'll be somebody out there thinking 'I could make this into a product'. If people perceive a service in fiction that's useful, then they'll make it happen in a reality” (Reddy).
The majority answer of the experts was definitely a yes.
- “Consciously or not we all carry the images of Star Trek and other concepts around in our minds as we address problems and opportunities in science, this has to have an influence” (Doyle).
- “Many scientists, engineers etc. in space programs and so forth, openly say they are actively gearing their research towards producing some ability or technology imagined by an science fiction writer” (Czerneda).
- For example the writing of the book Contact by Carl Sagan lead to Kip Thorne beginning his work into the theoretical possibility of negative energy as a means of keeping open wormholes (Brake).
- “It's very difficult anyway to identify where good science theory comes from, the history of science is littered with people getting ideas from weird and wonderful places” (Edmunds).
- The 'no' view was lead by Brian Stableford but he still had a sense that scientific "thought experiments" might be seen as a species of scientific fiction, and there are many areas of science which could not make progress without them.
- “The perception of people who know nothing about science fiction is that the genre has got this lightly anoraky feel to it, it's something that nerds read; not science, not fiction, it's escapism and it's rubbish” (Griffiths).
- TV and film have produced misconceptions about who does science, why, and what science can and cannot do, it shows only the extremes, highlighting the image of the Mad Scientist and Frankenstein experiments.
- It may have produced some impatience with scientists, that they should be getting the answers to things much more quickly than they can (Edmunds).
- “The pseudo-scientific elements, which are sometimes very prominent within science are negative” (Brake).
- “Serious speculative fiction has undoubtedly opened a few minds to a few possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained” (Stableford). It inspires imaginative thinking, innovation, lateral thinking ability, and gives a view on the possibilities of the world around us (Griffiths).
- Star Trek and other positive visions for the future make life easier, the 'boldly going' is a positive aspect (Doyle & Edmunds).
- It offers a bit of demystifying. “We live in a era of accelerating change and science fiction is the single best creative expression of change within science, technology, and our society” (Czerneda).
- It is seen as one of the few forums in which we can debate the direction of science without actually being limited (Brake).
Nearly all of the experts saw a positive net gain for science and technology.
- We need stimulation, imagination and wonder.
- It may be the only real contact that members of the public have with science, attracting them to the true science background.
But some did see the negative aspects as having a strong pull.
- Julie E. Czerneda believing that it has been positive in the last 10 years but before that was negative.
- Brian Stableford believing that “pulp "sci-fi" has outweighed serious speculative fiction so massively, especially in the 20th century, that the net effect of everything subsumed under the "science fiction" label has been overwhelmingly negative.”
- “Movies are dominated by stereotypes, so maybe scientists shouldn't feel too victimised” (Doyle).
- The routine stereotypes are a loner, older males in white coats, generally in their 50s, white, brilliant, independently wealthy, immoral, no social skills, nerdish, etc.
- The stereotype image has also probably had a negative impact. “It is very bad for recruitment into science, or for any poor child in school who does really enjoy science. There has certainly over the years been dreadful prejudice in schools against girls doing science” (Edmunds).
- The image can be a reflection of society itself, or of the perception of the practice of science, the scientists being a representation of science as a metaphor. “they are creatures of our time, they are moulded by the things that happen around us and obviously we have opinions on them” (Griffiths).
- Recently the stereotype seems to be shifting. Scientists, even mathematicians and engineers are appearing more as heroes. Images are becoming more realistic, producing better role models. (Czerneda)
- In the end a good story wants heroes and villains (Reddy).
- Julie E Czerneda strongly believed that it does.
- “It maybe will switch some people on possibly to understanding but the main thing is stimulating interest in science” (Brake). “It certainly alters attitudes, to some extent it does affect what the public are interested in and hence what the governments may put money into and press” (Edmunds).
- The technobabble that tends to replace real science content in TV and film science fiction detracts from the possibilities of science itself (Griffiths).
- Many students first go into astronomy and physics because they are fascinated by the ideas that are presented in science fiction (Edmunds). Many people's first, memorable exposure to issues such as DNA was through science fiction films and television (Doyle).
- They will watch a film and come away with a more vivid internal image of how a scientific idea works than school will ever give them.
- When a scientific idea is not shown well it can undo all that was gained in high school physics. But the public are probably not exposed to it for very long and so it probably doesn't do too much lasting damage (Edmunds).
- The expectation was that the people who spend a lot of time on science fiction would have realised that is does have an effect on their understanding.
- But that the general public still perceives science fiction as "unreal" and "unreliable", entertainment for kids. For that reason, they are expected to deny any effect.
- However, the effect is still thought to be there. “Science fiction terminology and the concept of imaginative speculation is seen as having pervaded our culture and mindset. So whether the general public admits it, or not, they have actually absorbed quite a bit of both” (Czerneda).
So the guess was generally that they don't, not consciously, but if they were asked to reflect on it most would agree.
Some of the experts did express worries that such books only create confusion.
- The pulling apart of the science "misconceptions" in a show can lead to a generalised distrust not of science fiction, but of anything that sounds like science. It is books that look at "how could we do this?" that are seen as being much more effective in improving the public's understanding (Czerneda).
Others were more hopeful, believing that it's good that they're there, so that if somebody is interested then they are at least a next step.
- 'The Science of Star Trek', written by Lawrence Krauss, for instance, is commented on as being very good. “The book is based around…'listen this is a science fictional idea, now then what are the possibilities of this?' What he does is to lead the reader into the real science, explaining why this particular science fiction idea is either good or bad. But in the meantime, we've picked up an awful lot of real science that has given birth to the science fiction; it gives you a good background to it.” (Griffiths)
- Others were even more hopeful, such books being seen as an area of great opportunity, “but just one aspect of a bigger picture which relates to one answer: find out what interests people and use that to draw them into scientific understanding and knowledge” (Doyle). Anything that makes science accessible is of value in education.
- It was argued that “the vast majority of people applying the "science fiction" label make no such distinction; ipso facto, no such distinction exists” (Stableford). Even a lot of scientists outside their own specialist fields, may not be able to absolutely draw the line (Edmunds).
- There was an expectation that “people who "would never touch science fiction - or hate science" quite happily watch X-files etc. and would defend that this isn't the same at all” (Czerneda).
- Others believed a distinction would be drawn, believing that people are generally smarter than we think (Doyle).
The expert's opinions were very widely spread, often representing the two extremes of each argument.
- The public's level of interest in science is thought to be high.
- The majority of the experts saw science fiction as featuring heavily in the public's exposure to science.
- Science, technology, the future and Human interactions are seen as being at the core of science fiction.
- The majority saw science fiction as being an important tool for education.
- Science fiction is seen as something which can inspire an interest in science by the majority of the experts.
- Science fiction does not have to represent real science, although it may be at its best when it does. Science fiction fans are expected to realise that the science within the fiction is not real.
- The public are expected to see science fiction as a predictor of future science and technology. But the experts believe that it does not.
- But it is seen as inspiring real science.
- There are worries that science fiction produces misconceptions, and propagates the mad scientist image.
- On the positive side it allows debate about science, gives the public a view on the world around them and provides a demystifying influence.
- The majority of the experts saw the net effect to be a positive one.
- The stereotype image of the scientist in science fiction is expected to have negative effects.
- There was a strong belief that science fiction does affect the public's understanding of science and technology to some degree.
- But the public are expected to either not realise that it has an effect on their understanding or deny the effect.
- There are worries about books such as The Physics of Star Trek, but others believe they have a very positive outcome.
- Most of the experts argued that the public would have difficulty in drawing a distinction between science fiction and pseudo-science.