CLOSE
Original image
Donna Nelson

A Conversation With Breaking Bad’s Science Advisor

Original image
Donna Nelson

For five seasons, Breaking Badass Walter White has made a habit of believing that he’s the smartest guy in the room. But even Walt wouldn’t stand a chance against Dr. Donna Nelson, a chemistry professor at the University of Oklahoma who has volunteered her expertise as a science advisor to Vince Gilligan since midway through the series’ first season. 

In the days leading up to Breaking Bad’s final—and we can only imagine pulse-pounding—sendoff, we chatted up the Oklahoma native about bad science, her work on the series, and how Walter White has inspired a new generation of scientists (in a good way).

Spoiler alert: Dr. Nelson has not seen the final episode, so she has no spoilers. No matter how many (unauthorized) lifetime subscriptions to mental_floss I may have offered.

You’ve long been a proponent of promoting scientific accuracy in the entertainment industry. When it comes to bad science, which films or TV shows are some of the worst offenders?
I don’t think that I would be happy to point anybody out; I might make a lot of enemies. I would say that things are getting better. It used to be, in many old movies, that you’d have a rocket going from Earth to Mars and they would show it flying through space. The rocket would be going from left to right across the screen, and the smoke coming out of the rocket would be going up—instead of behind—the rocket, showing that the whole thing was being done in the Earth’s gravity. A lot of these things are just funny to me. If you’re a scientist, you just groan; it’s like nails on the blackboard. 

It must be a very different experience watching certain movies or shows from a scientist’s perspective.
I don’t think there’s any popular show that gets it 100 percent right, but that’s not the goal. The goal is not to be a science education show; the goal is to be a popular show. And so there’s always going to be some creative license taken, because they want to make the show interesting.

In the case of Walter White, his trademark is the blue meth. In reality, it wouldn’t be blue; it would be colorless. But this isn’t a science education show. It’s a fantasy. And Vince Gilligan did a fantastic job of getting most of the science right. And I am just thrilled with that. I think Vince Gilligan is a genius, and you can quote me on that!

How did your involvement with Breaking Bad come about?
I’m a member of the American Chemical Society, which has a trade magazine called Chemical & Engineering News. And that magazine interviewed Vince Gilligan during season one, it was maybe after five episodes, and in that interview Gilligan said, “I really want to get the science right.” Vince is really interested in science, but he didn’t have a formal science background. He said that he would appreciate constructive remarks from a chemically-inclined audience, and when I read that I thought: This is what we’ve been waiting for! A Hollywood producer who says he wants help and he really wants to get the science right. This is fantastic.

Then I thought: Oh my god, but look at the subject. This is illegal meth production! I don’t want anything to do with that.

But I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I watched the first five episodes and realized that the show doesn’t glorify meth production, and it doesn’t glorify the drug culture. I don’t think that young kids would be enticed into doing illegal activities when they see all the horrible things that happen to Walt. I mean he gets shot at and stabbed and beat up and dragged through the sand in his underwear—all sorts of things. He has a horrible, horrible life, so I just couldn’t see kids watching that and thinking, “Yeah, that’s what I want to grow up to be.”

So I told the editor: Vince is saying he wants assistance; let’s see if he really does. Can you contact him and tell him I’d like to volunteer. And they did. And he got back in touch with me. 

What does being a science advisor on the show entail?
I just try to do anything that they ask. Initially, I went out to Burbank and they asked me all sorts of questions. They were still at a point where they trying to build Walt’s character, so they asked me: What makes a person become a scientist? What makes a student enter science? What makes someone leave science? What makes a person persist all the way through and get a PhD and then become a high school teacher instead of a professor like you? What makes a person leave science? Are there any characteristics that all scientists have?

I had taken my son with me, who is a chemical engineer, and they even asked him some questions. I didn’t think of it as an interview, but I guess it was, because they asked, “If we contact you in the future, would you be willing to answer our questions?” And I said sure! Later, they would email script pages for me to proof or they would phone if something was particularly urgent. So I would answer questions or do calculations or do drawings to go on the blackboard—I did all sorts of things like that.

What’s the most memorable instance of a scene you reviewed and suggested be changed?
I tried to change as few words as possible, because there are stories of a science advisor getting too heavy-handed and just alienating the writers. The writers know how to make a script popular; the science advisor knows how to get it correct. If it was dialogue, I would try to keep the cadence that they had. And I also tried to get it back to them really fast, because I knew they were always on a time deadline. So we got along really well.

One of my favorite [scenes] is where Walter is talking to Gus Fring and he’s essentially saying, “You need me!” He’s touting his knowledge of science. “And by the way, does the reaction destroy the chirality of carbon one or is it carbon two? My knowledge of chemistry makes me very valuable to you.” He’s being very forceful about his importance there. And I think that that is really a good representation of how important science is, because a lot of people in our society don’t understand that everything—from their food to the fabric of the clothes that they wear, their car parts, the carpeting in their house, the paint on their ceiling—comes from chemistry. Chemistry has benefited our lives so much and a lot of times people don’t think about this. They just take it for granted. Not everybody, but a lot of people just don’t think about it. And so I think that scene is a really good one, especially the way [Bryan Cranston] played it.

Do you watch the show as it airs each week?
Oh yes, I’ve seen every single episode of the show.

How has advising the show changed your experience as a viewer?
Their criteria are entirely different from the criteria that I use in my research lab a lot of times. And so I think any time you stretch and step outside of your own world, it helps in terms of your creativity. It has certainly made me think about things in ways that I never would have before.

For example, there was a scene where Walter and Jesse are looking for a gallon container of methylamine and all they find are 30-gallon drums. So they emailed me and asked, “How much meth could be made from 30 gallons of methylamine in pounds using the P2P method?” And I just thought that was hilarious, because in our lab we minimize the volume of everything—take 10 drops of this, add two drops of that, etc.—because we want to minimize the cost, we want to maximize the safety, we want to minimize the disposal costs of anything we produce, because it’s research. I’ve never used 30 gallons of anything! Discussing illicit drug synthesis just isn’t something I do with students. All of our calculations are done in grams, not pounds. So I had to pause and laugh at that for a while.

I asked Vince if he wanted it to be really accurate or just a ballpark figure and he said he wanted it really accurate. In the P2P method, there are two steps: the first step is fixed, but in the second step I could use one of several different reducing agents. He asked me to send him a list of them, which I did, and most of them were difficult to pronounce. But one of them was simply aluminum mercury. And he said, “That’s the one we want to use, because it will be much easier for the actors to say.” I thought that was hilarious, because I selected these agents based on cost, safety, percent yield, and purity, but never on how easy it was to speak the name of the reducing agent. So it’s looking at things from a totally different perspective, which I think made me a more creative person.

What’s the one subject you would have never imagined yourself researching before Breaking Bad came along?
The amount of meth produced from 30 gallons of methylamine! (Laughs) I still marvel at that. That is just so far away from anything I’ve ever dealt with. I’ve tried very hard to shut down any conversations with students about illegal activities, because I don’t want to give the impression that I would be involved or even interested in something like that. That was really outside the boundaries for me.

Your work on the show has to have made you one of the university’s most popular professors. Do you think the show has changed the perception of science for its younger viewers or stimulated a further interest in pursuing scientific studies?
I absolutely do. There’s just no doubt about it based on what I’ve seen. You can look at these blogs that are up about the show and you’ll see kids arguing about the details of the chemical reactions or details of the science that I wouldn’t have even thought about and I think: Those kids are going to be future scientists. They’re so hooked on science; it’s really thrilling.

What I see all the time is that people who have been watching Breaking Bad talk to someone who hasn’t been watching and say, “You’ve got to tune in. It’s a fantastic show.” So every time someone who is not being regularly exposed to science steps in and takes a look at science, that’s an opportunity to win them over. And that’s exactly what we need. It’s popularizing science.

What about the importance of scientific accuracy in Hollywood in general? Do you think that Breaking Bad has upped the ante in terms of future series and movies really striving to “get it right?”
Some producers will be interested in that and some of them won’t. I think it will help, and that’s something that scientists really appreciate. I think that Vince Gilligan has set a really wonderful example, because before this it was actually said, “You can’t have a blockbuster hit and have accurate science, too.” Vince has disproved that myth.

I have to know: Have you read any part of the final script?
No. That’s under super secrecy. I don’t know how it ends. I’m just as much in the dark as everybody else. And I’m just as excited about it as everybody else, too. 

Original image
iStock
arrow
Food
Learn to Spot the Sneaky Psychological Tricks Restaurants Use
Original image
iStock

While dining out, you may have noticed (but perhaps didn’t question) some unusual features—like prices missing dollar signs, or burgers served on plates that could accommodate a baby cow.

These aren’t just arbitrary culinary decisions, as the SciShow’s Hank Green explains in the video below. Restaurants use all kinds of psychological tricks to make you spend more money, ranging from eliminating currency symbols (this makes you think less about how much things cost) to plating meals on oversize dinnerware (it makes you eat more). As for the mouthwatering language used to describe food—that burger listed as a "delectable chargrilled extravagance," for example—studies show that these types of write-ups can increase sales by up to 27 percent.

Learn more psychological tricks used by restaurants (and how to avoid falling for them) by watching the video below. (Or, read our additional coverage on the subject.)

Original image
Getty
arrow
Lists
8 of the Weirdest Gallup Polls
Original image
Getty

Born in Jefferson, Iowa on November 18, 1901, George Gallup studied journalism and psychology, focusing on how to measure readers’ interest in newspaper and magazine content. In 1935, he founded the American Institute of Public Opinion to scientifically measure public opinions on topics such as government spending, criminal justice, and presidential candidates. Although he died in 1984, The Gallup Poll continues his legacy of trying to determine and report the will of the people in an unbiased, independent way. To celebrate his day of birth, we compiled a list of some of the weirdest, funniest Gallup polls over the years.

1. THREE IN FOUR AMERICANS BELIEVE IN THE PARANORMAL (2005)

According to this Gallup poll, 75 percent of Americans have at least one paranormal belief. Specifically, 41 percent believe in extrasensory perception (ESP), 37 percent believe in haunted houses, and 21 percent believe in witches. What about channeling spirits, you might ask? Only 9 percent of Americans believe that it’s possible to channel a spirit so that it takes temporary control of one's body. Interestingly, believing in paranormal phenomena was relatively similar across people of different genders, races, ages, and education levels.

2. ONE IN FIVE AMERICANS THINK THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH (1999)

In this poll, Gallup tried to determine the popularity of heliocentric versus geocentric views. While 79 percent of Americans correctly stated that the Earth revolves around the sun, 18 percent think the sun revolves around the Earth. Three percent chose to remain indifferent, saying they had no opinion either way.

3. 22 PERCENT OF AMERICANS ARE HESITANT TO SUPPORT A MORMON (2011)

Gallup first measured anti-Mormon sentiment back in 1967, and it was still an issue in 2011, a year before Mormon Mitt Romney ran for president. Approximately 22 percent of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate, even if that candidate belonged to their preferred political party. Strangely, Americans’ bias against Mormons has remained stable since the 1960s, despite decreasing bias against African Americans, Catholics, Jews, and women.

4. MISSISSIPPIANS GO TO CHURCH THE MOST; VERMONTERS THE LEAST (2010)

This 2010 poll amusingly confirms the stereotype that southerners are more religious than the rest of the country. Although 42 percent of all Americans attend church regularly (which Gallup defines as weekly or almost weekly), there are large variations based on geography. For example, 63 percent of people in Mississippi attend church regularly, followed by 58 percent in Alabama and 56 percent in South Carolina, Louisiana, and Utah. Rounding out the lowest levels of church attendance, on the other hand, were Vermont, where 23 percent of residents attend church regularly, New Hampshire, at 26 percent, and Maine at 27 percent.

5. ONE IN FOUR AMERICANS DON’T KNOW WHICH COUNTRY AMERICA GAINED INDEPENDENCE FROM (1999)

Although 76 percent of Americans knew that the United States gained independence from Great Britain as a result of the Revolutionary War, 24 percent weren’t so sure. Two percent thought the correct answer was France, 3 percent said a different country (such as Mexico, China, or Russia), and 19 percent had no opinion. Certain groups of people who consider themselves patriotic, including men, older people, and white people (according to Gallup polls), were more likely to know that America gained its independence from Great Britain.

6. ONE THIRD OF AMERICANS BELIEVE IN GHOSTS (2000)

This Halloween-themed Gallup poll asked Americans about their habits and behavior on the last day of October. Predictably, two-thirds of Americans reported that someone in their house planned to give candy to trick-or-treaters and more than three-quarters of parents with kids reported that their kids would wear a costume. More surprisingly, 31 percent of American adults claimed to believe in ghosts, an increase from 1978, when only 11 percent of American adults admitted to a belief in ghosts.

7. 5 PERCENT OF WORKING MILLENNIALS THRIVE IN ALL FIVE ELEMENTS OF WELL-BEING (2016)

This recent Gallup poll is funny in a sad way, as it sheds light on the tragicomic life of a millennial. In this poll, well-being is defined as having purpose, social support, manageable finances, a strong community, and good physical health. Sadly, only 5 percent of working millennials—defined as people born between 1980 and 1996—were thriving in these five indicators of well-being. To counter this lack of well-being, Gallup’s report recommends that managers promote work-life balance and improve their communication with millennial employees.

8. THE WORLD IS BECOMING SLIGHTLY MORE NEGATIVE (2014)

If you seem to feel more stress, sadness, anxiety, and pain than ever before, Gallup has the proof that it’s not all in your head. According to the company’s worldwide negative experience index, negative feelings such as stress, sadness, and anger have increased since 2007. Unsurprisingly, people living in war-torn, dangerous parts of the word—Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Sierra Leone—reported the highest levels of negative emotions.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios