Star Trek and Science Education

[Sela]

While I know there's been perennial discussions on similar topics, I'm curious as to what actual evidence we'll be able to drum up on this one in specific. Most people on this board agree that Star Trek butchers science horribly - particularly in later 'generations'. Those who don't agree will rapidly find "VOY: Threshold" shoved down their necks to prove the point. So here's the question:

"Has the advent of the Star Trek franchise (TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT) had a net-positive effect on the degree to which the average person is knowledgeable in matters of science in America, a net negative effect, or no effect at all."


Going off my gut-instinct, I strongly suspect that at least at first , when the concept of mainstream sci-fi was not as popular as today, Star Trek might well have inspired a significant number of students. Not educating them, mind, but contributed to the "science is cool, I want to learn more" trend.
However - particularly as of late, it has served a far more negative effect. By relentlessly misusing and butchering terms and concepts like evolution, adaptation, phase, quantum-mechanics, and frequency they make the entire field look like an incoherent jumble or a stupid concept. And the way engineering and scientific discovery is treated like filing papers - "just give me five hours and I'll turn this entirely alien piece of technology into a fully-integrated part of our ship." - they manage to make scientists seem almost uneducated. . . as though a trained monkey could do it. Respect for the field goes down, and thus interest and desire to study it go down.

That said, suspicion is not proof and just because it might cause that to happen doesn't necessarily mean that it *does* cause it to happen. Any thoughts?


EDIT: I recognize this discussion may stray off of Star Trek and branch to SciFi in general. While I'd rather focus on Star Trek, if it becomes more general then please punt it to the appropriate forum at that time.

[Bounty]

"Has the advent of the Star Trek franchise (TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT) had a net-positive effect on the degree to which the average person is knowledgeable in matters of science in America, a net negative effect, or no effect at all."

Your question is meaningless. For starters, only a fraction of people even watch SF, or Star Trek in particular, and of those only a fraction would be the least bit interested in the science part of it as opposed to just seeing it as entertainment. Asking about an impact on the country as a whole is preposterous.

Moreover, as far as I recall, it has never been claimed that Star Trek had a positive effect on the population as a whole regarding, well, anything - the stories about people falling in love with science through watching Trek are always just that, personal anecdotes. If a physicist says he went into physics because he though the warp drive was cool, it's a singular event and not an indication of any sort of trend.

At the end of the day we're talking about a SF TV show here. TOS would have had a somewhat bigger impact by virtue of being a big fish in a small pond at the time, but post-TOS Trek? Nah.

[Sonnenburg]

To speak on Bounty's anecdote point, I know my interest in science grew from my love for Star Wars as a child, films without a shred of actual science in them.

[Transbot9]

I dunno - Scifi is a nerd thing, and one only has to watch "How William Shatner Changed the Universe" to find how trekkies have contributed to society. Biological sciences probably aren't effected too much, but physical and technological science definitely have a larger percentage of trek fans than other occupations.

[Ghost Rider]

I dunno - Scifi is a nerd thing, and one only has to watch "How William Shatner Changed the Universe" to find how trekkies have contributed to society. Biological sciences probably aren't effected too much, but physical and technological science definitely have a larger percentage of trek fans than other occupations.

Yes, because personal anecdotes are now regarded as fucking objective evidence.

[Bounty]

Also keep in mind that the relationship may be the reverse: someone who is interested in science and space at a young age is very likely to be drawn to science fiction, simply because that's nearly the only fiction where that interest play a key part.

[Akkleptos]

Also keep in mind that the relationship may be the reverse: someone who is interested in science and space at a young age is very likely to be drawn to science fiction, simply because that's nearly the only fiction where that interest play a key part.

And soon enough they will flock to what is called Hard-Sci Fi, relatively obscure works by even more obscure authors, but not TV shows that make them gnash every time they are shown science murdered in more than one way for the sake of plot devices and cool-looking special effects. Especially when the TV programmes mention a specific recognisable scientific term only to show onscreen exactly what it's not about.

But, regarding the OP, I can understand it referring to how ST TOS might have influences people to follow science as a calling, especially as young children... They would go, like... "Whoa! This science stuff is sooo cool! When I grow up, I wanna be like Mr. Spock!"... and just sometimes, the interest wouldn't fade away when they discovered science is not all about pretty lights and wonder-of-the-episode stuff.

[Thraxis]

I agree. Those who love science are the types to find sci-fi, and rarely is it an abnormal change in the other way. Further, there are shows which, in my humble opinion, butcher science worse than ST ever has. I mean, ST is infamous for its treknobabble, but overall, the science is usually made-up (or on such a theoretical level that someone with a highschool education wouldn't get pissed off, which I can't say about some shows and movies I've watched). Other shows, though, such as House are WILDLY popular, attempt to use real, practical science, and still succeed in butchering it (or so my pre-med friend has told me).

Honestly, I would say that ST (given it's field of influence) has done rather little to help or hinder the cause of science. The only thing it's really helped with, at all, is provide a "I wonder how I would do that" inspiration. Realistically, though, if it weren't for ST, some other movie/book/series probably would have done the same thing.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

I was reading Clarke and Asimov by age eight or so, so it was print SF that hooked me- and as a matter of interest, how many personal anecdotes does it take before you have what amounts to a survey from which statistical conclusions can be drawn?

Do we need a sample size of twenty, here? Fifty? One anecdote, a sample size of one, is useless, but one plus one plus...eventually, they'll add up to a body of data that can have distribution tests run on it.

That aside, the only solid example of real science coming out of Trek I can think of is http://physics.about.com/od/physicsatod ... edrive.htm- Miguel de Alcubierre's warp drive theory, which unfortunately proves that physically possible is a long way short of industrially practical.

[Batman]

I fail to see how the Alcubierre drive owes anything to Star Trek other than possibly the label 'Warp drive', as opposed to Einstein and Relativity Theory.

[Serafina]

Well, just an anecdote, but oh well:
I did not read any sci-fi until i was about 15 (comparsion: I read LotR with 13 and other fantasy before that).
And yet i was heavily interested in science before that, from about the age of 6 onwards.

Anyway, i do not think that sci-fi generates scientists in any way. The requirements are simply too high that an offhand-factor like prefered literature would influence it greatly - with the possible exception of a few individual cases, perhaps.

But i would say that sciene fiction definately has an impact on the public interest in science.
Phenomena like nanotechnology or A.I. are mostly known (amongst the public) from science fiction, and shaped by their portrayal there.
In my oppinion, the impact here is at least as often negative as positive, if not more so.
Why?
Well, science fiction mostly delivers inaccurate information.
Thats not limited to shows like star trek, but also to (presumable) well researched books. It is simply impossible to cramp the amount of knowledge necessary to understand this (the science) into a form of entertainment.

Why is this bad?
Well, the public DOES have an impact on research - after all, the money has to come from somewhere, and laws are and were passed that forbid certain research.
If the public has bad information, they are likely to make the wrong descisions.
Furthermore, fiction tends to portray science in a dramatic way. These dramatic changes, wether good or bad, can be frightening - and fear is a very powerfull propellant.

We can illustrate this process with genetics, nanotechnology and perhaps even nuclear fission. Of course, the media and politics also play a role - but the impact of science-fiction can be significant.

Oh, and i do not need to mention all the trekkies that think they know science from Star Trek, do i?

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Batman;

http://www.lifeboat.com/ex/bios.miguel.alcubierre,

"I was watching Star Trek and I thought there must be a way to do this right", says Miguel Alcubierre of the University of Wales in Cardiff.

Sounds pretty directly inspired to me.

Serafina, I wonder- also, I wonder how to prove- if there's a generational factor here; I mean, ST;TOS coincided with, hell postdated, a lot of the real space program.

The twenties and thirties, though, John W. campbell's era, the time of the pulps when there was very little real big science in the public eye- and when magazines like Popular Mechanics sometimes ran sci- fi stories, and the pulps sometimes threw in real scientific articles- if there's any truth to the idea that science fiction generates interest in science that makes people go on to be actual scientists, then that may be the time frame to look for it in.

Any idea how?

[Serafina]

IF it overlaps exactly, it is impossbile that it lead to a greater amount of scientists - that pesky training/studying takes many years.

It is more likely that the great focus on science by the goverment sparked interest in science fiction, especially since it was the interesting part of exploration, which just screems for adventures and heroes - unless many other aspects of science.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Tell me how "it takes many years" isn't a problem that invalidates the basic question of the OP?

Seriously, you've just shot your own theory here. If it overlaps exactly- does this mean that you have to be inspired right now? That only the moment counts? Obviously not, because the lead time is so spectacularly obvious an issue that you couldn't possibly have ignored it, so...

What, say a year to make your mind up, three years of increasing specialisation through secondary/ high school, a three or four year degree, two or three years postgraduate work- so, yes, there's a lead time of about a decade to spawn a working scientist, who then goes on to a career lasting hopefully many years- mathematicians seem to do their best work when they're young, (Gauss, Mach, Ramanujan, Riemann- it's not an absolute rule but there are a lot of indicators) physicists seem to have greater longevity.

Which means look for plausible sources of inspiration about ten years, plus or minus four, before the people concerned start their working career. And look for spikes in applications to do science degrees about seven to fourteen years after a supposed source of inspiration, good luck filtering that out from the background noise.

As far as I know, the seventies were an excellent time for planetary science, probes everywhere but most of all earth imaging; but a lacuna after Apollo in terms of manned exploration, there wasn't all that much work going around for adventurers and heroes.

[Wyrm]

Batman;

http://www.lifeboat.com/ex/bios.miguel.alcubierre,

"I was watching Star Trek and I thought there must be a way to do this right", says Miguel Alcubierre of the University of Wales in Cardiff.

Sounds pretty directly inspired to me.

You didn't say "inspired," though. You said "coming out", which has a different meaning. The relevant quote:

That aside, the only solid example of real science coming out of Trek I can think of is <snip>- Miguel de Alcubierre's warp drive theory, which unfortunately proves that physically possible is a long way short of industrially practical.