When the glossy reboot of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” premiered on Fox last year, it was many people’s first exposure to — the cool, assured host who guided viewers through the latest discoveries on black holes, dark matter and the origin of human life.
But in some circles, the 56-year-old astrophysicist was already a rock star. A longtime presence on public television and the lecture circuit, Tyson has slowly become not only the de facto science celebrity of the digital age, but a cultural icon who has used (he has more than 3 million Twitter followers) and Hollywood to bring science to the masses.
As an acolyte of Sagan, he has also inspired the wrath of some conservative factions who feel his messages go beyond education into the realm of mockery or propaganda, as when he explored topics such as global warming, or the role of religion in suppressing and sabotaging science.
Given his penchant for using comedians like Sarah Silverman, Eugene Mirman and Jim Gaffigan as co-hosts on his it’s no wonder Tyson is quick to laugh. But he’s also reluctant to back down from anything he says, given the certainty of his knowledge.
And the things he’s uncertain about? That’s what really excites him.
We talked to Tyson over the phone earlier this month in advance of his Jan. 29-30 lectures at the .
Q: Do you ever find it strange that you’re drawing thousands of people to hear you speak about things like quantum physics and dark energy?
A: My field is a field that has huge popular interest, which is the universe. Who doesn’t have a Hubble image as their computer screensaver? I’ve given public lectures forever — most of my professional life — but it’s jumped venues. It used to be the college campus or the community lecture hall. Post-“Cosmos,” the appetite the public has expressed for the universe has reached a level reminiscent of rock groups or Broadway musicals. I’m astonished, and delightfully so, that there’s this much appetite. I feel like sending a letter to each person who bought a ticket and saying, “You realize I’m going to give a lecture, right?”
Q: Right. “There going to be science here, people…”
A: (laughs) You realize that, right? Someone told you that? So yes, there is an enthusiasm that I don’t take lightly and I embrace, and I’m happy to be a servant of that energy and that interest.
Q: Was this a big factor in “StarTalk” making the jump from radio to a full-fledged late-night talk show on the National Geographic Channel? I’m sure the network has high hopes for it when it premieres in April.
A: That’s a little different, I think, because I may have gotten it anyway. I’ve got a great relationship with National Geographic because they already aired “Cosmos,” and the radio show was already successful. But I can tell you that when National Geographic made the announcement the Internet sort of lit up, and that I think is a manifestation of this. It could have just been, “Oh, OK, it’s just some show on a cable channel.” But again, the enthusiasm is completely framing this. So this species jump from radio and podcast to television may have been a natural step. But I don’t take lightly the enthusiasm and genuine interest people have.
Q: And you started shooting it yesterday, right?
A: Yes, last night. We filmed one with Richard Dawkins and another one with Norman Lear, so two show’s-worth. Richard Dawkins is of course a scientist, but that is not the most common guest we will have. The most common guest is someone from pop culture, such as Norman Lear. And in that we got to talk about the course he was pioneering with “All in the Family” and other sitcoms that handled difficult and challenging social issues and still made you laugh by doing so. It was a very different kind of programming than the kind that preceded it, like “Gilligan’s Island” or “Petticoat Junction” or “Green Acres.” No one had done this before him, and his were some of the most successful programs that were ever done. Clearly people before him didn’t even think that was possible. And we parlay that into the fact that the No. 1 show on television right now is what?
Q: Sitcom-wise? “The Big Bang Theory.”
A: Right, and it’s all about the culture of science. Though they may be caricatures, it’s celebration of what it’s like to see the world through the lens of tech-savvy scientists. So I see that as a genre that possibly could have been introduced 10 or 20 years ago. For it to be so successful today meant it probably could have been tested a little earlier. But no, they brought out the next crime drama or the next doctor drama or the next whatever. So the discussion was about how science can manifest itself even in a sitcom, with the Norman Lear interview used as the excuse to go there. This is “StarTalk” at its purest.
Q: Will the TV version still be called “StarTalk”?
A: Yes, definitely. The radio show is “StarTalk radio” and this will just be “StarTalk.” And we’re filming it in the Hall of the Universe at the American Museum of Natural History, so that’s great. (Imitates announcer) “From The Hall of the Universe at the American Museum of Natural History, THIS is ‘StarTalk!'” (laughs). There’s some fun other little elements to it. But the soul is the same.
Q: You don’t seem to suffer fools, but how do you think you’ll fare as a talk-show host, since that’s basically part of the job description?
A: That’s true, but it’s a little different because the soul of it will be driven by the radio and podcast sensibility, where we interview scientists and people from pop culture. But the framing will be suitable for television. We already knew it would work if it was just a camera parked in a studio, like “The Howard Stern Show” or some sports-talk shows. That’s already been proven to be successful television. But for this National Geographic said, “No, we’ll have a budget and a set and everything.” So those are the differences. And I’m not wearing my pajamas!
Q: I see you’re planning to continue having comedians as co-hosts, which is great. As someone who writes quite a bit about comedy, I’m curious why you feel such kinship with them. The New York comedy scene really seems to have embraced you, and your buddy (New York stand-up) Eugene Mirman once said, “Comedy and space are a great fit.” Why is that?
A: Personally I think the universe is a hilarious place. It’s a great fit because there are things you can have fun with and make fun of. There’s “Star Trek” and “Star Wars” and Comic Con, and what happens if you fall into a black hole? And what do aliens look like? And how might they behave? Would they be like us? There’s Captain Kirk having sex with aliens! Can you do that, even? There a lot of places to go that have strong pop-culture elements and some of the most popular films that there are or ever were have sci-fi themes to them. You can go there with very widely understood subject matter, and then poke fun or have fun with that.
Q: That’s an interesting way of thinking about it. So you’re saying science these days is almost like hassling through an airport or being married, in terms of being fodder for comedy?
A: If you have to refer to an obscure film to make a joke, it’s not a joke. It’s not funny because no one know what you’re talking about. Bu you can talk about “Avatar,” you can talk about “Interstellar,” a leading film with five major stars portraying scientists in it. And so I think (Mirman) gets to say that because science, and space in particular, is mainstreamed on a level that is accessible or at least within arm’s reach of the comedian. Like I said, we all have Hubble photos on our computer screensavers. The accessibility of the universe is there. And we have great vocabulary: big bang, black hole, asteroid strikes, extinction from asteroids, red giants, white dwarfs, the demotion of Pluto. All of this is fair game because the culture has embraced it and that puts it in the portfolio of the perceptive comedians.
Q: Why aren’t there more celebrity scientists?
A: It’s because we don’t accrue professional standing doing what I’m doing. It is not in the culture of research science to do anything of what I’m doing. There are plenty of socialized scientists out there. In fact, the unfortunate reality about all this is that people have these stereotypes about scientists being anti-social. We just don’t get credit for expressing that socialization in our professional life. We’re in the lab doing research or at the telescope or wherever else. But half of my title as director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City is to reach the public and bring the universe down to Earth. It’s in my job description, so no one can fault me for that. (laughs)
Q: What about people who saying you’re hogging all the media’s attention when it comes to commenting on science stories in the news?
A: I get called all the time from the major news-gathering headquarters in New York City since they’re all here. But when they say, “We want to interview you on the (Mars) rovers,” I say, “Did you talk to the engineers about it first? Did you talk about the people whose experiment it was? Because if not I’ve got nothing to tell you.” And they say, “OK, well we’ll do it,” because at the networks they’ve got affiliates so they can get those interviews. And I say, “OK, now I can tie a bow on that. I can give a positive perspective on that.” My value to the community is that I have the power to raise all boats by requiring the media to give it the attention that my colleagues deserve for the lives they’ve invested in the one experiment that happened to make it to the news today.
Q: And I’m sure you don’t mind being part of those stories yourself.
A: I become part of that story because they might lead with me or they might end with me, but the scientists who did the work are in the middle of the story, as it needs to be. As it should be. So I think we may be turning a corner here now that we learn how one might bring their science to the public in ways that don’t make your colleagues jealous, in ways that raise all tidewaters and boats, and in ways the public, the electorate, at the end of the day can embrace.
Q: You’ve been doing this for awhile — writing books, serving on advisory panels, appearing on TV shows. How do you have the time to do all this and actually do science and stay up on the latest discoveries?
A: My goal is always to be the scientist in the lab rather than only playing one on TV. But there’s a big triage that goes on at all times. For example, when “Cosmos” was about to take off I had to table so many other things. There were books that I was writing that I put aside, there were research papers that I had to pull back from. “Cosmos” was a big enough force that, for the public, that I said it would be irresponsible if I didn’t give this my all. So now that “Cosmos” is over I’m resurrecting some of that time that I want to spend in the proverbial lab.
Q: Or at the telescope, as it were.
A: Right, I’m an astronomer so we’re telescope people more than we’re lab people. But I use the lab just as a metaphor for getting back to publishing science. So yes, that’s still in my objective and in my goals. And yes, I don’t want to say that it suffers because that’s the wrong word. But I will do less of it because I’m doing more of this other effort to bring the universe down to earth. I see this as a sliding scale, where I do more of one and less of another. And I’m happy with that. I’m not going to fault myself for not doing more research if the public opportunity is singular in its force. Or if a research project comes along, I will dial down my public exposure because it might be some particular research project that excites me immensely. And I’m privileged to even be able to do that. There are people who are in pure research environments that, if they started spending their time doing other things, they’d be criticized for that. And there are people who are purely bringing the universe to the public, and they don’t have the occasion to go back to the lab. So I don’t take any of my circumstances lightly.
Q: In addition thinking about all this big picture stuff, how do you unwind? What are the simple pleasures in your life?
A: The simple pleasures are coming home and playing with my kids. Curling up on the couch and watching a movie that we tried to get to earlier but we couldn’t, with popcorn with slightly too much butter on it that I make. I like reading antiquarian science books so I get a sense of how people thought about the world at different eras, so that it makes you a little more humble in your modern day in reflecting on how you’re thinking about the world, given your state of knowledge at the time. I like writing with fountain pens and quill pens just to commune through time with people who used to write books in just that way. I’m a little bit romantic in that way. I like going to plays and musicals with family. I’m a big supporter of and embrace the arts. My brother’s an artist and so we go to art openings and things you can do when you live in a big city. These things are going on all the time. I like going to wine tastings. And we’re also a bit of foodies. I like going to a restaurant where the food is just lightly a little too expensive, but you can’t get it anywhere else.
Q: You’re plugged into the cultural scene, and a lot of taste-makers in entertainment and the media have become fans of yours over the past few years. How important is having that fan base of tech-savvy folks, hipsters, Hollywood types, etcetera? Does it play a big role in your current renown?
A: Yes, entirely, because the people who fully exploit the Internet are not the same demographic as the general population. There are people who are the Internet-savvy ones and I think I’m best known, or the greater breath of what I’ve done is best known, to that community. What I do has landed on the Internet in all the ways that they consume. You look at Reddit, for example, or YouTube or Twitter… all of these ways that the Internet is manifest. And I use Twitter not to tell people where I am or what I’m having for breakfast, but as a continued platform to share with people what the world looks like through my lens as a scientist and educator. And people seem to have embraced it, so I’m happy to continue that as it is.
Q: For certain people, there seems to be a novelty to having serious science as part of their entertainment, or in looking at science through the lens of comedy or nerd culture.
A: The Internet brings people to the same place to consume what I’m creating here, but I wouldn’t call it strange bedfellows. Everyone has an enthusiasm about learning and discovery and what the future could possibly be. I’m happy to be a servant of that curiosity, and a servant in particular of that wonder that people can express. There are people who used to wonder as a kid and now, no longer. But maybe they had an ember that just needed to be fanned deep within them for the flame to reignite. My work, when it’s at its best or most effective, accomplishes that — or at least that’s what I aim to accomplish. Whether or not I succeed is up to the judgement of the person who attends the talk.
Q: You raised some hackles on Christmas with a tweet that said: “On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642.” How much of that was deliberate provocation, as some people have said?
A: The fact that I had such an extreme response to it I traced entirely to a single newspaper headline that said, “Tyson trolls Christians,” and I was painted as being anti-Christian. These people went straight to the tweet and didn’t look at the 10 other tweets I posted two days earlier extolling the virtues of Christmas windows in Macy’s in midtown Manhattan. Anyone who knows my actual output knows that I’m not anti-anything, really. I’m just pro-knowledge and pro-insight and pro-wisdom. Somebody even asked me to take down that tweet, and instead I tweeted, “I dream of a world where people are enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them.” And that’s how I left it.
Q: But there wasn’t just the slightest bit of provocation there?
A: This past Easter I was visiting my sister and she grows rabbits. She had this huge, 30-pound rabbit, and I said, “That’s cool!” and I took a selfie with the rabbit, and I said, “Milo and I wish a Happy Easter to all the Christians out there.” I think it was Milo. It was some fun, rabitt-y name like that. People who are anti-Christian don’t do that, I can assure you. They don’t publish pictures of Christmas windows at Macy’s. I just want people to think deeply and with more insight into the objective truths of the world. People see a headline, and people who don’t know anything about my tweets go to that one tweet and they’re already primed to think that I’m anti-something. But I’m happy to say that my Santa tweet did very well. It’s now up to 23,000 retweets.
Q: Which tweet is that?
A: It’s the one where I said, “Santa knows physics. Red light penetrates fog much better than blue light, so Benny the Blue-Nosed Reindeer didn’t get the gig.” So I try to be funny by putting science in it, and still celebrating the rituals of the season, such as Santa and his sleigh and Rudolph and the lights. That one got 23,000, but I think people who troll Christmas wouldn’t even post such a thing. They created a false image in the headline and people jumped in and decided to join the fight. But objective truths, in my opinion, should not trigger ire in anyone.
Q: Do you think people who feel you have an agenda outside science are ignoring the bigger picture? I recall you were appointed to a national science advisory committee under a Republican president (George W. Bush), which sort of deflates their argument that you’re some liberal puppet.
A: Right. Twice I was appointed by Bush. The truth is out there and I have enough fans who know it. They put up the fight as well so I don’t have to fight all the fights. I put out objective truths and I go home. If I got something wrong, tell me. I’ll be the first to say I got it wrong.
John Wenzel: 303-954-1642, jwenzel@denverpost.com or twitter.com/johnwenzel
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astronomy and science lecture. 7:30 p.m. Jan. 29, and 8 p.m. Jan. 30 (sold out) at the Buell Theatre, 14th and Curtis streets at the Denver Performing Arts Complex. $40-$80. 800-745-3000 or ticketmaster.com.
