Do we really need another post tackling inaccuracies in the media? Maybe, since some issues I will discuss are rarely discussed elsewhere (possibly because journalists are often not ensconced in scientific culture).
The most famous, though not only, example of scientists on a TV sitcom, currently producing new episodes, is The Big Bang Theory (TBBT). Medical and investigative dramas (e.g. CSI, Numbers, Bones, X-Files) often include scientists and doctors in various roles, but this is rare in sitcoms. Growing up, I remember no sitcoms with scientists or people interested in science as major characters (the closest might be Steve Urkel from Family Matters, who was nothing more than a caricature, or possibly Frasier Crane, who though a psychiatrist no longer does or discusses scientific research). If anyone knows of other characters from the early to mid 1990s, please let me know. I did enjoy the X-Files, which discussed a lot of science (often in the context of the paranormal), but that did not really portray scientists as scientists.
As a note, I generally enjoy TBBT. It has intellectual humor, employs irony effectively, and the characters are by and large good, relateable people. We can compare to other shows featuring educated individuals, such as Nip/Tuck, where the characters are, by and large, awful people. Or Frasier, with intellectuals who, though generally good people, are portrayed overwhelmingly as snobs. (Sheldon can be condescending - "I know more than you" - which may superficially seem snobby, but does not have the cultural snobbiness - "I'm into art and classical music just because it's what cultured people do" - portrayed on Frasier. I would argue that these are different.) However, TBBT is not without its misleading and inaccurate portrayals. The most glaring is the inconsistency of the show with the realities of academia. All of the characters (except Bernadette, who works at a pharmaceutical company) seem to be independent researchers. None are described as postdocs or faculty, i.e. they seem not to have bosses (or are their own bosses) but also have no full-time teaching and advising duties. They also seem to have some semblance of job security (though not complete job security). In US research universities, such positions are rare to nonexistent. Compare to Numbers, with a more accurate labeling of individuals as assistant and tenured professors, department chairs, and students with the proper duties required of each.
However, both Numbers and TBBT, along with Bones, suffer from a different problem - that of heightened expectations for scientists. Leonard, Sheldon and Charlie all graduated from college and received PhD degrees significantly younger than average (Leonard the oldest at 24). Sheldon, Charlie, and Brennan, Hodgins and Sweets from Bones all have multiple doctoral degrees. First, the average PhD recipient in the US is about 28-29 years old. Second, almost none will get a second (or more) doctorate. This sort of portrayal is not only inaccurate, it may be harmful to potentially interested young people who might get turned off from studying science because of the perception that one must be a super-genius, in college at age 14, to be successful. As an anecdote, I personally do not know anyone in real life with such credentials.
Are such portrayals harmful? I do not know. Realistically, it will take years of sociological data -following children who watch such shows - to find out.
This is all for now - I may write more in the future discussing the "-isms" and diversity if the time and popularity of this blog require it.
No comments:
Post a Comment