Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema (review)

Scholarly books dealing with the role of science or scientists in Hollywood film have, historically, been hit-or-miss. Early studies merely cataloged long lists of science fiction films; others provided plot synopses or fawning fan tributes; and still others labored over esoteric textual analyses. With David Kirby’s Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema, however, the topic seems to have come into maturity. The book is one part ethnography of “science consultants” working in Hollywood, one part sociological analysis of the symbiotic relationship between movies and science, and one part textual analysis of select films. All parts hold together well, the analyses are intriguing and smart, and the parts of the book that deal with the behind-the-scenes of filmmaking in Hollywood are, well, fun to read.

The main contribution of the text comes from Kirby’s interviews with science consultants—professional scientists who are hired by Hollywood filmmakers interested in ensuring the scientific plausibility of their projects. Kirby, who holds a Ph.D. in molecular biology, received a National Science Foundation “postdoctoral retraining fellowship,” which eventually led him to write the STS-focused Lab Coats. This fact may provide one explanation for why the book holds together so well: Kirby clearly respects the contributions of scientists in Hollywood, but also is careful to place those contributions within their larger cultural context.

The book makes two main points. The first is that scientists, working as consultants, can be useful contributors to film projects, even going so far as to influence societal perceptions of science through their work. The second is that, just as scientists are experts at doing science, so too are filmmakers experts at making films. Scientists who do not respect such expertise—valuing accuracy above meaning-making—are likely to have little impact.

Kirby’s work is, in essence, a plea that we understand that science consultants do not primarily serve as “fact checkers.” Instead, he writes, “[o]ne of the most important functions of a science consultant is to enhance the plausibility of cinematic events” (p. 9). The process of determining what exactly meets the requirements of “plausibility” must be negotiated with the filmmakers, who ultimately retain creative control over the final product. Kirby details many of these negotiations as they occurred both in historic films, such as Fritz Lang’s Woman in the Moon (1929) and in more contemporary films, such as Outbreak (1995). For example, Kirby closely analyzes the role paleontologist Jack Horner played in the Jurassic Park films. Not only was Horner called on to provide technical information about dinosaurs, he also was able to insert into the films his preferred theory about the evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds; helped to provide plausible plot ideas for the filmmakers; and served as a public “expert” in public-relations materials for the film. All of these actions provided the films with a legitimacy that added to their popularity, and in turn shaped public perceptions of paleontology and dinosaurs. As in Horner’s case, what proves important is not so much the accuracy of every scientific fact in Jurassic Park, but how particular portrayals “impact our cultural meanings of science” (p. 230).

If there are problems with Kirby’s book, they are minor. It would have been useful to read more about his methodology for choosing and interviewing consultants, and to hear more about what might be missing from his focus on the small number of included films, which no doubt comprise a tiny percentage of the Hollywood movies that deal with science. Also, his brief discussion of the global-warming film The Day after Tomorrow (2004) raises significant but unanswered questions about the risks of participating as a science consultant when the topic is “controversial” science—science about which there is significant cultural disagreement. Did the film’s thinly veiled critique of the George W. Bush administration and its portrayal of a climate-change apocalypse mobilize an apathetic public, or did it serve...