SCI CURIOUS EVENT REVIEWS... MIFF TALKS DEBATE

Event reviews by our Sci Curious members

MIFF Talks: Pop culture and Science - do they play nice?

In this friendly (and possibly fiery) debate, a panel of cultural and scientific experts lock horns over the way cinema and other forms of entertainment have advanced or regressed popular attitudes towards science. In a post-truth world, how have the big and small screens helped or hindered the way we perceive science and technology? 

Review #1 by Jue

Perhaps the most emphasised and most reoccurring theme on the debate of the topic 'Pop Culture and Science - do they play nice?' is the poor representation of science in pop culture. As mentioned by the panel, science is often misinterpreted in many ways in pop culture - either oversimplified or overdramatised to captivate a wider audience. While I agree that it should be simplified for that purpose, I strongly agree to the fact that artists do bear the responsibility of delivering accurate information. We should never undermine the audience and assume that they would have trouble understanding it, for we as humans, had proven over centuries of brilliant works that we do have brilliant minds. I believe with the right delivery and packaging of information in the pop culture scene, science would not be as boring and dry as it seems (because clearly it's not!). Therefore, the event was very relevant to me as I've been an advocate for creative science communication and the debate definitely further highlighted the importance of creative science communication and the urgency of moulding and training scientists into more efficient communicators. As we all can see, the world is advancing to an era of absolute intelligence and it is probably time that pop culture does the same too. 

Review #2 by Júlia

The theme that stood out to me was considering the ways media unrelated to science can have an impact on the public's relationship to the field, even when it is created for entertainment. Also, the challenge of understanding what should be the ethics and responsibilities involved in creating such media. 

As someone that works in the arts, the event was really relevant to me: it made me question how my future work could affect people's perception of science. Hearing from opposite sides of the argument was very helpful. However I found it challenging to find a single "winning" conclusion, as I felt that both sides were presenting the same general idea: that pop culture matters, it has affected the public's relationship to science in both positive and negative ways, and people creating content for pop culture have a responsibility to be mindful of that. 

I left the event with lots of new questions.  I would really love to attend another event in the future for discussing ways that professionals in creative industries can make sure we are "getting along" with science, and not harming it. 

Review #3 by Jack

The MIFF debate was certainly and interesting experience. It was great to see both the affirmative and negative sides engaging in discussion that I wouldn’t necessarily expect in a debate of this nature. Structured in three rounds for initial arguments, questions and final arguments, the flow of the debate provided for a logical sequence of events for the evening and a more than adequate degree of audience interaction.

Whilst the diversity in debaters was appreciable, it was a shame there were no ‘hard’ scientists on the panel. This led to a heavy focus on behavioural and social sciences that left more fundamental sciences like chemistry, biology and physics largely untouched. Furthermore, the discussion would have greatly benefitted from a strict universal definition of what the panel should consider as ‘pop culture’. Too many times it felt that arguments were disjointed, failing to reach a higher level of discussion that could have been achieved if such a parameter was defined.

In spite of these particular shortcomings, the overall quality of presentation by members of the panel was highly commendable. This goes especially for the affirmative team who swiftly swayed me from the negative to the positive side with their shining optimism and overall belief in the good and intelligence of today’s society. Confusingly, and ultimately disappointingly, the first speaker for the negative side, Will Dayble, came mostly unprepared for the debate. Whether an intentional subversion of audience expectation or performance on his part, his intent was lost on myself and the large majority, if not all the audience. This was particularly disappointing for the audience, some of which voiced their concerns on the online voting platform that their money was being wasted on no more than a few arguments that even Dayble admitted he took straight from his partner.

I’m still keen to attend another Science Gallery supported debate, the discussion content is something that I would struggle to find elsewhere currently in the mediascape. If my aforementioned shortcomings were to be addressed, I would be more than confident in believing that such debates will lead to an even more engaging dialogue.