The Great Beyond, the Nature News blog, provides its own perspective on the sad news of Michael Crichton’s death on 4 November. Crichton was not universally popular among scientists, possibly because his favourite theme was ‘science gone horribly wrong’ — in genetics, nanotechnology, medicine and climate.
In 1993, the year the film came out, a reviewer of Jurassic Park in Nature Biotechnology bemoaned the lack of scientific accuracy. Crichton responded in a letter to the journal: “As Alfred Hitchcock used to say, ’It’s just a movie.’”
Yet in his 2004 novel, State of Fear, Crichton presented climate change as a fraud perpetuated by activists and scientists. In support of this view, the author cited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, asserting that his training in medicine qualified him to evaluate it. As blogger Heidi Ledford puts it: “When President George Bush invited Crichton to swing by the White House for a chat about climate change, I don’t recall hearing the author protest, ‘Hey, but it was just a novel’.”
Nature 456, xiii; 20 November 2008.
-
From the blogosphere by Maxine Clarke
An archive of the "From the Blogosphere" column on the Authors page in Nature, highlighting nature.com blog posts of interest to scientists in their role as authors and peer-reviewers. We welcome comments and suggestions.
-
Michael Crichton and authorship -- 20 November 2008
- Date:
- Friday, 21 Nov ember 2008 - 12:29 UTC
Last updated: Friday, 21 Nov 2008 - 12:29 UTC
-
Comments
-
Hi Maxine,
As you know, Dr. Jennifer Rohn has led quite a discussion of the problems of writing and publishing science-based fiction over at her Mind the Gap blog. This included a discussion on the responsibility (or not) of writers claiming expertise to get their science “right” when writing fiction. (See the Karate entry. Clearly publishers don’t care as long as it sells.) Interestingly enough, I was told by a literary agent that the techno-thriller realm is one of the hardest to break into for a new author – if Mr. Crichton helped invent it, his success also created the branding aspect where just a few authors tend to monopolize the market. To his credit, Mr. Crichton was part of an even smaller group of authors in this field who actually try to use their works to increase public knowledge and interest, rather than just as a background for explosions. (Sometimes his efforts may have been a bit off – but the point is that in making them he was an exception.)
I think Mr. Crichton’s role in the climate discussion points out a broader societal trend I see as getting worse and worse in many areas of science and technology: commentators are given credibility and media coverage based on their celebrity or their connections or ready access to the media – not based on their background and knowledge of the topic. In my own field of nuclear power, in any given week you can find loads of commentary on the safety and reliability of plants – some it nationally syndicated. Very, very little of this authoritative chatter comes from people with practical experience in this field or related fields. (And by experience I don’t mean working in the legal system for an advocacy group.) Much of what is said is somewhat silly – on both the pro- and anti- sides. This area happens to be such a political hot potato that it can be difficult for working experts to speak out in a non-partisan way and retain their employment, but my own experiences lead me to believe such utterings wouldn’t get much coverage anyway unless they exposed a scandal. The speaker would lack the celebrity/connections necessary to generate media interest. And they probably wouldn’t speak in snappy sound bites. Of course, perhaps the media is just giving the broader public want it wants. In a democracy, where the public helps decide policy, it’s all rather worrisome.
I think I’ll go watch the original Andromeda Strain again. One of my favorite movies. Needed more explosions, though.
James Aach
Author of Rad Decision: A Novel of Nuclear Power