Neither theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss nor artist Natalie Jeremijenko can be easily categorized. Krauss' deep commitment to public understanding of science advocates for the role of the scientist in the cultural and political landscape. Jeremijenko's scientifically informed, socially conscious art asks who is, and isn't, participating in science. Seed recently invited them to Butter restaurant in NYC to discuss how their views on science as a public enterprise might compare: How do they each define progress? Who do they feel is responsible for science? And what, exactly, is "thinking like a scientist?"
Click on the image to watch highlights from the Salon. Click here to watch the full conversation.
NATALIE JEREMIJENKO: So, I know you wrote a book called The Physics of Star Trek, and I wanted to ask you about it.
LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Yeah, sure.
NJ: Because when I came to the States and was working at Xerox PARC there was a language that I didn't speak. Even though I was fluent in Fortran and Pascal and C++, I couldn't speak "Star Trek."
LK: Right—ha.
NJ: I didn't know what these people were talking about.
LK: Yeah.
NJ: When it came to a lingua franca for the entire lab, between computer science and the languages lab and the CSCW lab and so on, the point of reference that everyone shared was, "Oh, like they did in Star Trek." So I literally crammed when I got there, borrowed all the DVDs to try and catch up so I would know what the hell they were talking about, what a transporter was.
Advertisement
LK: You didn't see it in Australia?
NJ: Well, I suppose there were Trekkies there.
LK: It's big there. I've discovered that. It's Trekker, not Trekkie though. I had to learn that. Actually I had a similar experience in some sense. And you hit on my motivation for writing the book, which is that a lot of people didn't—and don't—find physics interesting, but they found Star Trek fascinating. I've been involved in teaching and writing for a while, and I often tell teachers—though I think it's true for anyone: teachers, car salesmen, artists—that the biggest mistake they make is to assume people are interested in what they have to say. You have to think of a way therefore, as I put it, to "seduce" them into thinking about what you have to say. The Star Trek universe was a way to seduce readers into thinking about the real universe, which I happen to think is much more interesting than the Star Trek version. But I had no idea myself, at the time, how deeply it was ingrained in the consciousness, not just of Americans, but of Australians now, and Canadians. And I had to cram, too. I was terrified of alienating 20 million Star Trek fans, maybe more. The interesting thing about it was I assumed that it was mostly 14-year-old boys, but what I discovered was the show was intergenerational, it was gender nonspecific, and, at least in my experience, there were not only doctors, but also lawyers and people from all persuasions that were into it.
NJ: Right, yeah.
Natalie Jeremijenko is so gorgeous.
Andy
February 4, 2008 04:05 PM