http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/30.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
Crichton was the author of many famous science-fiction thrillers including [i]The Andromeda Strain[/i], [i]Congo[/i], and [i]Jurassic Park[/i], and his scientific repertoire spanned from pathogenic microbes and brain surgery to cloning ancient DNA and the militarization of nanotechnology.

Crichton was an extremely talented writer and story teller who capture the public's imagination. But did his books lead to scientific intrigue or scientific misunderstanding? For instance, did [i]Jurassic Park[/i] make DNA a common household acronym, or did it lead people to think we could truly clone dinosaurs from any old insect trapped in amber? Did [i]Congo[/i]'s Amy show the power of gorillas to communicate with humans, or suggest that all great apes could easily learn sign language?

What do you think Crichton's scientific legacy will be?

Elie Dolgin, Associate Editor, [i]The Scientist[/i]]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/995.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/995.page GMT
I really enjoyed them as entertainment -- but I found myself thinking that many of the situations in "Next" were not that unbelievable.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/996.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/996.page GMT http://crookedtimber.org/2004/01/20/science-and-pseudoscience/) The "Expelled" conspiracy theorists are fond of quoting Crichton to prove that the scientific community is hopelessly biased.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/997.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/997.page GMT
So the factual nature of the stories is not at issue here, if one presumes the reader knows it is fiction. What is of real concern are two issues: how our society obtains its scientific literacy, and whether one is deliberately misconstruing science to nefarious ends.

Regarding scientific learning, if our fundamental understanding of science comes from fictional novels, where science is often misconstrued for entertainment or to ask a philosophical question, then this is a big problem in the first place. Stanley Kubric's "2001, A Space Odyssey" posed some great questions, although we could argue an obelisk mysteriously appearing is not scientifically truthful. The "science" in the Will Smith movie "I Am Legend" was about as realistic as the "science" in "Snakes on a Plane," yet I found both pretty entertaining. We need to educate people about science starting at a young age. This is the best inoculum against bad science.

If any real critique of Crichton exists, it is his misconstruing of real science for political purposes, such as in 2004's "State of Fear" that used footnotes and appeared scientifically authoritative to many non-scientists. This is a huge problem. But again, a proper scientific education can help with this.

So, in my humble opinion, science for entertainment or to pose questions, can be safely bent, as Crichton did on numerous occasions; but this bending can also be used to deceive rather than entertain. Since Crichton did both of these things, to me his legacy is a mixed one, but I must admit, I really admire his creativity.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/1000.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/1000.page GMT
The real problem, however, is the large-scale politicization of scientific themes - the best example of which is the anti-global-warming "State of Fear" diatribe (in which Crichton claims to be about the only person who has no political agenda!). While some of his other works (particularly Andromeda Strain) give a fascinating view of how science works, this book turns into the kind of pseudo-science that people use to bring themes like Intelligent Design into a public forum and then mangle them. The natural sciences are not a post-modernist enterprise; there are facts out there; they cannot simply be bent to fit a political agenda. The world will suffer for decades from the concerted Republican effort (likely motivated by special financial interests of big industry) to warp scientific findings in areas like global warming, stem cell research, and evolution. For all his brilliance and ability to read in disciplines outside his field, Crichton did have an agenda, and provided fuel to people like Rush Limbaugh. Scientists are supposed to stand up and reflect on the implications of their work. Writers should, too - unless they clearly distinguish their personal identity from their fictional characters and devices. What would Crichton say, 20 years down the road, if he turned out to be completely wrong? and his book contributed to behavior that seriously aggravated the problem?


]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/1003.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/277/1003.page GMT