your entertainment, now with more science

Hollywood is trying to make movies a little more scientifically plausible by asking real scientists for advice.

Movies and science don't always go together. Filmmakers aren't scientists and they're not supposed to be. So it's not a big surprise that when faced with a choice between a spectacular shot and a scientifically accurate one, they'll choose to light up the screen nine times out of ten. After all, that's their job.

But producers Janet and Jerry Zucker want to change that by setting up an organization which if all goes well, will inject more science into movies and TV shows. The Science and Entertainment Exchange is made up of big shots in Hollywood, college professors and popular science writers along with their bosses and so far, it's agenda seems to be hosting invitation-only conferences in which scientists and creative big shots will talk about science in the movies.

There's more to it than just a sudden urge to take advice from the likes of National Geographic or Mythbusters. Seth MacFarlane, the creator of Family Guy and an advisory board member of the new group lamented how science education is viewed as irrelevant, uncool and even as "not American." It's hard to disagree there.

When politicians campaign around the nation, a big part of their folksy appeal is their mention of how they just couldn't grasp math or science and how that makes them more like John and Jane Q. Public. Brilliant characters in the popular media are portrayed as socially inept and devoid of street smarts and characters anyone would think are smart usually don't know much about science and didn't do well in school. After a few decades of this, no wonder scientists and their allies in the media want to reverse the cultural course.

However, as someone who worked in the creative field, I have to voice some concern about how much science you can put into a movie or TV show and keep it entertaining. Showing alien solar systems we know are out there today would be be engaging and much more dramatic than the clones of our solar system we see over and over again.

But battles in space without explosions or the roar of otherworldly weapons? Instead of seeming scientifically accurate, it will look as if your TV or the sound system in the theater was broken. And what about the impossible physics that allow of bizarre plot twists or the rescue of a character from a deadly situation? What about sci-fi that deals with concepts we're just now exploring?

I'm all for better science in the media and I'm all for scientific accuracy in our world. But movies and TV are well… movies and TV. They're not substitutes for a good education and they're just something interesting. Real science is not always exciting and using the media to educate the general public 1950s style just won't work in today's world of 1,300 channel cable.

If you really want to improve science education and how it's viewed, you have to start with school boards, classrooms and teachers. If the Science and Entertainment Exchange will get enough power to help the image of scientists and academics in the media, it will be a terrific help. But it can't do it on its own. If we want to help kids with math and science, we need more than movies and TV shows with a heavy injection of science factoids.