Three Scientists

Over the last few years playwrights have drawn inspiration from the world of science. Tom Stoppard's Hapgood was among the first plays to explore modern physics. Michael Frayn's Copenhagen is based on the visitation that German physicist Werner Heisenberg made to Copenhagen to see Niels Bohr. This play is not about science, the unearthing of facts, the scientific method of postulates and theorems. It's about humanity. Science was created and is applied by people--flawed, emotion filled, and driven people. Yet, this play has proven to us that science is indeed a fount for creative inspiration. The reason why this is so is because science, although driven by the need to know, is also a creative endeavor--an artistic expression of humankind. Maybe playwrights and scientist are not so different. Maybe they can learn from each other.

Arguably, plays about science can placed in two categories, even though the dividing line is not fixed because many plays may possess both elements. Nevertheless, the first category is "science and play?and the other is "scientist and play.? In the plays that are character driven, about scientists, such as Copenhagen and Einstein's Dream the demand for depth of knowledge regarding the hard sciences is minimal, more ancillary than pertinent. These are simply plays about people--with all the complexity, needs and wants of everyday people. However, when the focus of the play is on science, the level of competency, depth of knowledge is different. This demands that the playwright understand scientific ideas, conceptually, intellectually and applied. This cannot be faked. Authenticity demands expertise.

With the exception of real scientists like Carl Djerassi every playwright who writes plays about science needs to collect information about science. This is true whether or not they are writing about "science and play?or "scientist and play.?However, there is difference in the level of scientific knowledge they must acquire. Simply stated, I believe that an examination of representative plays will allow us to elucidate how much and the depth of knowledge that is required for each play type of play. Specifically, I will examine their use of science/scientists in their plays. And a larger, overarching question will be: What is the role of the playwright regarding responsibility to science in regards to authenticity and soundness of theory? To answers these questions, I will examine the Humble Boy and Arcadia under "science and play,?and Fermat's Last Tango and Proof under "scientist and play.?

Charlotte Jones's Humble Boy is a scientific fantasy and a dysfunctional family drama that falls into the category of "science and play.?According to Paul Guinnessy, Jones decided to write a play about a physicist after she visualized a man stumbling around in his garden with bees in it. She then decided to focus on the idea of the super-string theory after she heard theoretical physicist Brian Greene discuss his book, The Elegant Universe, on the radio. So Felix, the protagonist, became a theoretical astrophysicist. It fit his personality. He was searching for unity in regards to all aspects of his life.

In Humble Boy, the science isn't treated seriously. There are few scenes related to science. For example, Felix explains to Mercy his superstring research into the creation of the universe; he is searching for a 'Theory of Everything?that will reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. And the play's emotional journey parallels his attempt to understand the super-string theory. In support of this assertion, Sara Abdulla states that super-string theory is "echoed by his personal struggle to understand how the big events in life ?births, deaths, marriages ?are informed by the seemingly inconsequential stuff.? Maybe, for Felix, meaning is found in that which seems meaningless.

More to the point, Charlotte Jones uses of the super-string theory is nothing more than a vehicle to present the personal strife--his existential journey--that Felix is living. She does not bring science into theatre and science does not play a significant part in this play. Like most plays about science, it's not about the advancement of an idea or theories; it's about the people that are involved in the sciences. Words and phrases about mathematics and science are just spoken but they are not there to educate us. These words lend to the authenticity of the play.

On the other hand, as another example of "science and play,?Tom Stoppard's Arcadia presents a scientific subject reasonably well. He presents chaos theory and fractal geometry. Arcadia has two mathematicians and the mathematical ideas they are involved with constitute one of the main subplots of the play. According to John Fleming, Stoppard read James Gleick's book about chaos theory and felt that this could be the source of a new play. Stoppard also comments that ?Chaos theory] suggested itself as a quite interesting and powerful metaphor for human behavior, not just behavior, but...a determined life?

However, Stoppard was not entirely dependent on books for his information. He discussed the subject with his son who majored in physics and he consulted Robert May, a prominent Oxford chaotician. And, unlike Humble Boy which only received a few reviews from scholarly and scientific journals, Arcadia got a tremendous feedback from scientific community. It created a buzz and was well received. In fact, mathematician Robert L. Devaney of Boston University wrote, "I can't imagine a better way to get liberal arts students involved in some contemporary mathematics.?

Without a doubt, Stoppard did a wonderful job of writing a play about science, but he wasn't a scientist. In an interview with Osserman, he confessed that he doesn't fully understand these complicated theories. In spite of this, however, no one denies that Arcadia is one of the best plays that ever written about science. It effectively dramatized a world that is unimaginably complex.

The level of