No.

Scientific methodology works very different from what this type of literature implies. However, it is good for human imagination, e.g. Jules Verne, the father of science fiction.

I think yes, because it helps in developing creative imagination, e.g. I think that STE(A)M concept is one of the proofs for this. Here I don't think about research methodology, but rather on different ways of thinking, inventing, creating...

Yes. When scientifically accurate, sci-fi narratives help to legitimate some research fields among the public opinion. Thus, politicians may be more likely to increase expenditures in research agencies, kids start to dream about being the next genius inventor and so on.

Please let me refer to a publiction available on ResearchGate:

"Sci-fi has inspired many technological innovations. Its influence is present in the invention, conceptualization, design and application of interfaces and technology. As an avenue of creativity and expression both, sci-fi literature and media have fueled advancements in interactive technology and proven to be a key source ofinspiration for researchers in the field of computing technology [2]" Philipp Jordan et al. (2018). "Exploring the Referral and Usage of Science Fiction in HCI Literature" as part of the project: "An exploratory study of the relationship of Science-Fiction and Human-computer Interaction" Available at:

Preprint Exploring the Referral and Usage of Science Fiction in HCI Literature

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

First of all, many scientist are not only “science fiction buffs”, but science fiction writers in their own right. Just to name a few “big names” that come to mind : Norbert Wiener (cybernetics) wrote a few SF stories ; Eric Temple Bell aka John Taine (mathematics) was a key player of US SF in the 1940s ; same for François Bordes aka Francis Carsac (paleontology) in France in the 1960s ; but also, among currently active authors, Gregory Benford (astrophysics), Vernor Vinge (maths & computer science), Rudy Rucker (maths), and so on.

Less anecdoctically, *both* science and science fiction aim to escape from reality. Since Aristotle’s Organon, a key feature of “science” has been to distinguish reality from what is being told about it. A direct corollary of the “inexhaustible complexity” of reality (Weyl) is that no scientific discourse can even endeavor to take it fully into account. Hence, any scientific model is by essence a fiction, an “haplotopy” (i.e. a “more simple place”).

The key difference between science and science fiction thus doesn’t lie in the nature of the topics they consider, or even of the hypothesis they consider: it lies in the fact that a true scientist will always, and rather sooner than later, go back to the real world and confront the prediction he derives from his wildest hypothesis to it, while the SF author may indefinitely push this verification away, making him a “reckless scientist”, in the terms of Umberto Eco.

Many science fiction stories — or at least “hard science fiction stories” — are basically narrative thought experiments. And when these experiments deal with topics not yet fully understood in the current scientific paradigms, they can indeed add to the collective knowledge, however modestly.

Moreover, science fiction can be a powerful tool in science education, and thus also contributes to the progress of science by bringing future scientists to it. For instance, according to NASA, who delivered its Distinguished Service Medal to science fiction author Robert Heinlein, many of the actual engineers of the Apollo program in the 1960s initially found their vocation when reading Heinlein’s juvenile novels as teenagers.

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe

You ask: " Do you consider "science fiction" to be relevant to science in any way? "

Yes, I believe so: it may "tease" the mind in new "directions", some that may be true (when finally sufficiently investigated), though this may be rare and one could likely argue that it is more bad than good. I like to like it for self-serving reasons: If someone cannot accept my assumptions or my perspective, I can recommend the reading of my writings just for some good consistent and internally consistent "science fiction" -- which many do like.

i think there is a connection at least in the way that sience fiction tempts science to search and investigate about some new scientific views raised in a piece of writing.

I would say it's relevant, in at least the sense that science fiction has precluded and even inspired a wide range of real-world developments. Some particularly hard science fiction (think Greg Egan) can likewise be a tool for improving scientific literacy. Talking about literature in terms of "value" is largely a moot point; it's entirely subjective. However, I think there were a lot of feats of science and engineering that would never have seen the light of day had the idea not been torn from the pages of a sci-fi work.

The shortest answer could be that science fiction explores the myths generated by the developing science and as such is necessary for the self-understanding of the society. Not to speak about a lot of visionary works examining less science then its possible applications. SF is rarely pure escape from reality: what do you make of its dystopian tradition? Interestingly, this way of depreciating SF because of its supposedly escapist nature was characteristic of the Soviet attitude during the Stalin's era. Science and SF were supposed to prove their immediate usefulness in the frame of the 5-year economic plan. The end of this era, the post-Stalinist Thaw after 1956, was marked by an explosion of SF, homemade and in translation: a proof that a society needs SF as it needs a free air.

Reading novels and stories by Phillip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury, Theodore Sturgeon, and most especially Floating Worlds may change Professor Watanable's mind. The play RUR by Karel Capek was hilarious and he invented the word Robot, drawn from arbeit, German for work. I could cite many others-- Ursula K. Leguin, Joanna Russ, R.L. Lafferty, H. Claire Taylor's Jessica Christ series, on and on. High literary quality all.

The "what if ?" category of SF writers speculates on the consequence of technical or sociological choices on the future. Thus it stimulates the anticipation capacity of the readers, specially for young adult readers. In the late seventies and eighties, we - that is the belgian publisher Duculot - published with some success the collection "Travelling sur le futur " (17 volumes).

Floating Worlds is by Cecelia Holland. She normally wrote historical fiction. As I told her once dexades ago, it is odd that one of the greatest SF novels ess thebonly SF novel by that writer.

الخيال العلمي لا يرتبط بالهروب من الواقع بقدر ما يرتبط بخيال الانسان المحب للمعرفة والوصول الى ابعد حد من التحديات الموجودة في الواقع فهو دوما يتوق الى الاكتشاف في هذا الكون العجيب الذي هو من صنع الخالق عز وجل

Sorry, dear Jim Drummond, the word "Robot" comes not exactly from the German "Arbeit". It is shaped directly on the Chech "robota" which means, like in other Slavic languages, "hard work", "toil". As to "robota", it derives from a common Slavic root "rab" (slave). And it is true that the word "rab" comes from the Indo-European "orbhos" from which comes "Arbeit" as well.

Many things that were once considered science fiction are now science fact. Ideas can be inspired from fiction. It is the proper application of knowledge that brings forth innovation and technology.

Hayet Maache ,

Thank you for contributing to this thread. Surprisingly, I am able to locate on the Internet a translation of your contribution, which is as follows:

Hayet Maache states: "Science fiction is not so much about escaping reality as it is about the imagination of a knowledge-loving human being and reaching the limits of challenges existing in fact. He always longs to discover in this wondrous universe that is the work of creation of the Creator."

Comments and corrections are welcomed! Otherwise, we may assume that my Internet based translation from the original Arabic is accurate!

Science fictions are purely imaginary, which sometimes inspire new researchers.There are many examples of thia.

In principle, science fiction is simply a branch of literature in general. The term "scientific", in my opinion, is superfluous. However, on this occasion there is a vast scientific (philological) literature. On the other hand, without this “addition” it is difficult to understand where the line is between fantasy, speculative fiction, utopia, distopia, etc. This can be argued till to hoarseness, till the complete loss of common sense (and many do it at the very beginning, but this does not affect the quality of the dispute). In my opinion, this is a common classification problem in science. It is extremely difficult for a non-specialist to understand what is the fundamental difference between Otariidae and Phocidae. For me, it's just seals ... (do not throw a slipper in me, I'm just a cat chemist). You can give examples from other sciences. If we return to the literature, for example, Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” is now regarded as a socio-psychological novel, although this is essentially a criminal novel, even a thriller. But with a great desire, it can be characterized as a feminist novel (I would be surprised if this has not already been done).

  The common view of science fiction is that the basis of such a work is a fact that can be regarded as a scientific assumption - "what would happen if". Science fiction has come a long way from classical (J. Verne and G. Wells) to modern, which is a great deal with exactly the same diseases as almost all modern literature. Personally, I prefer the classics (everywhere).

Naturally, when describing a changed reality, the authors reflect on changes in society, morality, etc. In Russia, many practiced portraying of a "bright communist future", many tried to show that it will be not so bright ... But for me, honestly, this is not very interesting. In fact, art is not what, but how. And Dostoevsky, Chekhov and Bunin are absent in science fiction. So it seems to me.

في الحقيقة هو موضوع شيق وجميل موفقة

There's an Einstein quote--Imagination is more powerful than Knowledge. I think some scientists like Sci-Fi as a pleasant diversion from hard work. I interviewed Ray Bradbury twice and he would subscribe to the idea that sci-fi's futurism gives thinkers a way to discuss present issues with enough distance to get a hearing--e.g. Star Trek's first interracial kiss (Kirk and Uhura) about 1966--NE

Leonid Heller, I stand corrected and sincerely apologize to the Czech people and the living Czech language. I do not know where I read that it came directly from arbeit because it was decades ago.\, so I can only acknowledge my own error and not blame someone else more eminent than myself. :)

It's easy for me, my native language is Russian where the word for "work" is almost the same as in Czech, "rabota". So for our Slavic ears "Robot" sounds very homely.

Hayet Maache ,

Thank you for your comment, which in English, translates as follows:

Hayet Maache states that "In fact it [the relevance of science fiction to science]

is an interesting and beautiful topic."

Ali mohamed rashed

Thank you for trying to contribute to this thread; however, it seems appropriate to refer you to a different venue. I should tell you right now that you seem to be confusing two functions, as follows: (1) If you want to share a thesis with Research Gate members, then you may do so by posting it at your Profile and then click on "Share." This will automatically generate a list of RG members with whom to share the thesis. (2) Please be advised that this thread is specifically intended to generate answers to the Question, which I posted. You are certainly welcome to contribute to this thread by stating your answer to my Question using your own words. If any of this is not clear to you, please tell me about it so that I can try to explain. Regards.

Science fiction (SciFi) may inspire the quest to develop new technologies

Science fiction portrays imaginary settings, Mars is the most popular, and fictional characters, often travelers voyaging into outer space.

Science fiction writers anticipate future events by juxtaposing down-to-earth material objects with dream and fantasy. An example is Robert Heinlein's science fiction novel titled Tunnel in the Sky.

Science fiction includes the movies; for example, Star Wars "translates" scientific equipment, such as a particle accelerator, into a futuristic war machine.

Stanley Kubrick's science fiction film entitled 2001: A Space Odyssey combines a classical literary genre, the ancient epic of heroic adventure that patriotically exalts a nation, with the futuristic theme of travel into outer space.

Stanley Kubrick, producer and director of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is based on a story titled "The Sentinel," written by science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, demonstrates the versatility of science fiction by showing that man-made machines may one day turn against man. Based on "The Sentinel," the film adaptation conveys the moral of the story: man should be vigilant and provide safeguards against being destroyed by his futuristic creations, such as "Hal," the brains behind a robotic takeover of a space ship.

Science fiction gives more insight into what science can do

Science fiction proposes a path along which science eventually travels.

Again it can have vast political import as well. Floating Worlds by Cecelia Holland, and A Scanner Darkly by Phillip J. Dick (also a rotoscope film) , are prime examples.

Sci Fi format allowed the Christian academic and literary critic C S Lewis to bring in Biblical themes in his Space Trilogy beginning about 1938. Perelandra with its floating islands is the most famous of these in which he revamps the Garden of Eden myth in a highly creative way. The books also sound the warning that rather than fearing aliens the enemy may be humans trying to colonize other worlds--another creative take on the genre--NE

Even the sci-fi films can conflict. Compare Independence Day with Mars Attacks. If you subscribe to karma or the law of attraction, Mars Attacks might be more culturally instructive. :)

Some scientists and philosophers of science distinguish between the "context of discovery" and the "context of justification". Roughly, the context in which ideas suggesting hypotheses are generated versus the context in which hypotheses are tested. Science fiction can certainly contribute to the context of discovery by imaginatively suggesting possibilities that might be investigated by science.

Science fiction often motivate scientists to think and dream big.

While the fantasy is entirely imaginative, science fiction reveals a possible fiction (albeit low probability), taking into account the scientific accumulation of humanity so far. While reading the foundation series of Asimov, although the technology described is beyond what we know now, it is easy for the reader to understand because the basis of the working logic of technology is today's science. We may not find the proven true science we are looking for in science fiction, but we may encounter abundant scientific theories that have never been put forward before.

Mert Sefa Özel ,

Thank you for your thoughtful, articulate reply to this discussion! I appreciate it very much! Best regards.

Einstein said, Imagination is more powerful than Knowledge--not an expert scifi fan but that's quite a quote and met Ray Bradbury twice--NE

Thank you for your reply! I wonder under what circumstances Einstein met Ray Bradbury, and twice!

Yes, I consider "science fiction" to be relevant to science in any way.

Sorry--it was I who met Bradbury--poor sentence construction----Ray considered himself a "science fantasist" which is interesting--and Aldous Huxley considered Ray a "poet"--NE

I've known a number of scientists who love science fiction & find it stimulating. It takes many forms...some SF explores technical things; & the first explorations of artificial intelligence were in SF stories. Some explore alternate societies & the impact of technological innovations such as computers & robots were first explored in SF Even Fantasy texts explore things like climate change.

Dear Dr. Nancy Ann Watanabe ,

I think "science fiction" has nothing to do with science in any way, but it could open new fields and research ideas for scientists.

Visions of tomorrow inform the present and can inspire progress both socially and technologically. Astronauts like Mae Jemison and aerospace engineers like Bobak Ferdowsi and Elon Musk all speak of science fiction as a guiding influence for their careers. More significantly, science fiction can inspire everyday people to engage in visionary, long-term thinking.

More information, this link clarify The real science of science fiction:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/jan/21/real-science-science-fiction-sf-scholar

Even Samuel Beckett could in a sense be considered t have written science fiction. He made one film, "Film," starring only Buster Keaton and the invisible cameraman. In it the character tries to escape being perceived, thinking that if esse est percipi that he will achieve his goal - to cease to exist - if he escapes being perceived by the camera. Dovetails with particle wave theory and the impact of the observer/measurer on the outcome.

اكيد الخيال له علاقة بالعلم لان الخيال في اصوله مبني على علم .والخيال نوع من التصوير الذهني او مجموعة من التصورات والمعارف المتراكمة في الخيال وعن طريق العلم قد تصبح حقيقة لان العلم هو الحقيقة

Translation for Hayet Maache:

Certainly imagination has to do with science because imagination in its origins is based on science. Imagination is a kind of mental imaging or a set of visualizations and knowledge accumulated in imagination and through science may become reality because science is the truth.

When you read Stanislav Lem, you run from reality into super-reality, which is perhaps more real than the existing one, for all its paradoxicality.

P. Contreras Thank you for the link to the New Yorker piece on Stanislaw Lem. I think I could perhaps spend a lifetime introducing myself to Lem's oeuvre after reading that review.:) Vladimir Rotkin I agree with the link between super- or alternate-reality, and suspect that it parallels quantum mechanics in the Schrodinger's Cat sense. The imagination can actualize any reality and when it enters anyone's consciousness it perseveres as both the potential and the actual.

P. Contreras Thanks also for the title of Professor, which however I am not. I am only a criminal defense lawyer obsessed with writing fiction and criticism and literature, who ventures alone and unqualified into weird waters like physics and mathematics. :)

As a young teenager I liked science fiction writing by Andre Norton, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, among many others. I have not read much science fiction since, not because it is not fun to read, it's just that I find history and physics even more compelling.

Science fiction is a sub-category of fiction.

I think of fiction writing as a kind of thought experiment. The givens are fictional individuals (and sometimes people who really existed), a fictional or real setting, a real or invented set of circumstances, the nature of human beings, of animals, of plants and so on, and the laws of nature.

In science fiction the givens for the setting may include some technological or scientific event or even a fictional invention.

The thought experiment is: with those givens what story ensues and what do we learn from that about humanity and human nature? Or, in other words, solve the problem of possible outcomes based on these inputs. For that reason, I respect writers of good fiction.

PS: After posting this just now, I found that Catherine Z. Elgin in 2014 posted an article in Perspectives on Science, volume 22, called: “Fiction as Thought Experiment”.

P. Contreras ,

I thank you for contributing a link that opens a facet of this discussion thread that is clearly demarcated, that is, trained scientists who have degrees in a scientific field and who also wrote and developed a reputation as authors of science fiction or celebrities who disseminated their ideas so as to appeal to the public's imagination.

Very best regards.

There are and there were sci-fi writers who were/are knowledgable in science. Most prominent example is Fred Hoyle (read his Ossian). But Asimov was also a biochemist. Stanislaw Lem also tried to be as scientific as possible. Clarw as a futurologist in the good sense. Probably there are further examples. I remember thet Stanislaw Lem did not like the ending of Tarkovsky's Solaris (although the same idea returned in the American version) - because he did not finsih his book in this melodramatic way. He preferred leaving the questions open to be answeredby the reader. (From the artistic point of view, Tarkovsky's ending of the Solaris was fanatstic - I liked it). In general sci-fi books (novels or short stories) can be space-crimes (some of them are good, see many works of Asimov), others are stunning and mind boggling (see Bradbury or Simak - my favorites). Sci-fi novels are good if they promote thinking. (At least in my opinion).

Gyorgy Banhegyi ,

I thank you very much for your addition of Fred Hoyle; I had not known about his Ossian. Nor was I conversant about Stanislaw Lem or Tarkovsky's Solaris. Have you read Murder Is a Lonely Business? I am trying to read it right now. It does not seem to be a work of science fiction. It reminds me, at the moment at least, of something written by Sheridan Le Fanu, for instance "Green Tea," which is not, of course, science fiction, but more Gothic. Murder Is a Lonely Business, moreover, is not at all like Dandelion Wine, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and Fahrenheit 451.

Science fiction is just a fiction. They have used the word science to make us look at it. Science fiction is all a game to make us buy it by giving our money.

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe

I am a relatively old man (64). When I was young, between 10 and 20 sci-fi was an emerging genre in Hungary and for a while I tried to read almost anything related to this. Later, having much less time, I selected only those which which I found interesting enough for re-reading. (By the way I heard a nice saying: if a book is not worth of reading twice, it was not worth of reading ones - you forget it anyway). So I lost my "universality" in sci-fi reading and the genre became much diluted. Nevertheless there remained some favorite auhtors. One is Clifford D. Simak, first of all his seminal book The City (containing excellent pseudo-analysis of the legends of dogs, who took the place of humanity on earth - but not in anegative sense as in the Planet of Apes series). I also like some other short stories and novels from him. I also love some books and noveld of Stanislaw Lem (The Magellan Nebula, the Invincible, Solaris and the Pilot Pirx short stories and - of couse - the Summa Technolgiae, which is not even a novel). I alos love to read the novels of Ursula K. LeGuin (not only the "fantastic" ones). She has a unique ability to crete invented environments. The Martian Chronicles of Bardbury is a mut for everyone interested in sci-fi and not because of its scientific soundness, but becasue of the atmosphere it creates. The same is ture for several other short stories of him. From the Russian authors I like the Strugatsky brothers (Stalker and others). The film of Tarkovsky made form this novel is also superb. I have also seen another, very interesting Russian sci-fi film the Ugly Swans (it is a low budget film but with very thought-prvoking content). I also love the Cloud Atlas (both the film and the novel), which can be hardly called sci-fi, but is closest to that. When I was young a colection of the short stories of Jorge Louis Borges was published in a sci-fi series. He is a unique talent, but his short stories are rather mystical, pseudo-historical or surrealistic. I did read some of the texts you mention in your response, but not all of them. One of opur major poets wrote: Our time is finite but the number of books is almost infinite. Therefore we unavoidalbly miss some good books. It was good to exchange ideas with you. George

Janusz Pudykiewicz ,

Thank you very much for your kind recommendation!

With my very best regards.

Sf is literature and thus its value should be assessed as literary rather than as scientific. Value in literature is aesthetic, instead of merely pragmatic!

As Richard Feynman once said, however, "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." I now contend to claim the same about sf! The science in sf is but a means to an end. Throughout humanity’s history people have relied on a lot of different things to explicate their Weltanschauung; there was a time in which mythology occupied the place today science occupies, and literature has been a reflection of every Zeitgeist’s choice. This is why in contemporaneity we have literary epiphenomena such as sf.

Concerning practical use in an economical sense, I could also argue that a big part of the natural sciences is yet to find an end purpose. Theoretical physics is an instance of that. Most of it will only find its true use in the future. When asked what good his research was, Faraday supposedly responded with this question: What good is a newborn baby?

But, yes! there may be some practical use to some of sf canonic texts. I cite the three laws of robotics by Asimov (himself a scientist); the term robot was introduced by Karel Čapek in an sf play; concepts of rockets were brought about by writers such as Jules Verne; the desire of exploring places beyond earth was first given notoriety in the 1600s by sf authors such as Francis Godwin; many who now venture a career in natural sciences have in the past been instilled with curiosity and interest in science by sf; besides numerous other examples!

Now addressing the second part of your question, whether sf is just about escaping reality, I’d to argue it is precisely the opposite, it is, more often than not anyway, about questioning reality! As many sf theorists have pointed out (Csicsery, Roberts, Suvin and plenty of others) sf texts are frequently metaphoric and metonymic. They offer social, ethical, political and even linguistic criticism using scientific tropes as a backdrop. Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell and The Dispossessed by Ursula K. LeGuin are works that were made famous for their political statements that have become more relevant than ever! Their value is such that groups from opposing political views try to hijack them! Many other sf texts have obtained this outstanding social position through the last decades.

People tend to always think of the natural sciences when they hear of the word science, but I’ve to realise that sf works mostly use natural scientific themes to talk about human science issues.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

In my view, science fiction should just be called fiction because there is really no science in science fiction. They are poles apart and do not benefit each other. This is a very good question. Thanks for posting it.

After reading HG Wells' "The World Set Free", Leo Szilard patented the nuclear chain reaction. Arthur C Clarke made the idea of geostationery satellites popular more than a decade before the first on started. So obviously, even some science emerged from science fiction.

I tried to read Science fiction. Most of it is rubbish. Can't stand it.

I love The Expense series. Love new look on different alien form.

I do not believe in science fiction.

Artur Braun ,

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion thread. I tend to agree with you in that science fiction requires both scientific aptitude and creative imagination. And you are absolutely right that Leonardo da Vinci epitomizes science fiction at its best. Very best regards.

Stefan Ručman . and Sorb Yesudhas ,

I would like to say "Thank You" for replying to this discussion thread question. Even though I may be sad to know that you do not view science fiction favorably, in general, both of your replies strongly suggest that you do see some value in reading exemplary works of science fiction, rare as you deem them to be.

With very best regards and best of wishes. It would be enlightening to know more about those science fiction authors and / or texts you might speak of favorably.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Dear Professor,

I have not read much of science fiction nor do I have much idea about these. So I am not qualified enough to participate in this discussion. So I am just going to share an opinion of mine.

There was a man who once said that imagination is more important than knowledge. His name was Albert Einstein. Science fiction is also a result of imagination. It deals with many fantasies. The great thing about this world is that what sounds and looks like a fantasy today, 'may be' a hard core reality tomorrow (or may be day after tomorrow). So 'may be' the elements of a science fiction can give some idea to a scientist.

If you think, my opinion is too absurd or immature, please neglect this.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Anamitra.

Dear Israel A. C. Noletto ,

I am grateful for your thoughtful and articulate answers to this discussion question thread. Thank you very much.

With my best regards.

Dear Erik Strub ,

Many thanks for your mentioning of H.G. Wells, Leo Szilard, and Arthur C. Clarke! I am working to finish a book chapter in which I refer to the outstanding research of Leo Szilard. However, I was unaware that he had read H.G. Wells's "The World Set Free"; nor had I known that his reading had any direct influence on his discovery of the nuclear chain reaction. There is a powerful hypothesis in here somewhere: your answer to my discussion thread question strongly suggests (1) a direct influence of a work of science fiction on a scientist; and (2) I hesitate to mention this, however, the mission of the Enola Gay would not have been possible if it had not been for H.G. Wells's writing of a science fiction text. This is intriguing because imaginative literature in particular, and humanities in general, are often being down-sized in college and university curricular programs on the grounds that they are not "relevant" to the real world, while science and technology are. In case you are wondering, it has been my belief that the Enola Gay, to speak metaphorically, achieved its mission to decisively end World War II.

With my very best regards and best wishes. I will greatly appreciate more of your research findings.

Dear Nancy,

after reading the above contribution, I thought that possibly the attached paper might be of some interest for you.

Dear Alain Michel ,

I would like to thank you for your thoughtfulness in sending the pdf link; however, at present, I am unable, due to technical matters, to open it. Perhaps, if appropriate, you might like to summarize its content briefly. Also, I am unfamiliar with what "NEI' might signify; is it an acronym for a publication? Thanks again for your kind interest. Best regards.

Yes. Science fiction ideas have inspired scientists to try new things. For example some of the ideas from old James Bond movie have inspired a few inventions such as the International Space Station and laser-related ideas. Star Trek series and movies have inspired applications of biophotonics in diagnosis such as temple scanning thermometer and pulse oximeter.

Yes , I think so

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe,

yes, this whole story is very interesting. However, I doubt that without Szilard there had been no bomb. Once it was clear how nuclear fission can happen (end of 1938) the idea of a chain reaction was plainly in sight. I think there is no strong causality but I would rather say that Wells understood very early possible implications of Soddy's "Interpretation of Radium".

Dear Nancy,

I wonder why this pdf does not open on your computer. This paper was published by NEI, that is Nuclear Engineering International, in January 2009. The part that concerns mostly science-fiction is the conclusion. here it is :

The nuclear industry never used fiction. Why ? Possibly because those of us who believed that we should use more fun and emotion, did not argue their case strongly enough to convince the rationalists who head the industry. But it may still be time to act …

We must also remember the power of dreams was often the base of industrial realizations. People like Leo Szilard found their inspiration in fiction. He wrote: “Science would run dry if all scientists were crank turners and if none of them were dreamers”. Luckily for the future of nuclear, new projects are launched like Pebble Bed reactors and even smaller ones like Hyperion. Our dreams of the sixties come to life again in Generation IV research and young engineers can see an inventive future in nuclear energy and not only the routine tasks of maintenance of aging plants and the desperate one of dismantling operational ones for political reasons.

Unluckily for the present generation, “ Today, to invigorate the interface between science and society, we miss a Jules Verne. The contemporary anxieties concerning rationality and the associated techniques, are partially due to this lack.” ( Michel Serres) For Bertrand Picard, the airplane Solar Impulse project was partly initiated to put again dreams and emotion at the heart of the scientific adventure.

I do agree with ANS president Burchill that every one in the nuclear community should “Get the word out”, but I do not follow him when he writes that we should not be emotional. We have to be rational, well informed and experienced but also sometimes emotional. Or eventually emotive ?

Thus I was very happy to read that Nils Diaz, former US NRC chairman, said during the ANS June meeting this year – “It’s time to put passion and emotion in what we have to do”.

Yes and I agree with Dr P. Contreras

Dear Alain Michel ,

Thank you for your answer to this discussion thread question. I appreciate your experienced and detailed knowledge of nuclear age history and issues.

Regarding what you said (" I wonder why this pdf does not open on your computer."): I used to have a genuine laptop computer, which lasted almost eight years, but I kept leaving it on too long whenever the telephone rang. Either that, or I exhausted the capacity of the hard drive memory of my Systemax. It was a backup for saving work I did at the university library on desk consoles. The novel Covid-19 closed down the library. At present, I'm using a notebook due to space limitations caused by hard copy files, books, journals, file cabinets, magazines, etc. My notebook hard drive has files I opened on Research Gate but did not intend to keep. For this reason, I limit opening links and files; even deleted files' memory space is lost.

You raise a number of issues about the nuclear industry being conducted with optimal scientific and mathematical precision possibly beyond academic rigor. While I appreciate the sentiments you express, I think that science fiction is the best outlet for "passion and emotion" in the sense of "fun and emotion" (NEI). I would also differentiate between "dreams" and "passion and emotion." One of my current interests in the scientific realm is technologically oriented. Yesterday, I was notified that I have an article scheduled to appear in Artificial Intelligence and Computing Logic in June 2021. Coincidentally enough, one of my themes is that humans as a species need the help of science and technology, in this case, robotics, to offset neurological afflictions that strike individuals, including persons who are locked into a dream world, or dominated by emotions, or suffer from a debilitating brain disease. But the other papers in the book are oriented toward the business world more than my contribution.

You mention in passing that some nuclear fission reactors were dismantled for political reasons. I am unsure of your meaning; however, I will say that I really have not been in favor of nuclear fission energy, even before one of my engineering major students had a paper writing project to show that nuclear fission power plants produce only ten percent good, clean energy cheaply and efficiently, but ninety percent of output is nuclear waste, which cannot ever be neutralized. Those individuals who need good paying employment who have dedicated their work lives to cleaning up nuclear waste sites have suffered and are suffering even more than the fallout victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki from Little Boy and Fat Man. I recognize that in both of these examples, the reasoned deployment of nuclear fission may be sharply contrasted to the "modern dream world of clean energy consumption" and to the "emotion and passion" of a citizenry of millions fighting for their empire. That empire had the wherewithall to make atomic nuclear fission but, fortunately, China refused to sell them the uranium they attempted to purchase from them.

Next to the grim historical context of nuclear fission is a short story I would like to juxtapose, which is written by science fiction guru Ray Bradbury. I'll just close this answer with a descriptive blurb for "There Will Come Soft Rains," as follows:

" There Will Come Soft Rains (short story) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Will_Come_Soft_Rains_(short_story)

"There Will Come Soft Rains" is a short story by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, written as a chronicle about a lone house that stands intact in a California city that is otherwise obliterated by a nuclear bomb during the summer of 2026, and then is destroyed by a fire caused by a windstorm."

If you read this gem of a science fiction short story, you may appreciate the enormous amount of silent tranquility in the pervasive atmosphere of dehumanized calm wherein nuclear fission has separated the maker from the made, the human from his material artifacts.

Best regards,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

I think that yes. A big lot of Scientific fantastic ideas were implemented in life.

Undoubtedly, "Science fiction” comes from an idea. As you know, the ideas that were so ridiculous came true after a while. Digital watches are a very simple example of this fact. From the point of view of innovators and top R&D managers, the more ridiculous the idea may seem, the more it should be focused on that idea in order to turn it into a product through creativity and innovation to present to the market and make a profit. I mean, "Science fiction” can be the basis of a lot of creative and innovative ideas. Of course, the speed of progress and change in the world has reached such a level that the difference between "Science fiction” and reality is no longer very obvious.

Very nice question.

In my opinion, science fiction is a play using extrapolation and human fantasy. It is the opportunity to overcome the reality or that we are not ready to understand. Many ideas have been realized after longer periods or sometimes in only some years. The jump from fiction to realization was in some cases only a short step, let say a good extrapolation. I was wondering about one development not noticed or better not have be seen by science fiction authors: the fast development of communication via internet and in this way the access to amounts of information in parts of a second. This have changed our world. Was it a positive or a negative change? In any case science fiction is fiction and not science.

Alex von Bohlen ,

Thank you very much for your interesting answer to this Research Gate discussion question in which you differentiate a clear line of demarcation between science and science fiction, the latter of which is not scientific. I agree with your perspective that "The jump from fiction to realization was in some cases only a short step." Intriguing is your unique observation that the Internet has "changed our world." In reply to your expression of amazement or perplexity that no science fiction writer seems to have anticipated the invention of the Internet, I would like to point out that the American science fiction writer has, to a certain extent, predicted the development of a technological means of putting the human mind, intellect, and emotions in a science fiction depiction of "short-circuited mental telepathy". In Bradbury's short story "The Veldt," a family is portrayed as living in a high-technology house that is equipped with devices, in particular it has a children's playroom in which the main wall is a screen on which are projected images that express the pent-up thoughts and feelings of the two children, Wendy and Peter, who harbor deep resentment against their mother and father. Their childish raw hatred is projected on the screen, which reveals savage, roaring, hungry lions in their natural habitat, the African Veldt. The children express their animosity through the imagery of wild beasts, as though the wall contains a reading of the state of the children's thoughts and emotions. The parents feel the reality of the hostilities of their children whenever they access the room. Soon, the parents are victimized by their children, who seize control of the programing device. This revolt precipitates an immediate reaction from the parents, who commence closure operations and evacuation to a different location.

First published on September 23, 1950, Bradbury's story gives a futuristic twist to the Scottish writer James M. Barrie's popular play Peter Pan: The Boy Who Would Never Grow Up (1904). Bradbury recombines elements of the Peter Pan fantasy world, including the children, parents, house, Never Never Land, menacing pirates, and magical reality. Less than half a century later, then, Bradbury conjures a new science fiction concoction of Peter Pan children's story elements that foreshadow the Internet, specifically attributes such as the speed with which electronic communications can, almost literally, enable one individual recipient to "read the thoughts and feelings" of another individual transmitter. The personal computer that is able to access encyclopaedias of factual knowledge data can also, as I am trying to illustrate with just one future-oriented science fiction parallel to contemporary high technology reality, be viewed as an artificially intelligent robotic "clone" of the mental and emotional life of the personal computer's user, whose brain production may also be stored for posterity on the hard drive and on numerous Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drive devices!

Interesting question dear Dr. Nancy.

To my understanding a science-fiction writer should know science, but scientist may not understand fiction, although may follow fiction.

regards.

Dear Nancy Ann Watanabe,

Some of the science fictions are based on scientific ideas and helps the researchers to think in that way to have new directions of research.

But, many science fictions are written with so much fantacy that these accelarate unscientific fantacy in the readers mind. I think , these are in no way important to Scientific development. On the contrary, these spoils the Scientific mind of the young readers.

Thanks

N Das

Javad Fardaei ,

Thank you very much for your kind answer, which mildly surprises me because usually the general public looks at the work of scientists as epitomizing everything that the general public does not know or understand, and, likewise, fiction is viewed merely as having entertainment value. I really appreciate your statement that "a scientist may not understand fiction," and moreover, that a scientist "may follow fiction"! A science fiction author like Jules Verne, who wrote novels, including Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1870) and Journey to the Center of the Earth (1864), are certainly very much ahead of scientific researchers in the way they think about the planet on which we are living, which is all too often being taken for granted. And then there is the scientific research of Jacques Cousteau, who wrote Life and Death in a Coral Sea (1971) and The Whale: Mighty Monarch of the Sea (1987), which almost seem to be more like imaginative works of science fiction than nonfiction based on direct observation!

Nityananda Das ,

Thank you for your provocative answer to this discussion question, which is currently of concern to me, especially when you say " But, many science fictions are written with so much fantasy that these accelarate unscientific fantasy in the readers' mind. I think , these are in no way important to Scientific development. On the contrary, these spoils the Scientific mind of the young readers." Currently, I am working on a research project involving science fiction writing about humans traveling in space ships to the planet Mars. I am interested to know how fantasy fiction about people going to Mars "spoils the Scientific mind of the young readers"---I would appreciate it if this idea that science fiction "spoils" the mind could be explained further.

The reason that I find it difficult to understand how fantasy fiction about space travel to other planets spoils anybody's mind is that the typical argument in favor of stories about travel to outer space is that they awaken the readers' imaginations and suggest the possibility for exploration of unknown worlds. Currently, private companies, for example SpaceX, are generating a lot of public interest, and ordinary citizens who have a sense of adventure and curiosity to know more about Earth's neighbor Mars are already purchasing tickets on the first space craft that wil allow members of the general public to board the first space ship that will bring tourists and "ex-patriot Earthlings" for a one-way trip to Mars! A few of these aspiring travelers to Mars believe that it is their duty to humankind.

Dear Nancy, my thought at first went to Star track (1960s) ..

How could someone had that vision to make thing up, like now we are facing partial of it. Like scotty beam up! We have not got that far yet...

To be honest, I love people to think ahead (star track) instead thinking of old dead scientists from past, and follow them.

I wrote new article call SOLAR SYSTEM

Article Quantum Solar System

my most regard and Happy New years.

Javad Fardaei ,

Yes, Javad, the Star Trek . series on television, as you observe, filmed many years ago, yet which is still shown in reruns to this very day, is a very good example of science fiction that may one day be proven to forecast the future. "Let Scotty beam up!" indeed! To travel faster than the speed of light from one place to another place in the blink of an eye---Why is this not yet possible?

Thank you for the link to your new article on the Solar System---Congratulations!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2021!