Introduction | Armand Marie Leroi | Mark Lewney
Please tell us a little about your background. What is your academic background and how did the ‘Mutants’ book evolve?
I formed the notion of becoming a scientist when I was 12 years old. Now I run a lab at Imperial College London. My colleagues and I study how animals come to have all the different shapes and sizes that they do. We do this using very small, but very beautiful, worms.
As a boy I read much popular science: the Huxleys (Thomas and Julian), Haldane, Medawar, Dawkins. It seemed obvious to attempt something similar. When the time came I naturally considered writing about worms, but then I realised that a book about humans would have more general appeal. Of course, the scientific principles are very much the same. From one point of view, humans are just worms writ large.
Did you have any idea it would be so well received?
I knew that Mutants-the-book had many virtues. I knew, too, that it was deeply flawed. I hoped that critics would notice the first and ignore the second; for the most part they have agreed to do so.
Please tell us what you are up to right now.
I am working on a series (2 x 60 min for C4 and Discovery) called “What Makes Us Human”. It’s about the genes that make us different from apes. The stories that we tell are variously delightful, touching and weird. The science is wonderful.
How did the filming of ‘Mutants’ come about? Were you approached by the production company or did you approach them?
A charming Development Producer at Tiger Aspect, one of the big Soho production companies, heard about Mutants which was then about to be published. She said: we can turn this into TV. I was dubious. But she persisted: no, really, we can make it happen. So we wrote a 3 page treatment and it was commissioned. Simple really.
At what point was the decision made that you would present on screen? Did you have past experience on camera or media training before filming took place?
There was a meeting at Channel 4 HQ. In attendance were Development Producers, Executive Producers, Director-Producers, the Commissioning Editor, his assistant and me. The issue at hand was whether or not I should present the film. After some inconclusive discussion, Simon Andreae – then Head of Science – looked around the table and summed up: “The critical question, the question that we have to answer today is simply this: Does Armand have a personality?”
And no-one said a word.
How much do you feel charisma and presenting skills play a role in communicating science?
While being screen-tested I was congratulated heartily on being able to walk and talk at the same time. “Can’t everyone do that?” I said. “No, no” came the reply. “In fact the BBC has a special school where the walking-talking thing is taught to their presenters – Simon Schama was once a star pupil.” It sounds plausible, but one probably shouldn’t believe everything that C4 tells you about the BBC.
Do you think charisma can be taught? Does it need to be?
In The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (OUP, 1947) Max Weber defines charisma as “a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which s/he is set apart from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.”
Again, all this comes naturally to C4 presenters – the BBC has a special school.
Were you surprised that a documentary about genetics would have such a wide appeal with audiences and critics or did the success of the book suggest that there would be a potentially large TV audience out there?
Bestsellers aside, book sales are measured in thousands; TV audiences are measured in millions, so one hardly predicts the other.
Do you feel the public is hungry for such programming but commissioning editors are possibly nervous about backing such programmes?
I think that commissioning editors are nervous about backing projects that don’t have a gimmick. Gimmicks aren’t necessarily bad, but they shouldn’t dwarf the science.
Do you find yourself able to comfortably step back and forth between the media and science worlds? Did you find many surprising similarities or problematic differences between the disciplines?
No, it’s not that easy; the values of these two worlds are so very different. For one thing, scientists love the truth while television people have at best a casual relationship with it. The difference doesn’t matter when you have stories that are both true and fascinating. It does when choices have to be made – as they always do – between a story that is very true but dull, and one that is fascinating but not quite as true. A scientist always goes for the former.
What advice would you give to any aspiring science communicators of the future? For example, should they become expert in one particular field or try to spread themselves as widely as possible?
To have maximum impact you first need to be an Authority. That takes a PhD and about 20 years of your adult life. If you don’t want to wait that long, you can take the Science Communication Msc at Imperial (“The Course” as it is known in media circles) and aspire to become a brilliant journalist-writer.
What possible pitfalls could you foresee for a young, hopeful science presenter?
The low probability of success.
Who is your favourite science presenter past or present?
Sir David Attenborough doing Life on Earth.
What would you say is the most exciting scientific break-through (of all time and in the past few years)?
Greatest Breakthrough of All Time: Aristotle’s discovery of the natural world c. 350 BC. Of the past few years: sequencing of the chimpanzee genome in 2002.
To read more about the C4 series, Mutants, click here.
