Could I perform life-saving emergency medicine, develop a vaccine to a new, novel virus, and clone a lab rat all in one day? Probably not, but scientists in the world of television generally appear to be able to do everything; from gun-toting CSI investigators, medical examiner-cum-scientists like Ravi Chakrabarti (iZombie), FBI agent-cum-medical doctor Dana Scully (The X-Files), and PhD student-cum-cloning expert Cosima Niehaus (Orphan Black), scientists depicted on the screen provide an un-realistic representation of scientists and physicians.

Cosima Niehaus, from the BBC America series ‘Orphan Black’ (above)

Let’s consider Cosima from Orphan Black; whilst studying for a PhD in experimental evolutionary developmental biology, she was given access to the (fictional) world-renowned Dyad Institute research facility. Ok, let’s stop right there. PhD students are barely given a desk to work at, never-mind access to a multi-million dollar research lab; a PhD is basically a training programme to teach you how to be a researcher, and it would take many years of experience before you could run your own lab. Most PhD students will likely feel (at numerous points) that they have no idea what they are doing! I’m not sure I have ever seen a depiction of a PhD student in film or television that I could relate to; PhD students are normally frazzled, over-worked, and prone to the occasional existential crisis, or at least that was my experience…

Writers are sometimes lazy and write their scientist characters as a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ type; an expert on everything from mycology (the study of fungi) to astrophysics. In reality, as you progress though education the range of science topics studied get smaller and smaller; in school you might be studying plants, the environment, human biology, snails, and the effect of alcohol on rats (or so your exam board might like to think), but as you enter university, the range of topics that you study generally gets narrower and more detailed. I studied general Biology in school, Biomedical Science (the laboratory diagnosis of disease) at undergraduate level, and finally a PhD in Cancer Research – but I’ve never done clinical cancer studies, administered chemotherapy, or operated on a patient to remove a tumour. What I could tell you about is the action of a single protein that I discovered, how I found it, the experimental procedures I used, and the implications for human cancer treatment. Which I think is pretty impressive.

Dr Ravi Chakrabarti from CW series ‘iZombie’ (above)

Scientific Research: All I need is a paperclip and a shoelace.

In 2018-19 alone, Cancer Research UK spent £442 million on research to find a cure for cancer; Ravi Chakrabarti from iZombie on the other hand can do advanced virological and cloning experiments in a morgue, without any fancy laboratory equipment. Realistic? Not in the slightest (then again, zombies aren’t real either), but if the writers of iZombie could share some of their secrets to low cost science, researchers around the world would be all ears. Scientific research takes a lot of money and a lot of time; it takes around 12 years to develop a new drug, and costs around £1 billion. Tens of thousands of drugs will start this journey before being abandoned, perhaps because they provide too toxic to cells, or the side effects outweigh the benefits.

Is this the real life, is this just fantasy?

Clearly the TV and movies I have mentioned aren’t meant as documentaries (what, really?), but I worry that the image of science shown may do more harm than good. On the one hand it encourages students to pursue science; there is the well-known CSI-effect which resulted in increased numbers of students applying to study forensic science, however with misguided visions of breaking down doors and interrogating bad guys as opposed to the reality of long, tedious hours at a lab bench, students might not get what they hoped for. A study in 2012 asked forensic science students their impression of shows such as CSI, Bones, and Dexter, and found that they were ‘almost universally disparaging about the realism of these programs and have mixed impressions of how the programs portray forensic science professionalism and ethics’. Dana Scully (X-Files) is a female STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths and Medicine) icon; the ‘Scully Effect’ has been suggested to increase the number of women entering STEMM fields, and whilst I applaud anything that encourages and empowers women in STEMM, I get the feeling that being in the FBI isn’t quite how it’s shown in The X-Files. In addition, medical doctors and scientists in these programs seem to know a lot. But here’s the secret; for the most part, scientists and medical doctors aren’t that smart. Yes, they know a lot about their fields and yes they may be intelligent people (however you define intelligence), but give a biochemist a paper on astrophysics and they’re likely to be as lost as the next person. Success in any field comes from passion, good work ethic, and dedication; never be fooled into thinking that you should know everything about everything to be a good scientist, because you don’t.

I’m happy that screenwriters appear to hold scientists in high regard (we’re going to ignore the over-used cliche of eccentric and socially awkward scientists. I’m looking at you Big Bang Theory), though I feel that providing more realistic scientist characters may be of greater benefit when encouraging students to study science, as they would be getting what they pay for.

Now, please excuse me whilst I go save the world from the zombie apocalypse, whilst simultaneously publishing groundbreaking work in astrophysics, and kicking down some bad guy’s door.

– Jess

Last updated: May 2020