Yesterday night Tricia and I attended the Science in Hollywood Salon put on by The National Academies (the people who bring us the Emmy awards). The discussion was moderated by Prof. Neil Gershenfeld, Director of The Center for Bits and Atoms at MIT.

The panel included Bill Skane, Executive Director of News & Public Information, The National Academies; Barbara Kline Pope, Executive Director for Communications and the National Academies Press, The National Academies; Alex McDowell, Production Designer for Minority Report, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Corpse Bride; Eliene Augenbraun, President and Chief Executive Officer of ScienCentral; and J.C. Herz, Author of Joystick Nation; New York Times' first computer game critic.

Overall the discussion was interesting and stimulated critical thinking about how Hollywood and television producers engage (or ignore) the scientific community. Neil kicked things off with an amazing display of brain power (showcasing his work). While discussing a class called 'How to make just about anything', Neil brought up something interesting: students wanted to make expressive devices. Neil seemed a bit taken back by students desire to create expressive device. The projects he showed seemed more in line with projects created at ITP as opposed the research centric, heavy science going on at MIT. Expression is key to creating technology products which are meaningful to people. In this case there is a big difference between personal expression (style) and products will assist people in being more expressive.

Threads in the discussion ranged from: How do producers make Hollywood films and television engaging while not destroying the truth, to: How does science fiction inform scientific research?

All in all the discussion was very engaging. Neil kept things moving as any good moderator should. There was a great deal of audience participation in the question and answer session at the end, which is always nice to see. Neil prompted the audience with 'now what?', but no one had any answers. Could there be a more formalize approach to how Hollywood engages the scientific community? Sure. There could be. The Academy seems like a good place to start. The Academy could foster a process for facilitating such a relationship. Before this can happen however, we'll need to set more of a precedent than Minority Report.

Part of me is hesitant to answer Neil's call to formalize this relationship. Often times there is beauty which comes out of things which aren't structured. Potentially, by imposing structure we risk forcing relationships. For now we need loose structure. We need the grass roots before we can grow. We need the Dorkbots and the other communities which foster the diversity of independent communities without forcing people in one direction. Eventually things will mature and structure will be necessary. But for now, I'm satisfied without having a go to man for science. If the Academy does take on a role in fostering a relationship between producers and scientist, they may have to update the Emmy to hold an atomic symbol instead of a globe.

?