Gattaca tops the best-science list in a 2011 Smithsonian Magazine report about scientists meeting at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The report named seven films, but the sources available do not establish a formal NASA agency ranking, scoring system or accuracy score. Here is the list as Smithsonian published it—and what its selection does and does not tell you.
Which sci-fi movies did the JPL meeting report rank highest?
Smithsonian’s January 6, 2011 report listed these seven films in this order. It did not give a point system or explain a specific scientific criterion for every placement, so the ranking should be read as a reported selection, not as a measured verdict on each film.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
![Silent Running [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51E47AaX91L._SL160_.jpg)
|
Silent Running [Blu-ray] | $7.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
![The Andromeda Strain [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51mGffepuAL._SL160_.jpg)
|
The Andromeda Strain [Blu-ray] | $8.34 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
![James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41U3E6NoMVL._SL160_.jpg)
|
James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction [Blu-ray] | $24.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
![*Batteries Not Included [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51EhshKgoUL._SL160_.jpg)
|
*Batteries Not Included [Blu-ray] | $8.34 | Buy on Amazon |
- Gattaca (1997)
- Contact (1997)
- Metropolis (1927)
- The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
- Woman in the Moon (1929)
- The Thing from Another World (1951)
- Jurassic Park (1993)
The available account names the films but does not set out comparable explanations for why each made the list. It would be speculation to assign a distinct scientific rationale to each title or infer that the order reflects a rigorous scoring method.
Why is it called a NASA list—and how reliable is that label?
The careful attribution is that Smithsonian reported scientists attending a meeting at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory selected the best and worst science-fiction films. That is not the same as a formal ranking issued by NASA as an agency. The sources behind the familiar “NASA list” label do not establish an official NASA release, a public rubric or numerical scores for scientific accuracy.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute#1 Best Overall
Later accounts do not reproduce one consistent list. A January 2011 Gizmodo report includes Blade Runner among the best and leaves out Woman in the Moon and The Thing from Another World. A December 2025 BGR retelling gives the same seven titles as Smithsonian but reverses the final two. These are variants in media coverage, not grounds to silently combine the entries into a single authoritative ranking.
What did the report say was scientifically wrong?
Smithsonian’s clearest explanations concerned films on its worst-science list. They focus on particular physical claims, rather than offering a full technical review of either movie.
Rank #2
- Polish Release, cover may contain Polish text/markings. The disk has English audio.
- 2012 (2009): The report objected to the film’s idea that solar-flare neutrinos heat Earth’s core, noting that neutrinos pass through matter without doing much.
- Armageddon (1998): The report said that splitting an approaching asteroid would not make its fragments safely miss Earth, invoking Newton’s first law in its explanation.
The full worst list in Smithsonian’s report was 2012, The Core (2003), Armageddon, Volcano (1997), Chain Reaction (1996), The 6th Day (2000), and What the #$*! Do We Know? (2004). The examples above are the specific criticisms given in the account; they should not be mistaken for a fresh, exhaustive assessment of the films.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What does “scientifically accurate” mean in a science-fiction movie?
A plausible way to use the phrase is to ask whether a film handles the science it chooses to depict with care and avoids claims that directly contradict established principles. That is a useful way for viewers to think about accuracy, not a scoring method attributed to the JPL meeting. Nor does scientific accuracy mean a movie must predict the future or avoid speculative premises.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
NASA’s August 23, 2023 account of Star Trek science adviser Dr. Erin Macdonald illustrates the distinction between scientific care and literal realism. Describing her own approach to advising the show, Macdonald said: “The main rule for me is to make sure nothing is said in the show that is explicitly wrong.” Her comments were about Star Trek, not the films in Smithsonian’s list.
Expert consultation also does not guarantee that every creative choice follows real-world physics. The American Physical Society’s March 10, 2026 history of 2001: A Space Odyssey reports that NASA space scientist Frederick Ordway III advised the production, while Harry Lange, who had led NASA’s future projects section, worked on spacecraft designs. The account describes compromises, too: director Stanley Kubrick removed heat-dissipating panels from a spacecraft design because viewers might mistake them for wings, and the production’s rotating centrifuge did not actually simulate gravity. 2001 is not on Smithsonian’s 2011 best list; its production history simply shows how research, consultation and screen storytelling can coexist.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
