Sir

We read with great interest your News Feature “Hollywood or bust” (Nature 430, 720–722; 200410.1038/430720a) on scientists attending a screenwriting class. We use movies to teach non-science students some basic science in a course called Science and Cinema.

Movies are a wonderful medium for sparking the interest of students. We use films such as Outbreak to teach students about viruses, Jurassic Park to discuss cloning, Gattaca for genetic screening and next year The Day After Tomorrow will be used to introduce the science of climate change. Those familiar with these films will agree that the cinematic quality is variable and the representation of the science sometimes flawed — but all the films build an exciting story around a scientific centrepiece, and hence are an excellent teaching tool.

As scientists, we understand the concern that movies may misinform the public and that the profession is not accurately represented on the screen. We need to keep these things in perspective, however. Movies usually tell larger-than-life stories and exaggerate characters. Is the work of a lawyer more accurately portrayed in films than that of a scientist? Scientists must join a long list of professions stereotyped by the movie industry.

Furthermore, to assume that most viewers don't understand that movies distort science in the same way that they distort historical events is somewhat patronizing.

In Cinema and Science, the students are taught some basic principles of a discipline; spotting the flaws in the movie is for many participants the most rewarding bit. We find it is often the flaws that inspire non-science students to want to know more about the current scientific research, the future possibilities and the responsibilities that come with them.

Let's use the excitement of movies to increase the understanding of science in the general public, rather than focus on the inevitable errors.