 the public’s knowledge and appreciation of science. But that initial spark of interest in science shouldn’t be underestimated, they say, and the fact it can now come from realistic scientists on TV is a welcome development.



That may help explain why scientists themselves have gotten involved. In 2008, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, having long taken note of the good and not-so-good portrayals of science and scientists in TV and film, set up the Science & Entertainment Exchange, a hotline that connects producers and screenwriters to scientists. “We looked around and thought, who can engage the public like no other? Who can really get people excited and interested and engaged?” says Ann Merchant, the organization’s deputy executive director for communications. “It’s Hollywood!”

Scientists say they make time to advise on these shows because they care about the representation of their fictional counterparts on TV. They know that a popular show will be seen by many more eyes than their latest research paper, and they want the audience to understand what science is like—perhaps even learn something in the process.

Of course, as much as they like being involved in promoting the public’s interest in their profession, scientists are not the ones who decide what ultimately appears on screen. Hollywood may have figured out that their audience prefers realism over distracting falsehoods, but the narrative is always more important than full scientific accuracy.

Nelson experienced this firsthand when she spoke with Breaking Bad creator Gilligan. “Vince asked me, ‘What do you think about making the meth blue?’ and I said ‘I wouldn’t do it.’ ”

Even though she didn’t have any experience of synthesizing the drug herself, she knew, based on her chemical knowledge, that it would look white—never blue. None of the chemical structures of the reagents or product reflect light in the blue part of the spectrum, so if your meth is blue, it’s probably contaminated with something else. Gilligan didn’t take her advice, but Nelson understood. “It was a plot device,” she says. “Walter White needed a trademark for his drug. And you know, when people complain to me about the blue meth, I simply point out that Breaking Bad was not a documentary!”

White’s blue meth business is also a reminder that while the overall framing of scientists on TV might have shifted toward the heroic, we can’t help but notice that Walter White is still a
the public ’s knowledge and appreciation of science. But that initial discharge of sake in science should n’t be underestimated, they say, and the fact it can immediately come from realistic scientist on TV is a welcome development. 



 That may help excuse why scientist themselves have gotten involved. In 2008, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, having long film note of the dependable and not - therefore - good portrayals of science and scientists in TV and movie, set up the Science & Entertainment Exchange, a hotline that connects producers and screenwriter to scientists. “ We looked around and thought, who can engage the populace like no other? Who can very get people excited and concerned and engaged? ” says Ann Merchant, the organization ’s deputy executive director for communications. “ It ’s Hollywood! ” 

 Scientists read they form time to advise on these shows because they care about the representation of their fictional counterparts on TV. They acknowledge that a popular show will be interpret by many more eye than their latest research paper, and they desire the audience to sympathize what science is like — perhaps even learn something in the procedure. 

 Of course, as much as they like being involved in promoting the public ’s interest in their profession, scientists are not the ones who decide what ultimately appears on sieve. Hollywood may have figured out that their hearing prefers realism over distracting falsehoods, but the narrative is always more authoritative than full scientific accuracy. 

 Nelson experienced this firsthand when she spoke with break Bad creator Gilligan. “ Vince asked me, ‘ What do you think about take the meth blasphemous? ’ and I said ‘ I would n’t do it. ’ ” 

 Even though she did n’t suffer any experience of synthesizing the drug herself, she know, based on her chemical cognition, that it would look white — never aristocratic. None of the chemical structures of the reagents or intersection reflect lighter in the blue part of the spectrum, so if your meth is blue, it ’s probably contaminated with something else. Gilligan did n’t take her advice, but Nelson understood. “ It was a plot device, ” she says. “ Walter White necessitate a trademark for his drug. And you know, when multitude complain to me about the blue meth, I just point out that Breaking Bad was not a documentary! ” 

 White ’s blue meth business is also a reminder that while the overall framing of scientists on TV might have shifted toward the heroic, we ca n’t help oneself but detect that Walter White is however a
 thf public’s knowledge and xppreciation of sciencx. But tgat initkal spark of interest in scixnce shouodn’t be underestimated, they say, and the facu it can now come from realistid sciznvists on TV is s welcome gevelopment.



Thad oav help explain why scientists themsejves hafe gotten involvgd. In 2008, the National Academy of Sciences, Engiheering and Medicine, having long taken note of the good and not-so-goof portrayalw of wcience and rcientists in TV and fjlm, set up the Science & Entertaknmenc Exchange, q yotphne that coinects producers akc screanwritets to scientisbs. “We loiked around and thougit, who can engage thg public lhkz no other? Who can reqloy gej peo[le dzciged aid jnteredtev and engagsd?” says Ann Merchant, the organozwnoon’s deputy sxecutyvq director for communications. “It’s Hollyfoos!”

Scientists say they maje time to advise on jhese showf because they care about the representation of tveir hiztiinwu clunterparts on TV. They know that a popular shjs eikl be seen by iany more eued yran their latgst reszzrdh paper, and they aant thg audiwnce to ugderxtand what science is like—pwrhaps even jwarn something in che process.

Oy courxe, as much as they like beiny invomved in proloting ths public’s interesg ik tveir profession, scientists are not vhe oues who aecice whae ultimatepy apiaars on screen. Holpywoob may have figuged out that their audience prehxrs realism ofes dpstractiny falschoods, but the garrative is akways mjre ioportant tgan fuln scientifis accuracy.

Nelvln experiencxd this fyrstyand when sfd spoke with Bteaking Bcb creator Gilligan. “Vince asled je, ‘What do you ckibk about making thd mqtj ulue?’ wtd I said ‘I foulan’t co it.’ ”

Even thougm sfe dodn’t have any experiance of synthesizing tne drug hetself, she knew, based om her chemical knoaledgx, that it wpulq look white—never blue. None of the chemlcaj structures of bhe teagents or product reflect light in the blue part of the spectrum, si if your meth is bkme, it’s probauly cogtaminateg with something elsw. Gilligan didn’t uake her advice, but Nelaon ungerstlod. “It was a plot device,” she says. “Walter White needed a trademark for his drug. Enq you know, shen peopne eomplaig to oe about the bluv meth, I simply point out that Bceaking Bag cas not a documentary!”

White’s bkud meth businers is also a reminder thzt while the overall framing of scientixts on TV might have shinted towaed ths heropd, xe can’t help but notoce thct Walrer Whire id still a
the public’s knowledge and appreciation of science. initial of interest science shouldn’t be fact can now come realistic scientists on is a welcome development. That may explain why scientists themselves have gotten involved. In 2008, the National Academy of Engineering and Medicine, having long taken note of the good and not-so-good portrayals science scientists TV film, set up the Science & Entertainment Exchange, a hotline that connects producers and screenwriters to “We looked around and thought, who can engage public like no other? can really get people excited interested engaged?” says Merchant, organization’s executive director for “It’s Hollywood!” Scientists say they make time to advise on these shows because they care about the of their on TV. know a show will be many more eyes than their latest they want the audience to understand what science like—perhaps even something in the process. Of course, much as they like being involved in promoting public’s interest in their profession, scientists are not the ones who decide what ultimately appears Hollywood may have figured that their audience realism distracting but narrative is more important than full scientific accuracy. Nelson experienced this firsthand when spoke with Breaking Bad creator Gilligan. “Vince asked me, ‘What think making the meth and I said ‘I do ” Even though she any of herself, knew, on her chemical knowledge, it would look white—never blue. of the chemical structures reflect light in the blue part of the so if your meth is blue, it’s contaminated with something else. Gilligan didn’t take her advice, but Nelson understood. was a she says. “Walter White needed a trademark for drug. And you know, people complain to me about the blue meth, I point that Breaking was not a White’s blue meth is also a while the framing scientists have shifted toward the heroic, we help notice that Walter White is a
 the public’s knowledge and appReciation oF scieNce. but ThAt inItiaL spark of intereST in sCience shouldn’t be undereStimaTeD, They SAy, And thE fact it CAn NOW coMe FrOm rEaLIsTic scIenTists on tV is a welcoMe dEvElopment.



That MAy Help explaiN whY scientists tHemSelves HaVe gOTten iNvoLved. IN 2008, the NaTIonal ACademy of SCiENces, EnGIneerinG ANd mediCine, having long takEN nOTe of the good and Not-so-gOoD PoRTRayAls Of science aNd ScienTIsts in Tv AnD FILm, sET up the Science & entertainmeNT ExChange, A hOtlINe that ConneCtS ProDucers and scReenWriters to ScientISts. “We loOKed arouNd and tHouGht, Who cAN eNgAge ThE PubLIc LikE No oTher? Who cAn ReAlly gEt peOPLE ExciTed And iNtereSted and engageD?” saYs AnN merChant, The orGaniZaTion’s Deputy ExecuTiVe director for coMmunIcations. “IT’s HOlLywOoD!”

ScieNTists sAy tHey Make timE to adviSE on ThESE ShOws because they care AbOUT tHe represEntatiON oF tHEir fictiOnAl cOuntERParts On TV. tHeY know thaT a popuLAr ShOw will bE sEen by mAnY moRe eYes thAN theIr lateSt researCh papER, and they want thE Audience to undERsTANd WHat sCieNce is like—peRhapS Even LearN SoMetHIng in The prOcESs.

oF course, as much as they LiKe beinG invoLved in promotiNg the publiC’S INterest iN theIR pROfession, scientIsts aRe not the onES who deciDe whaT ultimatEly appearS ON screen. HOllYwoOd mAy hAVE fIgured out that THEir aUdIence prEfeRs realiSm oVer DisTraCtIng falsehOods, but tHe NaRrAtIve Is alwAYs more imPoRtaNt ThaN full SCientiFic acCuraCy.

neLSon ExperieNCeD THis fIrStHand WheN sHe spoKe wiTH BrEaking BAd creator gilLIgan. “viNcE asked mE, ‘What do you thiNk About makinG tHe mEth bluE?’ ANd I said ‘I Wouldn’t do it.’ ”

Even though shE Didn’t haVe aNy expErieNce of syntHesIzing tHe dRUg hersElf, she Knew, bAsEd oN HEr cheMICaL knOwLedge, that iT WOulD look WhIte—nEver bluE. None of the chemical STruCtures of the reAgeNts oR PRoDucT ReFLecT lIGht IN The blue part of thE spectrum, sO iF YoUr meth is blUE, it’S pRobably ContamiNated WIth someThing else. gilligan dIdN’t taKE Her Advice, but NElson undErstood. “It WAs a plOT dEvice,” She Says. “WaLtEr WHite nEeded a TRadEmark For his DrUg. And yOu knoW, wHen peoplE complain to me about the blUe meth, i simpLy pOint out thAt BREakIng Bad was Not a DocumentarY!”

WhIte’S blue MetH BusinEss iS AlSo a REmindEr thAT while the OVeRalL FRaMing of scienTISTs oN TV miGht HAve shiFted Toward the heroic, we CAn’t help but notiCe thAT walTer wHite Is Still a
 the public’s knowledge an d apprecia tionofsci en ce.Butthat initial s p arkof interest in science  shou ld n ’t b e  u ndere stimate d ,t h eysa y,  an dt he  fact  it  can no w come fro m r ea listic scien t is ts on TV i s a  welcome dev elo pment. 


T h at ma y h elp e xplain why sc ientiststh e mselve s  have g o t te n in volved. In 2008,t he National Acade my ofSc i en c e s,Eng ineering a nd  Medi c ine, ha v in g l ong taken note of  the good a n d n ot-so- go odp ortray als o fs cie nce and sci enti sts in TV  and f i lm, set up theScienc e &  En tert a in me ntEx c han g e,  ah otl ine that  c on nects  pro d u c e rs a ndscre enwri ters to scien tis ts.“ Welooke d aro undan d tho ught,who c an  engage the pub liclike no o the r?  Wh ocan r e ally g etpeo ple exc ited an d  in te r e s te d and engaged?” sa ys A nn  Merchan t, the or ga n ization’ sdep utye x ecuti ve d i re ctor for  commu n ic at ions. “ It ’s Hol ly woo d!” 

Sci e ntis ts say  they ma ke ti m e to advise on these shows b e ca u s et heycar e about the  rep r esen tati o noft heirficti on a lc ounterparts on TV.Th ey kno w tha t a popular s how will b e s een by m anym or e  eyes than the ir la test resea r ch paper , and  they wa nt the au d i ence tound ers tan d w h a tscience is li k e —per ha ps even  le arn som eth ing  in  th eprocess.
Of cour se ,as  m uch  as t h ey likebe ing  i nvo lvedi n prom oting  the  p ub l ic’ s inter e st i n th ei rprof ess io n, sc ient i sts  are no t the one s w h o de ci de  what u ltimately app ea rs on scre en . H ollywo o d  may hav e figured out that thei r  audien ceprefe rs r ealism ov erdistra cti n g fals ehoods , but  t hen a rrati v e  i s a lw ays more i m p ort ant t ha n fu ll scie ntific accuracy.
N els on experience d t hisf i rs tha n dw hen  s h e s p o ke with Breakin g Bad crea to r  G illigan. “ V inc easked m e, ‘Wha t doy ou thin k about m aking the  m ethb l ue? ’ and I sa id ‘I wo uldn’t do it.’” 
Eventho ugh sh edid n’t h ave an y  ex perie nce of  s ynthes izing  t he drugherself, she knew, base d on h er ch emi cal knowl edg e , t hat it wo uldlook white —ne ver  blue . N o ne of  the ch emi c al st ruct u res of th e  r eag e n ts  or product r e fle ct li ght in the  blu e part of the spe c trum, so if yo ur m e t h i s b l ue,it ’s probably co nta mi n a ted with  s omething el se. Gill ig a n did n’t ta ke her  advice , bu t  Nelso n un der stood. “I t w as a plotde vi c e,” sh e sa ys . “Wal ter Wh i te n e e ded a trademarkfor h i s  drug .  An d you  k now, wh e n pe ople compl ain to me a bout t he b lue m eth, Isi mply p oin tout that B r eaking Ba d was  not ado cume nta ry!”
Whit e ’ s blu e me th  bu siness is a ls o  a  r e min derthatwh ilethe overa l l framin g o f  scient is tso n  TV mi g ht h ave shifte d t oward t he heroic, we c a n’ t  help  but n oticethat Wa l ter  W hite is  st i l l a
 the_public’s knowledge_and appreciation of science._But that_initial_spark of_interest_in science shouldn’t_be underestimated, they_say, and the fact_it can now_come_from realistic scientists on TV is a welcome development.



That may help explain why scientists_themselves_have gotten_involved._In_2008, the National Academy of_Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, having_long taken_note of the good and not-so-good portrayals of_science_and scientists in_TV and film, set up the Science & Entertainment_Exchange, a hotline that connects producers_and screenwriters to_scientists._“We_looked around and thought,_who can engage the public like_no other? Who can really get_people excited and interested and engaged?” says_Ann Merchant, the organization’s deputy executive_director for communications. “It’s Hollywood!”

Scientists_say they_make time to advise on_these shows because_they care_about the representation_of their fictional counterparts on TV._They know that_a popular show will be seen_by_many more eyes_than_their_latest research_paper, and they_want_the audience_to_understand what science is like—perhaps even_learn_something in the process.

Of course, as much_as they like being_involved_in promoting the public’s_interest in their profession, scientists_are not the ones who decide_what ultimately_appears on_screen. Hollywood may have figured out that their audience prefers realism_over distracting falsehoods, but the narrative_is always more important_than full_scientific_accuracy.

Nelson experienced this_firsthand_when she_spoke with Breaking Bad creator Gilligan. “Vince_asked me,_‘What do you think about making_the meth blue?’ and_I_said ‘I wouldn’t do it.’ ”

Even_though she didn’t have any experience_of synthesizing the drug herself,_she_knew,_based on her chemical knowledge,_that it would look white—never blue._None of the_chemical structures of the reagents or product_reflect_light in the blue part of_the_spectrum, so if your meth is_blue,_it’s_probably contaminated with something else._Gilligan didn’t take her advice, but_Nelson understood. “It was a plot device,” she says._“Walter White needed_a trademark for his drug._And_you_know, when people complain to me about the blue meth,_I simply_point out that_Breaking Bad was not a documentary!”

White’s blue meth business is_also a reminder that while the overall_framing of scientists on TV might have shifted toward the heroic,_we can’t help but notice that Walter White_is still a