Some people are so brilliant they make even the most over-achieving, A-type personalities (i.e. neurotic EUREKA writers) feel like slackers. Our Science Adviser KEVIN GRAZIER is such a person. While we find his multiple PhD's intimidating, we were also smart enough to hire him.
Now we know what you're thinking. What exactly does a TV science adviser do?
Today we present PART ONE of an informative and scandalous (just seeing if you're paying attention) inquiry into the mind of EUREKA's Resident Science Guru.
Okay, Kevin. Take it away!
Q: HI, KEVIN! FIRST OF ALL, INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE FANS AND TELL US WHAT YOUR REAL JOB IS.
A: I am Dr. Kevin Grazier, and for my day job I am a rocket
scientist. I admit, there is no
real job title “rocket scientist”, but that’s a simple term that gives a
general impression of the jobs I do.
My actual title is “Research Scientist”, and I work at NASA’S Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in the San Gabriel foothills just north of Pasadena, CA. I am an Investigation Scientist for the
Imaging Science Subsystem instrument on the Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn
and Titan. On Cassini I also have
the title of Science Planning Engineer – I basically write and run software
that helps all 12 of Cassini’s instrument teams determine where and when in the
mission they can make their observations.
To this end, I generate and maintain a huge database of geometric
information called the Cassini Tour Atlas.
In addition to that, I do still do research (I wouldn’t be much of
a “Research Scientist” if I didn’t, now would I?). I do computer simulations of Solar System (particularly
early Solar System) dynamics and evolution. At present I’m desperately trying to get a couple papers
finished and out the door. One is
on the numerical method our simulation software uses to handle the varying time
scales inherent in a close planet / planetesimal encounter. The other paper reports on the results
of a series of computer simulations that examine the role of Jupiter on the
dynamics of the early Solar System (A preview of which can be seen here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2008/10/17/is-jupiter-on-armageddons-side/).
Q: NO WONDER WE FEEL LIKE SLACKERS... AND WE'RE ONLY ON QUESTION #2! SO WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE SCIENCE ADVISER FOR A TV SHOW DO?
A: In short, a science advisor does his or her best to ensure that the
science represented in a TV series is as accurate as dramatically possible. For the series on which I work, some,
but certainly not all, writers will contact me before they even start writing
to discuss the science they intend to use or address. In all cases I get early drafts of scripts so that I can do
whatever I can do ensure scientific accuracy as early in the process as
possible.
At the beginning of every season on EUREKA I do a PowerPoint
presentation to discuss/call attention new and cool science that we can exploit
the coming season.
Q: HOW DID YOU COME TO WORK ON EUREKA IN THE FIRST PLACE?
A: How far back should I go with that? OK, during the beginning of season one, the Eureka writing staff was having lunch
with the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA writing
staff. The two staffs shared the
Rock Hudson Building over at Universal Studios. As I’m told the story, Eric Wallace (EUREKA) asked Kevin Fahey (BSG)
how they solve technical issues in their scripts. Kevin said, “Oh we have this guy over at JPL…” An hour later I had a phone call.
I love EUREKA, and to this day can’t believe
that I just… kinda… fell into the job.
Q: AS WRITERS, WE'RE CONSTANTLY STRIVING TO TELL ENTERTAINING STORIES THAT ARE STEEPED IN REAL SCIENTIFIC CONCEITS. IN YOUR OPINION, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY IN SCI-FI TV SHOWS?
A: In some cases it’s not important in the least. Take STAR WARS. I view that
as less science fiction and more science fantasy. I know light sabers can’t exist and I don’t care. They’re
cool, it’s fantasy, and I WANT ONE!
As a matter of fact, I think the STAR WARS folks got into trouble when they tried to offer a scientific basis for
The Force with the midichlorians.
Why not just keep it mystical?
It would have been much more satisfying.
Our show is somewhat different.
I go to a lot of conventions, have the opportunity to talk to many fans,
and can say that, on this point, they generally fall into two distinct categories.
To be honest, many of our viewers don’t really care about the TECH
stuff. They watch EUREKA because of the charming, funny,
quirky characters. When we get to
the TECH explanations, they hear “Blahblahblahblahblah could destroy Earth blahblahblah”
irrespective of whether it’s scientifically correct or not.
At the same time, there is another large faction of our viewers who
care very much. If you get
something egregiously wrong, they’ll notice and will instantly be taken out of
the story. Harkening back to an
early question about what I do on the show, the mantra of the screenwriter is
“Never wake the audience from your
dream.” If we have a technical
“Oops”, some of our viewers “awake”.
I try to help ensure that happens as seldom as possible.
When watching science fiction series, I fall into the latter
category. If there is a
preventable technical error, one that could have been done correctly without
sacrificing the dramatic impact, I just groan, and wind up all snarky and
Rodney McKay-like the rest of the episode.
Q: BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, RIDDLE US THIS: WHAT INFLUENCED YOU TO BECOME A SCIENTIST?
A: I’ve thought long and
hard on this, and I can’t decide whether it was the money, the fame, or the
power…
I think that if you
ask any scientist and most engineers, irrespective of discipline, what got them
to go into their field, you will overwhelmingly get two answers: space and dinosaurs. With me it was both. When I was in second grade, I was “that
kid” who knew everything there was to know about dinosaurs, and couldn’t understand
why everybody else didn’t think they were the coolest thing ever.
At the same time, the early Gemini and Apollo missions took place when
I was very young, and I still remember them. Back then when there was something space-related going in,
it was an all-day event on all the major networks, and the viewing audience
would be let in on everything they could expect to see. Space was exciting! Now I think the general public has
largely lost the sense of excitement that we had during the days of Apollo. I said “I want to do that!” so I went
to college and took up space.
It was a Friday evening during my first semester at Purdue University,
and I was walking across campus.
Something drew me towards the New Chemistry Building (as it was named at
the time). I walked in and saw a couple hundred people in a large lecture
hall. There was a speaker giving a
slide show about spacecraft and moons and planets. He ended his presentation with a short film about Voyager
that finished with three big letters on the screen: JPL. I said, “I
want to work THERE.” So I tailored
my career and my education to get the kind of job I have now. One of the many reasons I selected UCLA
for graduate school was that it was cross-town from JPL.
I love it when a good plan comes together.
Q: SO DO WE. AND SO DOES SHERIFF CARTER. BUT HE ISN'T A SCIENTIST. YET HE'S ALWAYS MAKING INTUITIVE LEAPS THAT OUR SCIENCE RESIDENTS MISS. IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT ROLE DOES "FAITH" AND "INTUITION" PLAY IN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY?
A: Intuition is HUGE in science – you have to have a sense of when you are
onto something in your research.
At the same time, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve solved a
work-related problem while in the shower or when just waking up. The human mind is very complex, it
works when we’re not aware it’s working, and sometimes the best way to solve a
problem is to NOT think about it directly for a while.
Also, Carter has the ability to make connections between two seemingly
independent events or two different kinds of technologies that may be interacting. It’s the ability to make those types of
connections that is a trait many successful scientists share.
Summed up, we collectively call those abilities – the ability to let
one’s subconscious mull over our problems and the ability to make seemingly disparate
connections – intuition. In that
sense, what Carter does is very
scientific.
Faith is a very different issue, and there are obviously different
denotations and connotations of the word that you could apply here. I think that, like Dr. Ellie Arroway in
the movie Contact, the best
scientists are searching for meaning – they are driven to find out how our
Universe works. That’s what
science is – a methodology for studying nature. So I think that for many scientists, “faith” is an undying
belief that the Universe DOES have a few basic principles upon which everything
else is based—and they either search to uncover those fundamental principles,
or understand the corresponding macroscopic outcomes.
That's all for now! Look for PART TWO of our Q & A with EUREKA Science Adviser Kevin Grazier next week!
Thanks for the work you do! Coming from a big science-oriented family, I enjoy that the science in Eureka is usually pretty interesting and well done for television SF. My brother is a laser scientist who got his PhD in optical physics at Purdue, so I'll wave at you for him, too!
Posted by: MaryM | 02/03/2010 at 05:19 PM
Excellent interview, I can't wait for part two! I love Eureka and this has given me a new interest in the science part of the show (being as I am one of those "blah blah blah science" viewers, most of the time, I sheepishly admit). And I love that he referenced yet another great SF show in his Rodney-McKay-like comment. ;-)
Posted by: Goldiebug | 02/04/2010 at 02:31 PM
Great interview--I was hoping to hear more about this guy. I was kid during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions so I know exactly where he's coming from. Of course the question begs: how much Major Matt Mason stuff did he have back then, and did he ever get one of the highly-desirable GI Joe space capsules? :)
Posted by: Mister_terrific | 02/05/2010 at 06:10 AM
Great to see the people behind the scenes who are a part of making this show so entertaining!
Posted by: Michael J | 02/05/2010 at 01:08 PM
Fascinatng interview! Love the new site!!!
Posted by: anna | 02/10/2010 at 08:19 PM
Oh my goodness. This is so interesting to me! Makes me wish I had decided to follow the scientist in me. It's truly great to see this side of the show and the people involved - Thank you again!
Posted by: Vader's Mom | 02/15/2010 at 05:36 PM
When i saw the show i never believe that this part of it was so interest. Thanks for writing this blog.
Posted by: g spot stimulation | 05/05/2010 at 12:53 PM
Science and technology today can not be separated because one complements the other and can not work independently.
Posted by: virtual laser keyboard | 05/12/2010 at 01:03 PM
a rocket scientist ? that's why my children admire you so much, I think that you haves the rarest specialization a scientist can have. how curious.
Posted by: buy viagra | 07/16/2010 at 09:35 AM
What an amazing job! Sounds like an adventure.
Posted by: Pam @ Minnesota health care programs | 03/01/2011 at 11:10 PM
Do you think any of the inventions that the writers and you come up with could actually be made in reality? And if so, how much would they affect society?
Posted by: Caitlin | 05/21/2011 at 02:43 PM
Nearly all Eureka stories are based in real science, Caitlin -- we do take dramatic license of course, and we tend to be most interested in cutting-edge areas (including the unproven and theoretical), but a lot of Eureka science could end up in the real world, if it isn't here already!
Syfy started a cool new blog for us about these kinds of ideas, if you're interested in these kinds of science topics:
http://showblogs.syfy.com/eureka/idealab/
Posted by: Eureka Writers | 05/25/2011 at 11:27 AM