In the opening of the fourth season of Breaking Bad, Walter White observes an inexperienced meth cook producing his signature blue meth, filled with anxiety over mob boss Gus Fring's potential threat to his life. Desperately, he tries to assert his importance, challenging Victor, the cook, with complex chemistry questions about the process. Walter’s expertise ultimately saves him when the merciless Fring eliminates Victor.

Throughout Breaking Bad, Walter evolves from a discontented chemistry teacher into a ruthless criminal, yet viewers remain empathetic towards him. This connection largely stems from Bryan Cranston's nuanced performance, coupled with the character's creation by Vince Gilligan, who envisioned a scientist driven to madness without resorting to the typical "mad scientist" trope.

As Walter's character unfolds, it's clear part of his allure lies in his scientific acumen. Donna Nelson, a chemistry professor and Breaking Bad’s science advisor, notes that Gilligan aimed for scientific accuracy to enhance believability. Although they refrained from providing a complete meth recipe, the depicted chemical processes are authentic. The precise structure of methamphetamine is critical for its psychoactive effects, as its mirror image would not induce the same high.

The portrayal of scientists in television has shifted dramatically in recent years. Shows like Westworld, Orphan Black, and CSI present scientists as well-rounded characters, contrasting sharply with the one-dimensional figures from 1980s cinema. The old archetype of a solitary genius with peculiar inventions has been replaced by collaborative researchers in realistic laboratories, often engaging with contemporary scientific discourse.

This change reflects public perception and the evolving image of scientists. Despite occasional headlines showcasing those who manipulate scientific facts, surveys indicate a strong public respect for scientists. Audiences now seek authentic representations of scientists, prompting Hollywood to move away from outdated stereotypes and portray them as credible figures, partly thanks to the involvement of actual scientists eager to contribute to public education.

In the U.S., the public sentiment towards science has remained positive over the last six decades, largely due to breakthroughs in health and technology. A 2012 National Science Foundation survey revealed that 72% of Americans believed science's benefits outweighed its risks, though fears of scientific harm have persisted, particularly during the nuclear anxieties of the 1970s and 1980s.

George Gerbner's 1985 study identified scientists as rational but socially inept, with one in six portrayed as villains. This negative representation adversely affected viewers' attitudes towards science, particularly among those who watched significant amounts of television.

However, more recent studies indicate a positive shift. Research by Anthony Dudo and colleagues showed that from 2000 to 2008, only 3% of scientist characters were depicted negatively. The portrayal of scientists has generally become favorable, enhancing viewers' attitudes toward science, especially among those with shared experiences.

Roslynn Haynes, an academic who studies the representation of scientists, attributes the change in perception to global concerns such as political instability and climate change. Today, scientists are often seen as problem solvers rather than antagonists, with the public increasingly recognizing their crucial role in addressing contemporary challenges.

Increased media exposure has contributed to this evolving image. Post-World War II, scientists in the UK sought to influence science broadcasting at the BBC, which eventually embraced popular science programs like Horizon. Such initiatives helped reshape public perceptions during the 1980s and 1990s, as figures like David Attenborough brought science closer to the audience.

In the U.S., Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage captivated viewers in 1980, igniting a fascination with science that continues today. Science programming has evolved, with modern documentaries often celebrating scientific achievements rather than critiquing them.

Fictional scientists have also adapted to this cultural shift. After Back to the Future, where Doc Brown embodied chaotic genius, Jurassic Park introduced scientists with a focus on realism and accuracy, reflecting societal expectations for credible scientific representation.

David Kirby, an expert in Science Communication, highlights Jurassic Park as a turning point in cinematic scientific realism, influencing subsequent films to prioritize scientific accuracy to appeal to discerning audiences.

Television has embraced this trend as well, producing shows like CSI and The Big Bang Theory, which feature scientists as relatable and multifaceted characters. The longevity of these series allows audiences to engage with fictional scientists regularly, reinforcing their positive image.

This heightened accountability to an informed audience is critical for television, as viewers can fact-check in real time. David Saltzberg, a science consultant for The Big Bang Theory, ensures scientific accuracy in the show's portrayal of physics, contributing to a narrative that resonates with audiences.

Despite the positive representation of scientists in media, studies indicate that general public science knowledge remains unchanged over the past two decades. However, there are instances of positive influence, such as increased interest in physics courses linked to The Big Bang Theory, illustrating how popular shows can inspire educational pursuits.

Jon Miller’s research indicates that television is a powerful medium for introducing new ideas to young viewers. While the initial spark of interest in science can be ignited by media portrayals, the rigorous academic requirements for scientific careers often pose a barrier for many aspiring students.

As public understanding of science continues to evolve, scientists are increasingly engaging with media to enhance their portrayal. The National Academy of Sciences established the Science & Entertainment Exchange to connect scientists with media creators, recognizing the unique opportunity Hollywood presents for public engagement.

Scientists often participate in these projects to ensure accurate representations of their field, understanding that such portrayals can significantly impact public perception. Yet, the final decisions on narrative and accuracy rest with the creators.

Nelson’s experience with Breaking Bad illustrates this tension. When Gilligan inquired about the feasibility of blue meth, she advised against it, citing chemical principles. Though her input was not adopted, she recognized it as a narrative device rather than a factual representation.

While the overall trend leans toward portraying scientists as heroes, Walter White remains a complex figure, embodying moral ambiguity. His character highlights the potential for science to be wielded for both good and ill, reflecting broader themes of human nature rather than solely the scientific profession.

Eva Amsen is a writer and science communicator based in London.