MB writes: Folks might recall I mentioned about a month ago that I was judging UTS’ online journalism award. I’m very pleased indeed to publish the winning entry – by Melanie Macfarlane. You can read more about Melanie’s background and work at her webpage, and the post was originally published at NoMenClaTure.
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lab5.jpg"
This July, women all around the world lined up to see the movie spin off of the Sex in The City television series that has been attributed to changing women’s views about sex, relationships and fashion. But while fashionistas flitted about in their uncomfortable toe splitting stilettos, I awaited the return of another female pop icon to the silver screen.
The Right Kind of Role Model
Scully on The X Files. Copyright 20th Century Fox
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/albetts2.jpg"
She was strong, she was smart, she was cynical and she didn’t compromise her beliefs for a second, despite the all too convincing theories of an overly handsome man by the name of Fox Mulder. She wasn’t obsessed with the latest fashions and used her brains, not her boobs, to pursue her ambitious career objectives.
She was Special Agent Dana Scully and she was the heroine at the centre of the sci fi television drama, The X Files. While Mulder oozed sex appeal and crazy theories about the existence of extraterrestrials, Scully was the skeptical, forensic pathologist always there with a rational explanation for whatever paranormal phenomenon they were investigating that week. She stood side by side with Mulder as an intellectual equal. She was a sexy tomboy whose favourite book was Moby Dick and who wasn’t afraid of anything slimy, bloody or just down right gross. Scully stood strong as Mulder turned green and reached for a bucket.
I was twelve years old at the peak of the X Files phenomenon and I was obsessed with Agent Scully. I loved her and I wanted to be her. More than ten years and a degree in science later, I still have a soft spot for this sassy agent. As embarrassing as it is to admit to making career decisions based on a fictional television character, I take comfort in the fact that I am not alone.
The Next Generation
Science based crime solving programs are bigger than ever and so are enrolments in forensic science courses. Coincidence? I think not.
For the week of October 14 2008, four of the five most watched television shows in the US were crime-solving programs. CSI pulled 23 million viewers and was the most watched program in the country. NCIS came in at number three with 16.2 million, Criminal Minds at number 4 pulled 16.1 million and CSI: NY followed close behind with 15.8 million viewers. CSI: Miami, Cold Case and Bones were all in the top 20. Australia is no different. In the same week, City Homicide, CSI, NCIS, The Mentalist and Criminal Minds all appeared in the Top 20 programs. Reality based crime shows such as The Force and Border Security also rated well.
In an article for Science, forensic scientists Jason Linville and Ray Liu explain why shows such as CSI are so popular. “Hollywood focuses on the most interesting aspects of the forensic investigation. Science becomes a gimmick–a technological toy that the hero uses to find evidence the criminal surely hoped was undetectable.”
Taking the Bait
University enrollments in natural and physical science courses have steadily increased in Australia over the past 10 years. From 2000 to 2004, enrollments increased by almost nine percent and only dropped off over the past few years due to the popularity of environmental studies courses. Last year enrollments increased by 3.1 percent and according to Dr Denise Donlon, a forensic anthropologist and lecturer at The University of Sydney, demand for forensic science courses has never been higher.
“There is much greater interest [due to television programs] and this has probably contributed to the growth of forensic science courses in universities,” she says. “I have had to introduce a quota on my course in forensic osteology.”
The story is the same in the US. Students in the US, especially female students, are citing the strong female role models on shows such as Bones and CSI as part of the reason they are entering what was previously an all boys club. (Told you it wasn’t just me.)
In a recent article in the Winston Salem Journal, West Virginia University professor Max Houck identified television as a reason for the increase in student enrollments: “I have to think that there’s got to be some relationship between the roles that are represented on TV and the way women see what’s possible for them as a career.”
Decisions Based On a Lie?
The internet is full of forums jam packed with questions such as “I love ‘insert TV show here’ and I want a job like that. What do I need to study?” But are students making life-changing decisions based on fiction?
Crime drama Bones has often been compared to The X Files. It’s a known formula: take a smart female scientist coupled with goofy FBI agent, add a bucket load of sexual chemistry, a list of weird cases and you have a ratings hit. Based on the life of Kathy Reichs, a best selling author and forensic anthropologist, Bones is now in its third successful season. Emily Deschanel stars as forensic anthropologist Temperance Brennan who along with her team of ‘squints’ work with the FBI to solve bizarre homicides.
Donlon says Reichs’ experience has resulted in the show being rather accurate scientifically, but some aspects are highly dramatised for television. “Temperance Brennan has a team of people ready to do all kinds of analyses whereas forensic anthropologists usually work alone,” she explains.
And forget chasing after bad guys. “We don’t get involved in the investigation the way she does,” she says. “Often the last we hear about a case is when we hand in our report.”
But there’s always the fantastic gadgets right? “No one has a fabulous lab like she does,” Donlon laughs. “Usually we just have a small room with a table or trolley in it.”
Temperance Brennan’s Lab in Bones. Copyright 20th Century Fox
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/temperance-brennan-2.JPG"
So maybe real life is not a glamorous as it appears on TV, but when is it?
“I know that an actual crime lab has fluorescent lights and old equipment and cinderblock walls. But I also know people don’t want to look at that,” Naren Shankar, the executive producer of CSI told Expert Voices recently. With a PhD in applied physics from Cornell, Shankar says he is aware of taking creative licence for the visual aspects of the show but draws the line at fudging the science.
Professionals Convinced or Confused?
But it is not only students and potential forensic scientists who are influenced by these programs. Detective-inspector Bob Sitlington from Victoria Police’s Forensic Services told the The Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society that even police are fooled.
“Police officers watch these CSI shows like everyone else. Unfortunately, they think what they see on these shows is reality. We have had detectives at crime scenes ring forensics and say, ‘I have seen a certain forensic technique on television. Are you capable of doing it?’
Jokes aside, the writers of these programs take accuracy very seriously and this year for the first time, a television show was acknowledged by the US National Science Board for the promotion of science in the community. A crime solving show that features a mathematician at its core, Numb3rs was honoured “for innovative use of the entertainment medium to promote interest in mathematics education and mathematic applications in everyday life.”
The CSI Effect
An unexpected byproduct of the rise of forensic science has been its effect on the justice system. What has become known in US court rooms as ‘The CSI Effect’ is the impact of ‘whodunnit’ crime shows on the expectations of juries. In an article in the Yale Law Journal, Andrew Thomas says jury members have unrealistic expectations in the courtroom because of CSI.
“In real life, the false expectation of plentiful scientific evidence can create a bias in the jury if this issue is not properly addressed at trial,” writes Thomas.
Jeffrey Toobin’s piece in the New Yorker about the CSI Effect was the topic of a news story by Anderson Cooper on CNN.
Seriously?
The television industry is a fickle market. It is always evolving and changing and it is not uncommon for a show you once loved to disappear into pop culture history. Great television is rare, but when it happens it can change your world. So my advice is, enjoy your favorite shows, take from them what you will but don’t forget that the same people who bought you The X Files are also responsible for Sex in the City.
An excellent post from a well-chosen winner, Mark. And a lot to agree with. Scully, in my view, was indeed a good role model.
I suppose if we wanted to add to the list, we could include the British show, Silent Witness, and maybe another less-popular American one, Crossing Jordan. Both of these focused on justice, often with tension between the police following their own instincts and obvious evidence, and the forensic people often going in a different direction because the evidence/facts didn’t add up.
The risk has been well pointed out with these shows, CSI especially. Most forensic units are seriously underfunded and have to get by with pretty basic laboratory conditions. And while the science may be correct, there is also the risk that we will expect technology to solve the problems for us magically. We have seen where that has taken us in warfare, where there has been a belief that latest weaponry will guarantee our superiority. It didn’t work in Vietnam or Iraq, and looks like failing in Afghanistan also.
Maybe if we could harness that general curiosity that goes with those teams into other areas, such as the impact of chemicals on crops and foods we consume it might lead to better public health.
As another Scully fangrrl of the 90s, let me say – good stuff, Melanie! Really nice writing and as Don says, some thought provoking material in this post!
Great post Melanie. Interesting you bring up the forensics thing, Metafilter just had a post highlighting how dodgy a lot of the forensics world is, which is equally fascinating.
Excellent article – I love the X-files. Many people regard it as patently silly because it has monsters and aliens in it, but they don’t really get the central tension which is between rationality versus faith, observation versus intuition, and how rational people behave when confronted with seemingly irrational events. They also pulled some interesting character inversions off from time to time – at times Mulder would become the Skeptic, Scully would turn to religion, Scully would have to rely on Mulder’s crazy theories without fully understanding them, or Mulder would have to rely on Scully to come up with actual proof.
Shows which have tried to follow in the footsteps of the x-files have typically focused too much on the “wooohohooooo ghostssssss!” aspect of it and failed to pick up the significance of this central dynamic.
Unfortunately I think the metafilter post is a bit dodgy myself. The girl they call a dilettante has passed the exam to be a coroner, with a 97% grade, so if she is an amateur then maybe the test is the problem not the girl. They are also a bit disingenous about the case of the 4 year old girl, the court documents do not say what the blog claims they do. I don’t doubt that some forensics is a bit dodgy, but I think that perhaps the expectation that forensics has all the answers rather than just being another tool in the arsenal is more of a problem.
Good post.
I was never an X-files fan, but from an earlier generation, I know a youngster inspired to study Law by “Rumpole of the Bailey”. She graduated with Honours and works as a lawyer (but not a barrister).
cheers