New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

How CBS’s The Big Bang Theory Humanizes Scientists

The co–executive producer of CBS's hit comedy and author of the forthcoming book Does Santa Exist? A Cheerful Philosophical Investigation talks about how his show helps to humanize scientists

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

PROFILE
Eric Kaplan

TITLE
Co–executive producer, The Big Bang Theory

LOCATION
Los Angeles


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Is science education an important part of The Big Bang Theory, which revolves around two physicist roommates and their friends?

It bears a family resemblance to science education. What we try to do is to make people feel that scientists are real people and that science is something that real people, like themselves, could do.

How do you balance scientific discourse with character development?

We try not to make too strong a dualism between the two because our characters are people who care passionately about science. For example, we had a fight between Sheldon [a main character], who is a physicist, and his girlfriend, Amy, who is a neuroscientist. And the content of the fight got pretty philosophical because he said, “My research is intrinsically more important than yours because reality is physical, and the physical will ultimately explain biology and therefore explain the human brain.” And she said, “My research is more fundamental than yours because when you're doing physics, something is going on in your brain, which my biology will be able to understand.” And then they broke up. All you really need to know is that she was saying she's smarter than he is, and he was saying that he's smarter than she is—the emotional reality of what was going on.

For the most part, the show's writers don't have science backgrounds. What do you do to prepare?

We read science journalism, and we familiarize ourselves as much as we can with things that our characters would be concerned with. For example, I was listening to an NPR story about the neuroscience behind habit formation and habit extirpation. That would be an interesting thing to deal with. And we have a consultant who is an actual physics professor at U.C.L.A.—David Saltzberg—so we run stuff by him.

Is there any rhyme or reason to the animations of atoms that break up the scenes? I think I noticed lithium once.

I think I asked the same question when I showed up. I was like, “Hey, is that lithium?” And the answer I was given was, “Yes, it is lithium.” But it's not [there] because lithium is an antidepressant or anything like that.

Erik Vance is a science writer and relatively new father. His first book, Suggestible You (National Geographic, 2016), is about how belief affects the brain.

More by Erik Vance
Scientific American Magazine Vol 308 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Exploiting Physics for Serious Laughs” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 308 No. 5 (), p. 22
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0513-22a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe