| THE SCIENCE OF MICHAEL CRICHTON An Unauthorized Exploration into the Real Science Behind the Fictional Worlds of Michael Crichton Kevin R. Grazier, Ph.D. (Ed.) Dallas: Benbella Books, March 2008 |
Rating: 4.5 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-1-933771-36-6 | ||||
| ISBN-10 1-933771-32-1 | 173p. | SC | $17.95 | |
The late Michael Crichton (1942-2008) was known as a superb storyteller. He wrote 12 novels and, trained as a physician, incorporated in them a good deal of science and technology. In this book, various well-qualified authors including Ray Kurzweil expound on the science in several of Crichton's novels, from The Andromeda Strain to Next. Some are strongly critical of the way Crichton employs that science.
But I don't mean to suggest that this volume of essays is universally Crichton-bashing. Quite the opposite; some of the writers endorse Crichton's use of science and technology, not only to further the plots of his tales, but as educating the readers on that science and technology.1 The book's editor, Kevin Grazier, is perhaps the most admiring. Grazier freely admits he admires Crichton and looks forward to every new novel released. In his Introduction, he writes:
"I recall one particular grant proposal rejection letter that my advisor received. He had proposed doing research using a particular methodology, but not the one 'in vogue' with the bulk of the community, and the rejection was filled with more not-too-thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks than scientific arguments and/or justifications. It said, in short, 'You just aren't part of the "in crowd".'" It was eye-opening disilluioning, and apparently not unusual, given Crichton's appendix in State of Fear. In it, Crichton draws many sobering parallels between the environment that existed around the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century, and that of global warming and climate change research of the early twenty-first: there is no debate here, you are to be marginalized if you aren't part of the 'in crowd'. – Grazier, Page ix |
In the Chapter on State of Fear, David M. Lawrence does a generally good job of debunking, with some grammatical errors. But he misses one of the major goofs in Crichton's work: that "The theory of global warming predicts that the upper atmosphere will warm from trapped heat, just like a greenhouse. The surface of the Earth warms later. But since 1979 we've had orbiting satellites that can continuously measure the atmosphere five miles up. They show that the upper atmosphere is warming much less than the ground is." [State of Fear, pp. 108-9]
In fact, this is wrong. The upper atmosphere (the proper term is "stratosphere") should cool down, since less heat is reaching it from below. Think of it like a blanket you throw over yourself: You get warmer as the blanket traps the heat from your body, but the top of the blanket gets colder. If it did not, you would feel no net warming; the same amount of heat would be leaving the top of the blanket as left your bare skin. (Ignoring the processes of convection and conduction, which do not apply to the heat Earth loses to space.)
I hope his admiration hasn't blinded him to the defects in Crichton's later stories, but it's a hope I would be hard-put to justify. Above the quoted passage he states, "Putting aside, for the moment, Crichton's specific critiques—technological and sociological—of global warming (which are amply covered in this book), State of Fear provides excellent commentary on several aspects of how unscientific the scientific process can be today."
In contrast, Sandy Becker says in her commentary on Jurassic Park:
"It's hard for a scientist to feel friendly toward Michael Crichton. The guy seems really hostile to science and to many of the people who practice it." – Becker, Page 82 |
Other authors share this attitude to some degree. Also, judging by the testimony of these authors, Crichton has always played "fast and loose" with science in his novels in order to make his tales more compelling. Of course that is every novelist's right, and I have enjoyed a great many science-fiction stories that do the same — from E. E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman series through to modern TV shows like Stargate: SG1 (mentioned in Joel Shurkin's essay). But I do not hold these fictional works up as guides to how the public or government officials should think about science. Crichton's novels are apparently regarded by certain officials of our government as worthy guides, and he has even testified before Congress on questions of science policy. When the science is that dealing with global warming, many share the view Crichton puts forth in State of Fear — that the entire body of supporting evidence, gathered over decades from locations the world around, has been fabricated by some huge conspiracy. I beg to differ. But I get my licks in elsewhere.2 I let David Lawrence do the debunking here — with one exception (see the sidebar.)
To sum up, I recommend this collection for the insights its essays provide into Michael Crichton's work, and for their thoroughly enjoyable expositions of real science. Read it and pass it on.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.