Science and the Media

May 15 will be the premiere of Angels & Demons, the Ron Howard movie starring Tom Hanks and Ayelet Zurer, based on the Dan Brown novel. The narrative moves between particle physics at CERN and religious politics at the Vatican — feel free to provide your own characterization of that particular binary opposition.

We have no idea how good the movie is going to be, but it’s sure to garner attention, and it does feature physics prominently. So the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society figures that we might as well get some mileage out of it. They recently sent around the email below, encouraging physics departments to host “Angels & Demons lecture nights” to capitalize on the interest generated by the movie. Seems like a good idea to me — rather than spending energy finding flaws in the physics as portrayed in the movie (which are sure to be there), let’s grab the opportunity to spread the word about some exciting science that’s being done in the real world. If nothing else, the most common question about the LHC will change from “Will it make a black hole that will destroy the world?” to “Will it make an anti-matter bomb that could destroy the Vatican?”

This May, Sony Pictures will release Angels and Demons, a movie based
on Dan Brown’s best-selling novel that focuses on an apparent plot to
destroy the Vatican using a small amount of antimatter. In the book
and the movie, that antimatter gets stolen from CERN.

Starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard, parts of the movie were
actually filmed at CERN. It’s not every day that a major motion
picture places particle physics in the spotlight. The US particle
physics community would like to take advantage of this opportunity to
tell the world about the science behind the movie, the Large Hadron
Collider and the excitement of particle physics.

Along these lines, the Fermilab, SLAC and US LHC users organizations
will join forces to organize Angels and Demons public lecture nights
at universities or other venues across the country when the movie
premieres in mid-May. While each institution will be responsible for
the local logistics of planning the public lecture, the Fermilab
Office of Communications and the CERN Press Office can help. A Web
page on the US LHC Web site (http://www.uslhc.us/Angels_Demons) will
provide you with materials that will include:

– a template PowerPoint talk, for your use if helpful

– a template poster to advertise the lecture at your institution

– tips on answering tough questions

– information on how to broadcast the lecture on the Web

If you would like to host a lecture, please contact Elizabeth Clements
(lizzie@fnal.gov) or Katie Yurkewicz (katie@fnal.gov). They will give
you more information and help you with publicity for your event.

While the movie contains a great deal that is not about science,
physics is central to its plot. This makes it possible for US
physicists to lecture on the science behind the movie, the Large
Hadron Collider and particle physics in general. The physics at the
heart of Angels and Demons–the potential destruction of the Vatican
by a small chunk of antimatter–calls attention to what happens when
matter and antimatter meet. This in turn calls attention to the fact
that the absence of practically any antimatter in the universe is
crucial to our existence. To understand that absence is one of the big
challenges of particle physics. Public lectures could discuss the
challenge of the missing antimatter, possible solutions and how
experiments in both the intensity and energy frontiers will explore
these mysteries.

In order to allow enough time to plan and advertise the lecture at
your institution, the time to get started is now. We hope that you
will make the most of this wonderful opportunity to get the public
excited about particle physics and the many anticipated discoveries
that lie ahead.

Sincerely,

Boris Kayser, Chair
Division of Particles and Fields
American Physical Society

So why didn’t I think of this? Marine-biologist-turned-filmmaker Randy Olson has a new movie coming out — Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy — and has asked a bunch of bloggers to simultaneously post reviews, to generate some buzz out there on the internets. (Full listing here.) Next time I have a movie coming out, I’ll have to come up with something even more clever.

Disclaimer: I’ve met Randy a couple of times, and he handed me a review copy of the DVD (premiere is this Saturday) at the conclusion of an enjoyable Mexican dinner with a bunch of local science/media folks. None of this, of course, compromises my unswerving devotion to completely objective fairness, but the rituals must be observed.

This is a movie with a goal, and it’s fair to ask how well it achieved that goal. To which I would answer: so-so. I thought the execution was a bit rough in spots, to be honest. It was clearly done on a shoestring budget — a running gag was the search for a famous celebrity spokesperson, and a couple of C-list celebs were dutifully trotted out (with captions so you knew they had appeared on TV), but nobody is going to mistake this for a Spielberg film, or even a Michael Moore film.

Nevertheless: the goal was awesome! Namely (as I see it, maybe Randy would disagree), to make a movie about a scientific topic that would be interesting and perhaps even gripping to an audience that would generally not show up at movies about science. In particular, to make a movie with an actual narrative — one with characters, that told a story, all in the service of a scientific purpose. Sizzle is not a lecture, nor does it pretend to be. On the contrary, another running gag is the famous inability of scientists to cast their message in the form of a gripping story when they could instead take refuge in data-filled plots and multiply-qualified conditional statements.

Which is great. Communicating generally, and storytelling specifically, are very particular skills that take a lot of effort to master. Too many scientists don’t think the effort is worth it, or are simply convinced that this is a skill they have already perfected. The best thing about Sizzle is that it proves the existence, by construction, of an alternative model. This movie has a story, featuring actual characters, and — best of all — the characters actually learn and grow and change during the course of the film. All in the service of conveying a scientific message!

Unfortunately, I don’t think the message is successfully conveyed. The movie ends up reacting so strongly against the traditional pitfalls of misguided scientific presentations — too much data, too little drama — that it falls victim to the complementary pitfalls. At the end, I wasn’t sure why I should believe that global warming was a real problem, outside of some appeals to authority (these scientists sure are trustworthy, aren’t they?) and emotional gestures (polar bears are cute! the aftermath of Katrina was sad).

So I commend Randy and the other people involved with Sizzle for trying to break the mold of traditional scientific discourse, and for reaching out to new audiences. But I think that there is a tricky balance that has yet to be successfully struck: on the one hand, respecting the science, and being honestly informative without hedging the truth in the service of persuasion; and on the other, telling a compelling story that draws people in without giving them the feeling that they are being forced to eat their vegetables.

Science is full of drama, excitement, and gripping stories. Making that excitement accessible to the wider world is by no means a simple thing, but it’s worth the effort.

Luckily the scientists will not mind foolish questions for a few reasons. First of all, they are used to thinking of themselves as pretty smart and the people questioning them as, umm, not so smart.

— Dennis Overbye, answering questions in a wide-ranging New York Times “Talk to the Newsroom” feature.