Expelled

I was going to go to the Expelled movie this weekend to write a review for this blog. But it turns out that Expelled is more about Ben Stein flunking than getting expelled. For more information, please consult with TUIB Guy.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Ben Stein: Tasteless

Have you heard of Ben Stein's latest farce? It's a movie called EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, and is billed as a response to the 'suppression' that Intelligent Design has experienced. Well, the film was supposed to open on February 12 - Darwin's Birthday. I was looking forward to viewing and reviewing it while I was on my outpatient medicine rotation (more time to myself = more blogging... Hi Dr. Novan!) but now they've up and changed the opening date to April 18. I'll be on surgery then!

Leave it to the movie's proponents to point out that this moves the opening from Darwin's birthday to the day he died (April 19). And some of them revel in this decision!

Bad form, guys. Tasteless.

Movie Review: I am Legend

I'm no film connoisseur, but I am a scientist and physician. Well, almost a physician. So it is from a biomedical perspective that I present my review of I am Legend, starring Will Smith. This is the first film I have seen on opening weekend in as long as I can remember, and the first I've seen in a theater since Arctic Tale. This article won't be a true spoiler, but I will address several critical plot elements. Stop reading if you don't want to ruin the surprises. First, it was nice to see the movie without knowing any of the story. (Will Smith got me in the theater.) Other reviews point out Smith's excellent acting, the weak CGI monsters and how much the story strays from the original novel by Richard Matheson. And Popular Mechanics assesses the verity of the 'junk science' built into the plot. I take a broader view. In sum, I was pleasantly surprised that not only was science important to this film, but it was the co-star. Enough with the preamble! Here's the review:

How many times have you seen a cocky scientist on TV extolling the unlimited cures science has to offer society? If you lived in California a few years ago, you probably met professor Irv Weissman and others promising that stem cells will cure diseases. (They were actually just hinting at it, but does that really matter now that CA is well on its way to funding $3 billion of stem cell science?) I am Legend opens with a smug blond scientist admitting on local TV that yes, she has cured cancer. Note #1: Scientists, if you want to get visibility for science, you need to get on the local news! Evidently, this scientist has built a virus that prevents either tumorgenesis or malignancy. Fortunately, the film did not get into that detail, because I would have something significant to critique! What is notable is that the plot plays on the public's lingering fear of gene therapy. And of course, the worst nightmare comes true. The virus mutates into a lethal strain that results in symptoms part rabies, part ebola, part bird flu. The virus first requires physical contact for transmission, but soon aerosolizes and crosses species boundaries. I am skeptical that viral evolution could actually occur as quickly as in the film, but perhaps such a trait is what enabled one virus to cure every type of cancer in the first place.

Speaking of curing cancer, our mad scientist (who had a vaguely European accent), indicated that of 10,009 clinical trials, 10,009 people were cancer free. This is likely a consistency flaw instigated by the script writers, since later, Will Smith's character tests his "compound 6" and calls one experiment a clinical trial. Note #2: A clinical trial includes hundreds, if not thousands of patients. This was a little mistake, but could misrepresent the process of evaluating safety and efficacy to the millions of people in the theater this weekend. By the way, this flaw was my infectious disease researcher wife's biggest beef with the film.

Speaking of infectious disease, we need to talk about immunity. If 1% or the world's population was immune to the film's virus, Manhattan should have been left with 15,000 people. It took 70 minutes or so for an explanation of why Will Smith's character was the only human remaining. It turns out that 30% of those who survived turned into zombies. These (poorly animated) zombies ended up killing the rest of the people. How likely is it that a virus could cause a devolution (or evolution) of humans into zombies? Greg Bear offers a pretty believable mechanism in Darwin's Radio. If this little viral beastie was a certain type of retrovirus, aggressive zombies could be the next step in evolution, and this could even occur in one generation. I am guessing that this is the part of the film that the audience is supposed to suspend its belief about...

What about the basement laboratory? Smith's character used a fancy eyeglass-mounted video camera to record his experiments on various compounds to reverse the virus's symptoms in sewer rats. The writers got some things right here. Only "compound #6" worked; this was one of twenty he tried in this series, in what we assume was a long string of trials. This brings us to Note #3: Only a small fraction of science experiments 'work.' Of note is that only one rat was tested with #6 before moving to human trials! I guess this paucity of pre-clinical data can be excused when civilization is at stake. While we are on the topic of animal experiments, the presentation of animal research in this film was well done. The rabid rats were clearly animated, so no beef could be made about living conditions for real rats (and the fact that they were injuring themselves on the cages). The cages, by the way, were appropriate for animal size and were not overcrowded. Smith's character didn't need to get IACUC approval for his work, but he was mostly in compliance for many rules about animal care. Some notable lapses: no dedicated facility, interventions that were terminal, minimal personal protective equipment.

The treatment of the bench science was appropriate. There were no unneeded CSI-styled eye-candy closeups of pipetting or tube shaking. (You know the shot: when one of the attractive lab techs flicks an Eppendorf tube up in front of his/her face instead of using the vortexer.) This workshop looked like a well stocked lab crossed with an intensive care unit. There were QPCR machines, vital signs monitors (just like those at the UW hospital!), and med supply carts along with an appropriate amount of clutter. Conveniently for the plot, there were also bullet-proof glass doors. Except for the dim lighting, this looked like a great place to do science.

In my opinion, the ethical land mine in this film was not the fact that some crazy scientist unleashed a deadly virus - that occurred off screen. I worried about the ethical use of human subjects. Smith's character has a wall packed with photos of zombies that he unsuccessfully cured of their zombieism. The viewer is asked to overlook the fact that these zombies have the potential to be fully human. At one point in the film, Smith's character reports that these creatures have lost all semblance of human nature. This is a fine trick to make it okay for experimenting on them. (That is how some scientists justify animal research.) However, the observant audience member will note that the zombies have clear emotional responses to stimuli, exhibit abstract planning and operate in a social manner. One (the chief zombie) even seems to show an attachment to the zombie subject Smith's character is trying to cure. Note #4: If a cure occurs only after sacrificing hundreds of zombie-humans, is the research ethical? Is exterminating the zombie way of life genocide?

Finally, over the course of the film, the protagonist shifts from a Christian to an atheist to an agnostic. First, he prays with his family before all Hell breaks loose. Later, he reasons that God would never permit such a catastrophe, therefore does not exist. The final resolution depends on a near-death and perhaps spiritual experience in which Smith's character adopts a perspective that things 'happen for a reason.' I did not appreciate (nor would my atheist readers) how his suicidal ideation occurred in the post-religion period, while the noble savior surfaced after reconsidering a religious perspective. Apart from that flaw, I was pleased that this portrayal of a scientist encompassed religious, agnostic and atheist perspectives, therefore illuminating Note #5: Science can be done by individuals from diverse belief spectra.

In the end, my wife and I agreed that this was an entertaining movie and worth the $8 after a day of studying. The plot was creative enough to get me thinking about some interesting research ethics and science in society issues. Hopefully it got some others thinking as well.

Tonight Only: Science and Blues Revue

Last Thursday I had the privilege of watching a preview of NOVA's Intelligent Design on Trial at the Pacific Science Center. The director (Richard Hutton) presented about an hour of the two hour documentary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Education court case two years ago. If you haven't heard, the special airs tonight at 8:00 PM on PBS.

I want to get this post up before the big event, but don't have the time for a complete analysis. Here are some bullet points:

• Judge John Jones is prominently featured.
• We weren't shown the whole thing because it was not finished yet (on Thursday).
• There was a bit more of the warfare theme than I thought was necessary.
• I sat next to Carl Bergstrom of the UW Biology department.
• They used actors to portay the court proceedings; Behe's double is excellent.
• The basic introductions to the philosophy of science are adequate.
• I thought the presentation of the science was too simplified.
• I am thinking of using a mousetrap as a tieclip one of these days.

I look forward to the special tonight. I hope you are too.

Movie Review: Arctic Tale

Yesterday could well have been the hottest day Seattle will see this summer: 97°F.

Consider now how I spent that hot evening: sitting in an air conditioned theater watching a movie about polar bears and shrinking ice fields. The irony is thick enough to walk across.

I snagged a pair of the UW's Program on the Environment's free passes to an early screening of Arctic Tale, so took a little break from labwork to treat my wife to a nature movie. The bottom line is that this film has amazing cinematography, colloquial narration and a message: the earth is warming, the ice is shrinking, arctic wildlife is in peril.

Two summers ago, America's hearts belonged to a pair of emperor penguins. Morgan Freeman introduced these birds' mysterious life cycle in an anthropomorphized account of the power of family. Never mind that the penguins spend much of their time in same-sex arrangements... This time, Queen Latifah has the task of telling the coming-of-age account of Nanu the polar bear and Seela the walrus.

Let's start with the pictures in this film - they are its best attribute. Who out there has seen footage of underwater walrus courtship? Cameos from pods of narwhals under the ice scrappy foxes and several species of bird keep the animal diversity quotient high. And everybody loves polar bears, right? Kids will like that the film's stars are just kids themselves, and adults will appreciate the beauty of the white landscapes. In a nod to the families with small children, when the bears catch prey, the most gruesome parts are kept off the big screen. The cinematic innovations, including polar shark cages and adaptations for the sub-zero temperatures made by director Adam Ravetch pay off big time. I was sad when Seela and Nanu had their own daughters, because that meant the nature eye-candy was running out.

More than in March of the Penguins, Arctic Tale integrates the urgent message of the negative human impact on the arctic climate. That Al Gore's daughter contributed to the script could have something to do with this. Everyone will catch the not-so-subtle message that these arctic mammals' ways of life are in serious trouble because humans use the wrong lightbulbs and don't carpool. You know the 'ice is melting' message will show up sometime, and part of the film's suspense lies in waiting for it. Anthropomorphizing the cubs' adventures may not be the only way to get climate change on the big screen (Don't forget about The Day After Tomorrow's Inconvenient Truth!), but it may be the best way to connect with kids and families. Some people might complain about Queen Latifah's cutesy descriptions of the animals' escapades. Corny is my style, so I'll let the others complain.

One element of the film that I appreciated is that the directors did not feel the need to balance time between the male and female 'characters.' With walruses and polar bears, the moms do the parenting. I learned that a walrus sow teams with an older female in the herd family unit to assure offspring survival. While Queen Latifah calls that partner "Auntie," it is unclear how close in relation the parents are. Here's an echo from Penguins: maybe same sex parents confer increased fitness in a population. Males make appearances as potential agents of infanticide and food hoarders and then have a short stint as boyfriends. Sounds about right. In the end, this is a story about preparing young for a challenging future. Seela and Nanu succeed, but what about our children?

Although some accounts of release date vary, I think Arctic Tale is set to debut in selected theaters July 25, with a wide release planned for August 17. A website, http://www.arctictalemovie.com/ has a trailer, but it takes a while to load, even with a fast connection. If you have time, stick around for the credits - I learned some new ways to decrease my carbon footprint. And if you are really patient, look for the message after the production company's mastheads. (Where the 'no animals were harmed' message usually is.)