Stephen Gallagher on the fight to get real science into tv

[RayGene]

A nice article in The Scientist

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23878/

He is the writer of Eleventh Hour, which he wanted to be much more scientific and realistic but the producers gave him loads of resistance.

"but I wasn't prepared for the level of active hostility I was to meet along the way from an arts-educated mindset that felt it could match any scientific opinion with an equally valid opinion of its own."

And this is someone who fought hard. I wonder if most writers who want to put real science in their dramas bother in the end.

[tideliar]

Cheers RayGene. That's a good read. It must be so dispiriting to be in his position. Kind of leave you with a why bloody bother attitude. Or at least it would me. I get so short tempered with the A&H graduate mindset...


"I disagree"
"...but you can't disagree! The data show it to be true..."
"I disagree."

Bah. feeling grumpy for the rest of the afternoon now! I'm gonna go beat up a history major...

[Octavia]

Well, you can't deny that it might have made great telly for Patrick Stewart to "invent an new antidote for smallpox" in a couple of hours. Audiences will always love the MacGiver mentality!

And strictly speaking, just to play devil's advocate, it is theoretically to invent a crude antidote in a short period of time. It could be devised somehow. OK, it may not be likely, but it is certainly possible, no?

[Janet W]

Oh well, I just feel bad now.

Wikipaedia mentions this dispute too: it seems to suggest that the later episodes increasingly diverged from Gallagher's scripts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Hour_(TV_series)

The second episode was medical, and I don't know enough to comment on accuracy, and I missed the very first episode.. was the science credible in the first episode?

[RayGene]

Let's see. I think the first episode was about human clones, and it didn't strike me as inaccurate. Maybe we can get Gallagher to comment here! Horse's mouth and all that.

It may be depressing, but it struck me that Gallagher had a pretty good sense of humour about it. At least in retrospect!

[Daughter of Darwin]

I agree with Gallagher that it is absolutely imperative to get any science you mention as accurate as possible (I liked the Law and Order analogy), but I think I can sympathise with the producers up to a point - you do have to make the piece exciting for readers and not too overwhelming. SG mentions that audiences can handle real science as presented in e.g. House or ER, but I thought thet 11th hour's science was a lot more sophisticated than those two examples (and that was AFTER being dumbed down by the producers) so maybe they felt this was necessary not to lose the lay audience altogether? I don't know. You see my problem is that I am a scientist (as are most of the people on these forums) so it could be hard for us to appreciate how non-scientists view things. We might think it's dumb, but then we know so much about science and take it for granted. Still, it is a shame what happened to SG's scripts and I hope he carries on trying to deliver the ultimate science drama.

[wheetabox]

It can't be easy treading that line between entertainment and not losing the audience. The best thing about ELEVENTH HOUR was how science and a scientist took centre stage - this was really groundbreaking in many ways. Yes, I was irritated by some of the bad science (shrinking tumours from drinking tritium, I didn't think that was right) but it was a real kick seeing Patrick Stewart pipetting and I could forgive a lot.

I wonder if Stewart enjoyed the role and what he thought of it all? I wonder if he was aware of the disputes going on behind the scenes and whether he would have been on the side of Science vs. Entertainment? He always strikes me as an intellectual but then it is so hard to tell with actors, you tend to impart characteristics on them that come from their roles, which may or may not be what they are like in real life.

I also wonder if screenwriters can get branded as 'troublemakers' if they make a fuss about accuracy?

[Freddie]

There must be lots of other screenwriters out there with stories like Gallagher's. I can't believe that there aren't dozens of established screenwriters interested in science but having difficulty selling the premise. Non-sensationalised science is such a hard sell -- unless it's forensics or medicine. I wonder if it's easier in Britain, or more difficult?

[Cat person]

The Yanks seem more science-friendly, but then, has there been anything like 'Eleventh Hour' there?

I doubt Stewart realised how bad the script was and how dodgy the science, or surely someone with his clout would have putn up a fight. Or do they just do what they're told and collect the paycheque?

[Dr Mike]

I got the feeling that Stewart was enjoying his role. It must be great to appear on telly without a bright-red spandex bodysuit!

I too would be keen to know the pitch failure rate for dramas like 11th hour. There aren't many on tv, so it's either that no-one is writing them, or no-one is buying them.

Did anyone actually see 'Hear The Silence', which Gallagher allude to? I saw 'Fields of Gold' which sounds like a similar controversy.

[Stephen Gallagher]

Jenny mentioned that the article was being discussed here -- hope it doesn't dampen things if I join in for a bit.

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Hello Stephen, and welcome.

First off, what's your take on that article? Is it a pretty fair representation of what happened/was said? Anything else you'd like to add?

[Beatrice]

Stephen - welcome! What a thrill. I guess I am most interested in what some others have asked about how many screenwriters would like to pitch science but have no success - or is the problem that no writers want to make accurate science dramas? I find it hard to believe the latter but it is always possible. I guess I am also (morbidly) curious about whether you feel you were 'forced off' the Eleventh Hour project and whether this will cause trouble for you in future. We are all behind your efforts to bring 'lab lit' scenarios into tv and film. But is it a losing battle?

Thanks so much for your time.

[tideliar]

Wow! famous people and everything! I feel humbled...

...got any good gossip?

[The Prof]

Stephen, do you think that the 'lab lit' concept - realistic fiction about modern scientists - has any legs for mass-market appeal? You are probably familiar with the LabLit project and the definitive, growing list of relevant works (www.lablit,com/article/12) - there are just so few examples out there. Why is this? I find it so hard to believe the appeal is limited. (Especially after Jenny's experiment, which she talked about in Nature - http://www.lablit.com/images/RohnNature_Jan_2006.pdf )

I agree with Jenny that publishers (and in your case producers) are probably to blame, but it could also be that writers like you are rare as well. Maybe a combination of both.