The term and concept have been adopted by science fiction writers to describe science based on "speculation, extrapolation, fabrication or invention."[3] Vonda N. McIntyre calls rubber science "a grand tradition" in science fiction and places it in "a hierarchy of rules for science in sf": "if you can make it right, you should; if you can't make it right, at least make it plausible; if you can't make it right or plausible, you had better make it fun."[4]
In their writing guide On Writing Science Fiction, George H. Scithers, Darrell Schweitzer, and John M. Ford cite Spinrad's rules for rubber science as a way to "play fair with the reader," building a background logically from a minimum of assumptions, and focusing on the consequences of those assumptions rather than the assumptions themselves.[5]
Science fiction author Poul Anderson references Spinrad's concept of rubber science in his article "On Imaginary Science". Anderson prefers the term imaginary science to avoid plagiarizing Spinrad. He divides imaginary science into three types of usage: routine use, where the concepts are taken for granted; loose use, where concepts are treated for their own sake but without rigor; and brilliant use, where the implications of concepts are deeply explored. Anderson reiterates Spinrad's requirement that authors using rubber science know real science and avoid violating it unless they are conscious of what they're doing and what it means.[6]
While rubber science was coined in reference to science fiction literature, the term has spread to discussion of science fiction in other media, including film,[7] television,[8] comic books,[9][10] and gaming.[11] Star Trek: Voyager script consultant Andre Bormanis used "the so-called rubber science or the very speculative, consistent with reality" when he was unable to find scientific explanations "based in fairly well-established real science".[8] Game designer Steven S. Long included guidance for implementing rubber science in his Hero System tabletop role-playing game ruleset.[11]
Some science fiction authors have used the term disparagingly. Bill Ransom associates rubber science with science fiction of the 1940s and 1950s, an era marked by "lots of cool gadgets," before "the genre became more character driven" under the influence of writers such as Frank Herbert and Samuel Delany, focusing on humans rather than technology solving dilemmas.[12] Lucius Shepard, responding to a negative review by George Turner, decried the suggestion that he "haul a gob of rubber science out of the vat in order to justify and explain [his] physics".[13] Ann C. Crispin considered Star Trek's rubber science to be a forgivable flaw.[14]
John G. Cramer included an afterword in his hard science fiction novel Twistor to note places where he departed from accurate real science into speculative rubber science. He expressed concern that as a literary device, rubber science added drama at the expense of potentially deceiving the reader into believing the rubber science was factual; he documented his use of rubber science for readers interested in "where the boundaries are between the real and the rubber science" in his novel.[15]
Reviewers have used the term to praise deft or plausible scientific explanations,[16][17] and to criticise underdeveloped or distracting worldbuilding;[18] for instance, a Washington Post review criticized Orson Scott Card's novel Xenocide for its "chapter long dialogues about rubber science".[19]
