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
gross
London's Sewer-Blocking 'Fatbergs' Are Going to Be Turned Into Biodiesel
Original image
iStock

UK officials can't exactly transform the Whitechapel fatberg—a 143-ton trash mass lurking in London's sewer system—into treasure, but they can turn it into fuel. As The Guardian reports, Scottish biodiesel producer Argent Energy plans to convert parts of the noxious blockage into an environmentally friendly energy source.

For the uninitiated, fatbergs (which get their names from a portmanteau of "fat" and "icebergs") are giant, solid blobs of congealed fat, oil, grease, wet wipes, and sanitary products. They form in sewers when people dump cooking byproducts down drains, or in oceans when ships release waste products like palm oil. These sticky substances combine with floating litter to form what could be described as garbage heaps on steroids.

Fatbergs wash up on beaches, muck up city infrastructures, and are sometimes even removed with cranes from sewer pipes as a last resort. Few—if any—fatbergs, however, appear to be as potentially lethal as the one workers recently discovered under London's Whitechapel neighborhood. In a news release, private utility company Thames Water described the toxic mass as "one of the largest ever found, with the extreme rock-solid mass of wet wipes, nappies, fat and oil weighing the same as 11 double-decker buses."

Ick factor aside, the Whitechapel fatberg currently blocks a stretch of Victorian sewer more than twice the length of two fields from London's Wembley Stadium. Engineers with jet hoses are working seven days a week to break up the fatberg before sucking it out with tankers. But even with high-pressure streams, the job is still akin to "trying to break up concrete," says Matt Rimmer, Thames Water's head of waste networks.

The project is slated to end in October. But instead of simply disposing of the Whitechapel fatberg, officials want to make use of it. Argent Energy—which has in the past relied on sources like rancid mayonnaise and old soup stock—plans to process fatberg sludge into more than 2600 gallons of biodiesel, creating "enough environmentally friendly energy to power 350 double-decker Routemaster buses for a day," according to Thames Water.

"Even though they are our worst enemy, and we want them dead completely, bringing fatbergs back to life when we do find them in the form of biodiesel is a far better solution for everyone," said company official Alex Saunders.

In addition to powering buses, the Whitechapel fatberg may also become an unlikely cultural touchstone: The Museum of London is working with Thames Water to acquire a chunk of the fatberg, according to BBC News. The waste exhibit will represent just one of the many challenges facing cities, and remind visitors that they are ultimately responsible for the fatberg phenomenon.

"When it comes to preventing fatbergs, everyone has a role to play," Rimmer says. "Yes, a lot of the fat comes from food outlets, but the wipes and sanitary items are far more likely to be from domestic properties. The sewers are not an abyss for household rubbish."

[h/t The Guardian]

Original image
iStock
arrow
science
Does Self-Control Deplete Over the Course of the Day? Maybe Not, Says New Study
Original image
iStock

For months now, I’ve been trying to cut out sugar from my diet. I’ve read about all the ways my sweet tooth will be the death of me, and I’ve resolved to give it up. And yet, even as I write this, my long-term goal to eat healthy is losing out to my eternal desire to eat M&Ms at my desk. Is it because it’s the end of the day, and I’ve been trying to make choices for eight hours already? Or is it something else?

A new study in PLOS One pushes back on the popular theory known as "ego depletion," which hypothesizes that self-control is a finite resource that depletes throughout the day, much like energy levels. Instead, researchers from the University of Toronto and the learning technology company Cerego found that people's self-control depletes when it comes to doing one task for a long period of time, but that self-control fatigue isn't a factor when you're switching tasks. In other words, it's hard to say no to the box of cookies all day long, but saying no to the box of cookies won't impede other acts of self-control, like your ability to focus on your homework instead of turning on the TV.

The study used data from Cerego, which publishes online study materials, examining the study behaviors of two groups of college students using the Cerego system as part of semester-long psychology courses. The researchers looked at data from two groups of users, one group of 8700 students and one of almost 8800, focusing on how long they worked during each session and how well they performed at the memory tests within the curriculum.

If self-control really is a finite resource, it should be depleted by the end of the day, after people presumably have spent many hours resisting their first impulses in one way or another. But the researchers found that this wasn't true. Overall, students didn't do any better if they used the program earlier in the morning. Instead, performances peaked around 2 p.m., and people logged in to use the software more and more as the day went on, suggesting that the motivation to learn doesn't fall off at night (though that may also be because that's when college students do their homework in general).

However, mental resources did seem to be drained by doing the same task for a long period of time. The researchers found that after a certain point, students' performance dropped off, peaking at about 28 minutes of work. They made about 5 percent more mistakes 50 minutes into the session compared to that peak.

When it comes to the idea that we exhaust our store of self-control, the authors write, "the notion that this fatigue is completely fluid, and that it emerges after minutes of self-control, is under considerable doubt."

The notion of ego depletion comes from a 1998 study in which researchers asked participants to hang out in a room full of fresh-baked cookies, telling them to eat only from a bowl of radishes, leaving the cookies untouched. Then, those volunteers worked on an impossible puzzle. Volunteers who had spent time avoiding the delicious pull of cookies gave up on the mind-boggling task an average of 11 minutes earlier than a group of volunteers who were brought into the same room and allowed to eat as many cookies as they wanted. (Lucky them.)

Since then, the idea has taken off, leading to hundreds of subsequent studies and even influencing the habits of people like Barack Obama, who told Vanity Fair in 2011 that he only wore blue or gray suits in order to cut down on the non-vital decisions he had to make throughout the day.

This current study isn't the first to challenge the theory’s veracity, though. In 2016, a 2000-person replication study by some of the same authors (with scientists in 23 different labs) pushed back on the theory of ego depletion, finding that short spurts of self-control didn't have any effect on subsequent tasks. This study just adds to the evidence against the well-established idea.

So it's looking more and more like ego depletion isn't a good excuse for my afternoon vending-machine habit. Perhaps the true secret to excellent self-control is this: Just be a raven.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios