We recently watched what I think must have been a repeat of a documentary called "How Kevin Bacon Cured Cancer". It compared the work of a number of scientists, whose work is connected by a few central ideas: the concept of "six degrees of separation", the puzzle of synchronicity in (for example) chirping crickets, and the idea that all life at all levels is organized in a series of networks centred around powerful hubs.

In many ways, these are very exciting insights. There is a welcome focus on the whole rather than the parts. They actively highlight the ways in which different areas of life are linked, rather than maintaining the disciplinary divisions that have plagued knowledge for centuries. It's fascinating stuff.

And all the blog reviews I've tracked down on the Internet so far are wildly enthusiastic. New, simple, scientific -- great story.

So why was I dubious? Well, some of the detail was irritatingly missing. In the experiment to send the 40 parcels to one unknown person via a limited number of known links, only a few eventually made it through, and this outcome didn't receive much attention. I'm also not sure we got to the bottom of the crickets' synchronicity (unless it was that there are somehow "hub" crickets).

But that's really nit-picking. I think my central concern was born of an inherent suspicion of anything that implies it's the answer to everything. I know we have to allow for doco-hype here, but there was certainly the implication that knowledge is directly transferable from the realm of physical science to the realm of social science.

Even on the "linked" website above, for example, in answer to the FAQ about what it would take to knock down "terrorist networks", the reply is: "The answer is simple: knock the hubs out." We actually saw this being conveyed in the doco in lessons to army personnel. Surely this profoundly oversimplifies the nature of terrorism and terrorist networks?

When we talk about "hubs" in cell systems or solar systems, we're on safe ground talking quite neutrally. They're at the centre of their networks. Period. But when we import human beings and social constructions into the hub conversation -- whether they're terrorist leaders, airports, Internet nodes, or sexually hyperactive spreaders of STDs -- we're immediately introducing concepts of power. And mechanical explanations, however sophisticated, are never sufficient to understand power.

That's my worry. If we're not careful, we overlook the power element -- where it's coming from, how it's exercised, and what its consequences are. If we add that element back in, then what looks very similar suddenly starts looking very different again.

This is why we need political science, whose chief role is to alert us to precisely these kinds of issues.

And this is why we need stories and movies. Two examples from movies I've seen recently:

You learn a lot about networks from The Social Network. Indeed, you see several "hubs" in action. But questions over the nature of their power are right up there at the forefront, where they need to be.

More obliquely, you also learn something about networks from Sarah's Key. This speaks of the power of history, into which we're also all networked, through the genes, memories, and erasure of memories we acquire via our families, and through the layers of social ramifications that ensure the present never truly outruns the past.

There's a complexity in just these two examples that I simply cannot imagine being captured by superficial appearances of similarity, however significant, valid, and fascinating.