Rockefeller scientists make their own science(-fiction) films

Science and film have always gone hand in hand. Since the beginning of moving images with Mélies’ Voyage à la Lune and Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, film has turned to science for inspiration. The public has always been fascinated by adventures, where science becomes science fiction, with futuristic, imaginary, and speculative turns and twists. With Einstein’s theory of relativity or the birth of intelligent machines, the big screen brought us to places where time travel is possible and human-designed robots invade the planet. The film industry has profited from science to generate visually exciting pictures. Take the concept of DNA and mutations, bring in a few elements of drama, terror, and fantasy, and sprinkle a few special effects, and you’ve got a winning ticket: the story of a genetically inferior man who assumes the identity of a superior one to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel (Gattaca, 2001).

What about the other side of the deal? How has the image of science been influenced by its appearances on the big screen? One could argue, and truthfully so, that film with its strong visual and “sexy” storytelling has served as an educational tool making science more accessible to the public. It has also served to increase the dialogue between the scientists and the public. And to some extent, it has also instigated curiosity and interest in scientific concepts and discoveries. I will be the first to admit that 80s science-fiction flicks on TV brought the aspiring scientist out of me. Even today, I get flashbacks of the plutonium capsules in Back to the Future’s Dolerean time travel machine when reaching for radioactive ³²P stored in the lead box. I also occasionally reminisce about the transforming machine in the The Fly when I find myself in the fly room staring at fruit flies under the microscope. Film has also been helpful in raising the ethical boundaries and philosophical undertones of science. In Gattaca, we are placed in a disturbing and terrifying not-so-implausible future where humans are discriminated according to their genetic makeup and receive genetic enhancements at birth to favor their success. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the robot Hal 9000 turns against its own creator and takes control of the space ship. With these films, we bump against existential questions such as “What makes us human?”

Unfortunately, there is a darker side to the marriage between science and film. Extrapolated science in films far too often does not ground itself on credible science leaving the world of reality to enter the realms of the ludicrous. Film also often draws overused and inaccurate stereotypes of scientists. Finally, it seems that it is often the dark and powerful side of science, or science and technology gone awry, that appeals to filmmakers. Hence, with millions of people rushing to the big screen, film has the potential to transpire misconceptions, damaging stereotypes, and outright falsehoods about science and scientists. Godsend, a film about an eight-year-old boy who is brought back to life by cloning, is a typical example. With a story not founded on credible genetics, the film becomes manipulative and incredibly bogus. What we are left with is a freakish film that takes an issue of topical interest from the headlines and grafts a wildly histrionic reaction to it. Not surprisingly, after such films, the ill-informed public hysteria wants cloning, genetic engineering, and the quite beneficial stem cell research banned on the premise that it is killing unborn souls or that it might produce races of three-legged mutants. In the public eye, the everyday scientist suddenly becomes a delirious, mad, and “unethical” scientist who mischievously wants to abolish the human race using pipette tips and stem cells.

To prevent the exploitation of science in film, an increasing number of film schools and festivals have an objective to influence the next generation to create more realistic science-based stories and to challenge existing stereotypes and biases about scientists through visual media. The non-profit institution, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has been at the forefront of these initiatives; it has fueled the means to increase public understanding of science to a wide non-specialist audience through different forms of communication, notably film. There have also been open forums and Internet Web sites where filmmakers and scientists have joined efforts to ultimately produce together compelling material in a friendly medium. Being an aficionado of filmmaking and with the recent invitation from Lukasz Kowalik to be part of the Rockefeller Film Series, I have decided to begin the Science-Film initiative on campus. The objective is to have scientists on campus make short digital films on science-related topics, which will be shown to the entire RU community. These films could be experimental shorts, documentaries, narratives, or others genres of choice. They could also be a collaborative enterprise. As these shorties will be shown before our feature film screenings, the only constraint is that they remain less than ten minutes in length. We also plan to show these short videos on a special Monday screening and will ask attendees to vote for their favorites in different categories. Access to equipment both for the making and for post-production of these shorts is a concern, but no worries—not much is needed to crank out a short film. And maybe in the near future, we will get funding to buy film equipment and software. But, for now, you will need a digital camcorder, a computer, (a microphone if using synchronized sound), and an editing software such as Final Cut Pro and voilà—you are ready to rumble. The goal is to have you begin making your films as soon as possible. When your short films are completed, you should burn them to DVDs and drop them into my box (#252). Feel free to contact me at (or ) if you have any questions. I will be sending an e-mail out shortly announcing the Science-Film initiative.