Two weeks ago
Sean B. Carroll, evo-devo researcher, author, and new Vice President for Science Education of the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, visited
Kenyon College where I used to profess. Our dinner conversation touched on the recent Freshwater fiasco in the local public schools, and the Q&A following his talk about Darwin, Wallace, and Bates (based on his book
Into The Jungle) turned to the sorry state of general science knowledge in the U.S. I pressed him about it, asking whether in his new role with HHMI he proposed to do anything about it. His answer was "Wait for a press release on February 4." Well, that
press release is out now. It promises that HHMI will commit $60m "... to bring high-quality, compelling science features to television."
Carroll has high aspirations for the project:
The HHMI film division's first priority will be to tell intriguing science stories that will grab the viewer, Carroll says. They will cover all areas of science, especially biology and medicine, but will go beyond the work of HHMI's own researchers.
And then there's this laudable goal:
Although Carroll has not identified specific film topics at this time, he says that most scientists and science educators agree that the public would benefit from access to engaging materials that would provide better insight into how science works, how evidence is weighed and tested, and how conclusions are reached. "We want the public to understand the process of science and gain an appreciation for it so they can trust its results and use them in their daily lives," he says.
The project will include tie-ins to public education:
The subjects will be chosen based on their potential to become a compelling story, but HHMI's staff--primarily its Educational Resources Group--will work hand-in-hand with the executive producer and filmmakers to repackage the film footage into materials that can be used by teachers and students at both the high school and college level.
Carroll is an engaging speaker and an enthusiastic proponent of science education at all levels. I hope that same sense of engagement and enthusiasm will be instantiated in the proposed films but that they do not devolve into gee-whizzery.
20 Comments
Joe Felsenstein · 8 February 2011
It is good to hear that there is an important new player in the science documentary game, and one with some money to spend.
But perhaps this is a place to air some grievances about the current crop of documentaries. Too often, on Nova, we see a documentary of this sort: we are shown a group of scientists who are struggling in an exotic location to get some equipment in place to measure something. The Something is very important, and we'll tell you about it in one or two sentences. But first let's concentrate on these facts:
* The location is very dangerous, difficult, and scenic. (Scientific principles only operate in dramatic locations, apparently, and not in your back yard).
* They are running out of time and out of money.
* A hurricane or blizzard is closing in.
* The equipment is malfunctioning.
* The scientists on the team hate each other.
* Isn't science exciting?
A good example of failure to convey science in a science documentary was a Nova episode a couple of years ago on the origin of angiosperms. There was a genuinely important fossil being discussed, but that could only carry about half of the show. So for the rest of the show they showed a scientist in mountains in southwestern China investigating flowers there. There were flowers there that were very pretty, in beautiful mountain scenery. The flowers were close relatives of the common garden varieties that we all know.
Well, actually, the scientist was just photographing the flowers, because he wasn't really a scientist, he was a natural history photographer. And somehow they never got around to saying what the scientific question was that he was investigating. Because he wasn't investigating anything.
And that is about all the science we get.
Karen S. · 8 February 2011
I think that Nova generally does a good job. (I'm not a scientist but love science.) They do take some artistic license in promoting the show but that's to be expected. They do have to attract an audience!
Anyway, I'm very excited to hear about the new HHMI venture. They do a great job with their holiday lectures.
Wheels · 8 February 2011
You mean someone wants to compete with the BBC for the North American science documentary market?
Robert Byers · 9 February 2011
This YEC loves NOVA. i like most of the subjects and the entertainment of them.
I loved the Missoula flood one and many others. think they are very well done. Only BBC has like quality. If there are a few which fail to have to have something to talk about well par for the cource.
They do need to entertain to gain a public that they want.
Nova can't be about minor things.
I find a lot of the shows work for creationism in many points.
No better American show for subjects like these.
Could give Creationism at least once a fair shake.
Yet the more publicity creationism gets the more gain it gets.
I think they know that.
Dale Husband · 9 February 2011
ben · 9 February 2011
Stanton · 9 February 2011
Karen S. · 9 February 2011
AE · 11 February 2011
Regarding YEC:
I can relate, I'm a Flat Earther. Much of Nova shows the creation in 2 dimensions, at least on my TV.
mrg · 11 February 2011
Robert Byers · 15 February 2011
Stanton · 15 February 2011
Stanton · 15 February 2011
The Missoula Flood does not demonstrate that the entire world's geological features were formed by a catastrophic, 40 day, 40 night long flood, especially since a) the appearances of the vast majority of the world's geological features do not suggest that they were formed through sudden, catastrophic flooding, and b) the Missoula Flood was a localized event.
As for dinosaurs dying in floods: how come no Creationist has been able to logically explain how no modern animals are mixed in with all of the dinosaurs that allegedly died in the Great Flood?
"Evolutionists" (sic) are not shy of giving Creationists a fair shake: Creationists are shy of presenting any evidence, and they refuse to explain how Creationism is supposed to be a science.
But, Robert Byers, you can not understand this because you're a Lying Moron for Jesus.
Why don't you just stop posting here? Every post you make further demonstrates how you are a liar and an incurable idiot.
DS · 15 February 2011
Robert wrote:
"It shows there is a establishment that clings to its defences."
Well, at least you got one thing right. There was indeed an establishment that clung to it's defenses. Three hundred years ago most people thought the earth was very young. However, Hutton showed that it was not. Now all real scientists have been convinced by the evidence that the earth is billions of years old. There is no reticence on the part of anyone to demonstrate this. There is however reticence to dignify the cries of the ignorant who refuse to accept the evidence.
Now Robert, since you like NOVA so much, perhaps you can answer a few simple questions from your vast experience of watching the programs. How old does the NOVA show claim the earth is? Do they claim that there was a world wide flood? When do they claim the dinosaurs died out?
So you see Robert, the program you love so much completely disagrees with your religious preconceptions. Get a clue lad. you is busted yet again.
replica rolex watches · 18 February 2011
the appearances of the vast majority of the world’s geological features do not suggest that they were formed through sudden, catastrophic flooding, and b) the Missoula Flood was a localized event.
robert van bakel · 21 February 2011
I have seen few NOVA docs and so will accept the view here that they are generally sound; good.
I do however wonder how Mr Byers likes BBC docs as their stand on evolution as fact is uncompromising. In any of their natural history efforts, starting in the early eighties with Attenborough's monumental 'Life on Earth', they never lower themselves to even mention an alternative to evolution. The theory is accepted, and described, and shared to the utter exclusion of any alternative; their reasoning RB is because there is none. Perhaps RB you should remember the BBC's utter disdain for your non-science before you watch another of superlative their productions.
robert van bakel · 21 February 2011
Or indeed, 'their superlative productions.':)
MaryM · 6 March 2011
PBS Nova ScienceNow just completed a 6-part series with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson that was geared toward middle/high school students. It was exceptionally good! If only we could clone Dr. Tyson and put him in every science classroom in the country. If you missed it, you can catch it online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
I appreciate that HHMI will be producing quality science documentaries but there is a lot of good science programming already on TV. That's not including network shows like "CSI" and it's spinoffs, as well as medical shows like "House" and "Bones". It seems that science and scientific thinking ("follow the evidence") should be seeping into the culture.
What are the 40% of Americans who don't believe in evolution watching on TV? Oh yeah, sitcoms and sports.
Scott F · 6 March 2011
I heartily agree about Neil deGrasse Tyson. Simply an excellent science communicator. As for sciency TV shows, I'd also recommend "Dr. G, Medical Examiner". I'm not a wet-ware guy, but the forensics seem to be really good.
SWT · 7 March 2011