As kids, my brothers and I watched re-runs of the original Star Trek series every afternoon. Perhaps because I was the youngest (and the one bullied the most), I dreamed of being Captain James Tiberius Kirk, the hero of every show, who saved the USS Enterprise from a new crisis each episode. Kirk was a badass, never lost a fight. And as I got older, I appreciated his other conquests, too.
But now that I’m a scientist I find myself wishing I had more of the qualities expressed by another crewmember on the Enterprise: Mr. Spock. But not for the reasons you might think.
From the Fields is a periodic Wired Science op-ed series presenting leading scientists' reflections on their work, society and culture.
Christopher Reddy is a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution where he studies marine pollution. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed manuscripts on plastics, DDT, PCBs, and oil spills in the coastal and open ocean. Since April 2010, he has devoted most of his research efforts to studying the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf. He has written over 20 op-eds for major media outlets and teaches a course to graduate students on how to communicate science outside the Ivory Tower.
Mr. Spock is an iconic TV character, but he’s often parodied as the extreme stereotypical scientist. Like many other scientists featured in movies and on TV, Spock is portrayed as quirky. He’s half alien, half human. He has green blood, pointy ears and weird eyebrows. He talks funny. People crack jokes at his expense.
But Spock deserves better. And on many hot afternoons in Louisiana as oil was pouring into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, I often found myself wishing I had more of his talents.
Beyond the capacity to do a Vulcan nerve pinch or mind meld, few appreciate what he really does for the crew of the Enterprise.
Spock provides invaluable scientific information and insight so that Captain Kirk, and occasionally others – even Spock’s nemesis, the hot-tempered Dr. McCoy – can make the most informed decisions on how to respond to impending doom.
And while Spock is mocked for his cool, dispassionate presentation of his thoughts, I’ve come to realize that this attitude is exactly what you want from a scientist during a crisis, whether it’s a massive oil spill or a long-term threat like climate change.
What people miss even more about Spock is that, beneath it all, he is one of the most emotional and passionate characters on the program. He just gets all worked up about things people often take for granted or think are not worthy of strong emotion.
Even he doesn’t recognize it: In the episode “This Side of Paradise” Spock says, “Emotions are alien to me. I am a scientist”.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Spock is more passionate about science than Dr. McCoy is about medicine or Mr. Scott is about the Enterprise. Watch any episode and you can see Spock’s intensity when he investigates whether there is life on a planet or if the Enterprise will explode. The deal is: Spock is passionate about doing science, but – and perhaps this is where the disconnect occurs – dispassionate about presenting what the data tell him.
As an oil spill scientist involved in many aspects of the release of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the ongoing recovery and research, I read quotes from really good scientists who are known to be passionate about what they do, but who became passionate to the point of sounding ridiculous when they presented their views.
Spock would have never acted like that.
I lost my cool when speaking to reporters who just wanted someone to give voice to the most dire sound bite possible. And I made so many mistakes in the logic of my scientific approach; so many missed opportunities. I was lost in the fog of war. There is no fog in Spock. Whether observing some strange new world around him or analyzing complicating or conflicting data, he keeps his cool, keeps searching for some grain of objective truth that will (inevitably, because each show was only an hour long) crystallize out of the confusion.
The problem, of course, is if Spock had been in the Gulf of Mexico I doubt anybody would have listened to him in the heat of the moment. He is not flashy and certainly would have avoided speaking in sound bites or making headline-worthy dire statements unless he could back them up. That is more of a commentary on the nature of the situation and of the way society takes in information than it is on the archetype that Spock represents.
Spock is bent on doing it right. He does not state unbelievably precise probabilities to look smart, but rather because he thinks it’s important to make the most accurate information available. He delivers timely and relevant information. He does not try to please people and does not compromise when asked his opinions.
That’s what you want from a scientist. Whether Captain Kirk wishes to follow Spock’s advice (occasionally he doesn't) is irrelevant. Just as policy makers today do, Kirk used numerous lines of information to make a decision – not just the science.
As we train the Next Generation scientists, journalists, and decision-makers, we can use Star Trek to do so. Spock embodies a quality that is, while occasionally stereotypical, something younger scientists should endeavor to emulate. We also need to teach scientists that appearances do matter in the media age and that they should be aware that the content of their message can often be overwhelmed by the way they present it. At the same time, those hungry for insights have to learn to appreciate scientists for what they have to say and not how they look or sound.
Image: Star Trek
