I've previously raised discussion (see e.g. here) about the benefits of protrayal of science, scientists, and the scientific process on TV before, in both fictional and non-fictional settings. Sadly, one of the best (and only) examples of a (fiction) show which does that in recent times has been Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), a show about forensic scientists. Now, I've never seen more than about two episodes of this (and those soon after its launch) but apparently it is now very popular indeed. I can't help but think that this is potentially positive (for several reasons I've spoken about before), depending upon exactly how the writing is done, etc... (Others of you can (and no doubt will) comment, having seen it. Please do. I have no opinion since I do not watch it.) Anyway, note:
Forensic science's spell in the limelight has given it huge kudos. Glitzy TV shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have sent students flocking to forensics courses. But while this interest is sexing up the image of scientists, is it also stopping police catching criminals and securing convictions?
This is from the New Scientist report on some interesting effects (not all positive!) of the popularity of the show on the legal system in this article. Here's a further extract or two:
"Jurors who watch CSI believe that those scenarios, where forensic scientists are always right, are what really happens," says Peter Bull, a forensic sedimentologist at the University of Oxford. It means that in court, juries are not impressed with evidence presented in cautious scientific terms.
Another problem caused by media coverage of forensic science is that it informs criminals of the techniques the police employ to catch them. "People are forensically aware," says Guy Rutty, of the Forensic Pathology Unit at the University of Leicester, UK. For this reason, some forensics experts are reluctant to cooperate with the media. There is an increasing trend for criminals to use plastic gloves during break-ins and condoms during rapes to avoid leaving their DNA at the scene. Dostie describes a murder case in which the assailant tried to wash away his DNA using shampoo. Police in Manchester in the UK say that car thieves there have started to dump cigarette butts from bins in stolen cars before they abandon them. "Suddenly the police have 20 potential people in the car," says Rutty.
There's a bit more discussion you should read, mostly focusing on the fact that it is actually very hard to beat the forensic techniques, as a criminal, even if you are aware of them, so we're probably all ok in the long run..... However, I can't help but wonder: What is reported -especially about jurors being inappropriately influenced by CSI- might be a bit of a problem for forensics and crime, but might there still not be overall positive benefits (compared to where we are now, e.g. ID vs common sense, etc) if applied to other fields....? Maybe it would not be a bad thing if people started to be more prepared to believe people who present rational arguments, i.e., based on facts, observation, and deductive reasonsing.... But yes, it does seem that in the writing in these shows, more care needs to be given to showing that careful arguments, if based on limited data, or faulty assumptions, can fail. Overall, I still think that the existence of such shows (given all the other stuff that's on TV) is a positive thing, that we should be pleased to see more, and that more effort sould be made to try to make them even better. Thoughts? -cvj P.S. And (sigh) I have to say this right at the outset, even though it will still be mentioned: Looking at the improvement of the presentation of science in the popular media is not intended to replace teaching science in schools, ok? So you don't need to bring that up again. We can proceed on all fronts.
