"Theorising that one could time travel within his own lifetime, Doctor Sam Beckett stepped into the quantum leap accelerator … and vanished."

And that's it.

Aside from the odd bit of balled-up string and reference to Swiss cheese, Quantum Leap never mentioned science again. It didn't need to. It used the science to bolster its story and moved on to what it was really about.

Doesn't that sound familiar to you?

Isn't that what alt.med and pseudo-science do all the time?

They take a vague, science sounding idea, and bolt it onto their product in order to give it some validation. Or they ignore the science altogether. Or they cast science as the bogeyman.

Fiction writers do this all the time.

Think of all the technobabble spouted on Star Trek to help the characters overcome their latest plot hurdle. For every Heisenberg compensator, there's a dozen polarity reversals and a sprinkling of field dampening plasma vents.

At least they make some effort I suppose. Back To The Future has a scientist in a white coat and mad hair say Flux Capacitor and One Point Twenty One Gigawatts whilst falling off a toilet. But it works. In fact, it works much better than the technobabble. And if it works, writers will do it.

I've done it. I asked our gracious host Dean to help me do it too.

Whilst developing an as yet unmade drama series, I emailed Dean asking him to give me a line about the brain that would make my concept seem plausible. I didn't even care if it was correct, I just wanted it to sound good. He should have told me to sod off, but he's a polite fellow and gave me all the help I needed.

Here's the line: "It's a brain implant in the lateral border that sends out tiny electric shocks to continuously stimulate the Inferior Temporal Gyrus. It sits in the happy centre of the brain and constantly massages it."

I have no idea what most of that first bit means, I just wanted it to lead into the second part of the thought. But compare this to the sort of thing you might find in the bumf about healing magnets:

"Separating the blood cells increases their surface area, allowing them to oxygenate the blood more rapidly. Magnets are a very effective alternative to drug treatments."

I'm paraphrasing, but it's disheartening to realise the similarities between my fiction and their "truth".

And to be honest, as a writer, I used to have no problem with this abuse of science. If it serves the story, that's all that matters. I don't even have a problem with it as a reader or a viewer. All I care about is being swept along by a great plot.

But it does beg the question; do we have a responsibility as artists to respect the scientific method?

As a skeptic, I decry the way alt.med at once uses and abuses science. Shouldn't I hold my writing up to the same standard?

The answer, I think, is yes, but with the caveat that it shouldn't get in the way. Like everything else in the script or the manuscript, it should serve the story and the characters.

But we should find a way to tell our stories more responsibly, if only to separate ourselves from the snake oil merchants.

And this brings us to a wider point. In our fight against alt.med and pseudoscience, we are battling against a compelling narrative. The story of the small guy fighting the evil big pharma overlords is one as old as the hills. It's Star Wars in Ewok's clothing.

We need to tell better stories. We need to recast the heroes and villains in a way that speaks to our basic need to hear a great yarn.

Some shows are already doing this. No doubt CSI: Walthamstow would still have the scientists sweeping up the dastardly criminals, while House is saving lives with differential diagnosis, vitriol and Vicodin. (He's clearly a Big Pharma schill).

The Mentalist has a fair crack at debunking psychic phenomena, and MacGyver did some cool things with chemicals and the insides of a pen. Jonathan Creek certainly had the mad hair, and he solved seemingly paranormal crimes by using logic and experiment. He never fell off of a toilet. Though there was an episode where he solved the crime because of one.

So there are shows that do it.

But we need to do it more, and we need to do it well.

For every Scully, there's a Mulder with a more compelling story of aliens, implants, conspiracies and cover ups.

Let's tell better stories. Stories that promote the scientific method. Stories that entertain. Stories that excite. Stories that reflect the real world as much as they explore the magical and the mystical. Stories where science is the hero.

Whilst you do that, I'm off to write about a vampire with iron deficiency.

Simon Dunn is an author and a comedy and drama scriptwriter. His website is www.simondunn.me.uk, and he's on Twitter @sighdone. He also co-hosts a weekly skeptical podcast called Sundays Supplement.