I think ajays said why: Eventually, we get what we celebrate; if we celebrate being a cheerleader (or a beauty queen) more than being a scientist, then we'll get more of those.

I'm going to stuff words into ajays' mouth but if someone as "cool" as Natalie Portman can be so intelligent, that perhaps helps to counter a little of the anti-intelligence schtick that's common in some areas of life.

That said, many famous people are more qualified and intellectually agile than their public personas and media coverage give them credit for..

It's not about her, it's about the little girl who is growing up thinking she could never be a scientist because it's too hard or girls can't do math or whatever inaccurate stereotype.

I'm not sure the idea was to validate her as a person. It was more to reprupose her from being a "beauty idol" to being a "scientist idol"

This is important if you beleive that 1) A society with more Scientist idols would get more scientists than one with more beauty queen idols 2) A society with more scientists would be a better place than if it had more beauty queens.

>Can I ask why?

Because it would encourage a lot of people to become interested in science.

It could also inspire people trapped in dead-end science careers to take acting lessons.

That could mean the end of silly Hollywood movie physics. Imagine the possibilities!

Silly Hollywood movie physics gave us The Matrix, Back to the Future, etc. Necessary evil, IMO.

It's true-my initial post was sort of meant to be tongue-in-cheek :)

I could go on about how awful some movies have been but that's for another discussion.

Sorry, but actors don't write the scripts!