More Solutions to Stereotypes

Okay, so it might sound like I’m chasing my tail a little bit. I’ve discussed stereotypes and why they are bad, but in my last blog post I just said the visualisation of science and scientists in science fiction regardless of it’s correctness can have positive effects as well. So does that also apply to scientist stereotypes? Most likely but regardless of this we shouldn’t ignore stereotypes. So  lets take a look at some more solutions to stereotypes.

Stereotypical scientists found in popular fictional media can be offset by the presence of real scientists in scientific documentaries and television series. For example, most people will be familiar with natural history documentary presenter and narrator David Attenborough. Attenborough has a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge University and his name is synonymous with natural history documentaries.

Science and natural history documentaries and television series provide audiences with examples of real life scientist, whether they are presenting the show like David Attenborough, Dr. Robert Winston and Professor Brian Cox or they are being interviewed, even filmed doing what it is that they know.

Documentaries give audiences the opportunity to view real scientists, scientists that aren’t character stereotypes but real people.

David Attenborough, is a broadcaster and naturalist. He studied Geology and Zoology at the University of Cambridge. He’s written, produced, narrated and presented countless natural history documentaries and TV series including Life On Earth (1979), The Private Life Of Plants (1995), Madagascar (2011), David Attenborough’s Natural History Museum Alive (2014) and many more.

Professor Robert Winstonis a professor, medical doctor, scientist, television presenter and politician. He’s presented numerous documentaries and television series including, The Human Body (1998, 2001), Horizon (2001), Walking With Cavemen (2003) and Child Of Our Time (2005-2009).

Professor Brian Cox is a particle physicist and one-time pop musician. He’s presented documentaries and television series including, Wonders Of Life (2013), Wonders of the Universe (2011) and Human Universe (2014).

It’s interesting that just like science and popular media female scientists in documentaries and television series are scarce to be found. Not to jump on the science gender bandwagon again but it’s something I came across in an article from The Guardian last year and when I thought about it, I couldn’t actually name any female scientists who fronted natural history or science documentaries or televisions shows.

The Guardian article named a handful of female scientists represented in science documentaries and television but personally I’ve not seen nor heard of them before. One example was Professor Kathy Sykes, a physicist, broadcaster and Professor of Sciences and Society at the University of Bristol presented Rough Science (2002-2005) and Alternative Medicine: The Evidence (2006).

Shillinglaw (2011) makes a number of arguments for why there are so few women presenting science. She says it has been suggested that women scientists feel the need to focus on their careers, that they are less interested in being the ‘personality’ for TV. She says it’s been suggested that audiences regard them as ‘less expert’ but as someone who makes science programs, Shillinglaw believes the reason is simply because the program makers just haven’t tried enough.

However, it is a difficult thing to find a television presenter and it takes years for a presenter to build a rapport with their audience. So it’s not really all that surprising that there are so few a female science presenters out there. However, with the increase of young scientist both male and female who are decent communicators, who are out there blogging, tweeting and even doing comedy tours it seems that science communication is ‘slowly’ changing.

Resources:

Shillinglaw, Kim (2011). It’s True – There Are Too Few Women Presenting Science On TV. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/may/03/women-science-tv (accessed 28/05/2015).

Hollywood Science versus Real Science: It’s a mutual relationship.

It’s difficult to deny that the science in films and television is fundamentally flawed.There’s even a website called ‘Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics’,which illustrate just how bad the science in popular media can be. The website was even turned into a book in 2007 “Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics: Hollywood’s Best Mistakes, Goofs And Flat-Out Destructions Of The Basic Laws Of The Universe”.

Film makers hire scientists to consult on films in order to ensure that their depictions of science have a basis in reality and the images they present the audience are as realistic and plausible as possible. The science might be based in real science but it is often misrepresented. However, it is real enough that audiences tend to believe and accept the science in films and television as fact. The negative impact of which I discussed in my last post.

There is cause for getting the science in popular media right and it is important but according to Perkowitz (2007) even the science in films and television shows that don’t get it 100% correct can still have a positive effect.There is a mutual relationship that exists between science fiction and science and Perkowitz (2007) describes popular media and science fiction as fairy tales for scientists.

 As mentioned in my previous post science fiction and popular media can encourage peoples interest in science and this is the case for many people who have made careers in science. For some scientists the futuristic and fictional science presented in films are the reason they developed an interest in science and motivated their choice of career. One example is Scientist Cynthia Brazeal, who as a child was inspired by images of Mars. Stimulated by these images, she went on to manage the team that explored Mars with the Sojourner rover in 1997. I’m sure there are plenty of other scientists who could tell similar stories.

“Such anecdotes from researchers show how science fiction generated a sense of wonder that enhanced their youthful interest in science. For them, it didn’t much matter whether the fictional sciece was exactly right. In fact, these protoscientists were stimulated and challenged by imagined science and technology that wasn’t a reality – yet.”

– Perkowitz, 2007, 214

Real science and hollywood science inform each other. “The science of the time inspires science on-screen, form nuclear weapons in the 1950s to genetic manipulation in the 1990s” (Perkowitz, 2007, 215). It also works the other way too. There is plenty of science that exists now that was predicted long before it existed by science fiction films and novels.

For example H. G. Wells outlined the potential of atomic weapons long before they were invented in The World Set Free (1914). In Aldous Huxley’s (1932) novel Brave New World,he depicted a society in which people used mood-enhancing drugs to escape. In reality scientists didn’t start experimenting with antidepressants until the 1950s and now they are widely used.

One final example is George Orwell’s 1984 (1948), in which Orwell describes a dystopian future in which the government ‘Big Brother’ knows exactly what your doing and can punish you for it. Nowadays, we are constantly monitored by CCTV and the government monitors our information.

So there you have it, trends in science now are informing film and television but the hollywood science in science fiction could be a precursor to real science in the future. So keep checking out your science fiction because you might just be watching the future!

References:

Perkowitz, Sidney (2007). Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, & The End Of The World. Columbia University Press, New York.

Popular Media’s Influence: Do You Believe The Science On Your Screen?

So scientists and science in media have a significant impact on student interest in and understanding of science. A number of studies have been done on the impact of using Science Fiction Films as teaching tools in science classes for example Laprise and Winrich (2010) and Barnett et al. (2006) to name a few. More importantly these are the articles which I have read, hence I can talk about them, which is important.

Image Source: http://imgur.com/gallery/ZpgQz

First of all let’s look at the way that film and television can be used as a tool to motivate student interest in science. For one thing they are entertaining, they are exciting and the incorporation of science can foster curiosity in students.

In a study conducted by Laprise and Winrich (2010), students watche d various films and critiqued them for scientific accuary in written assignments. Their perception of this activity was assessed in three courses over a year.

Themes from the films were incorporated into class discussions as a way of introducing misconceptions of science and technology. For example, The Medicine Man for drug discovery and The Island for tissue engineering and reproductive cloning.

The data collected from surveys suggested that the use of science fiction films is successful in stimulating student curiosity in science. Although the article claims that further research needs to be conducted.

Visual media is an important and effective way in which scientific ideas are passed on to the general public (Laprise and Winrich, 2010). However, research also shows that it can have a negative effect on peoples understanding of science.

“For the average citizen, it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish fact from fiction in an increasingly visual society” (Barnett et. Al, 2006, 179).

Research has shown that films and television effectively blur the line between fact and fiction. This has corroded the public’s critical thinking skills and hindered the development of a scientific literate citizenry (Barnett et al. 2006, 179).

Education and entertainment are inherently linked and also contributes to the blurring between fact and fiction. Today films and television are “deliberately designed to meet the public imagination about science… and today’s fictional portrayal of science is harmful to the public understanding of science “(Barnett et al. 2006, 179). People watch a significant amount of television and films every week. Just think about how much you watch each week.

The producers of films and television strive to ensure that their depictions of science are based in reality, which makes the images people see appear realistic and plausible. They hire scientists to consult on the production but this doesn’t always mean that the science is 100% sound. But most people think that the science fiction they are watching is based on real science because it looks and sounds pretty damned realistic. The plausability of the images they see have the power to influence their understanding of the science they are seeing.

Barnett et. Al (2006) undertook a study in which a group of students watched The Core whilst studying earth science. They wear inteviewed prior to the unit on Earth Science and following the unit. During which some of the students watched the film The Core.

The research showed that students used scientific ideas to explain ideas about Earth science when questions. The students used scenes and dialogue from the film in their explanations. They believed the science in the film, despite it’s errors because the film had 1) a respectable geophysist as the main character 2) whos credentials had been established in the movie 3) and he explained some science correctly, which therefore gave the rest of his argument plausibility.

The images in films were also discovered to be more memorable than hands-on tasks in the classroom. Which just goes to show you that popular media really has a huge impact on peoples perceptions and understandings of science.

That means that scientists should sit up and pay more attention to the way they are portrayed in popular media and just as importantly to the scientific content of popular media.

References:

Barnett, Michael et al. (2006). The Impact Of Science Fiction Films On Student Understanding Of Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 15:2.

Laprise, Shari and Winrich, Chuck (2010). The Impact Of Science Fiction Films On Student Interest In Science. Journal of College Science Teaching. 40:2.

Sexist Science: Female Scientists Told They Need A Man

So following my last post about female scientists is a recent story of sexism in science. Last month a number of articles were published in outrage against a case of blatant sexism. A manuscript submitted to journal PloS One by evolutionary geneticist Fiona Ingleby and Megan Head was rejected.

Image Source: http://jezebel.com

“It would probably also be beneficial to find one or two male biologists to work with (or at least obtain internal peer review from, but better yet as active co-authors). In order to serve as a possible check against interpretations that may sometimes be drifting too far away from empirical evidence into ideologically biased assumptions.”

Anonymous Peer Reviewer – PLoS ONE

The manuscript was about how gender differences influence the experiences that PhD students have when they’re transitioning into post-doctoral jobs. 244 people with PhDs in biology were surveyed and the paper concluded that men had better job prospects than women and suggested that gender bias could be to blame.

However, their paper was rejected on the 27^th of March by the peer-reviewed journal because they “they didn’t ask a man for help” (Merlan, 2015). A peer reviewer for the journal suggested the authors find male co-authors for their paper to ensure they weren’t making “ideologically biased assumptions”.

The authors received an email, explaining that their paper had been rejected on the grounds that “the qulaity [sic]of the manuscript is por [sic] issues on methodologies and presentation of resulst [sic]”. Those are not spelling errors on my part, that is the review that they received.

Ingleby posted excerpts from the anonymous reviewer, the gender of whom is unknown, on Twitter.

In offering an alternative interpretation of the data, the reviewer says: “It could perhaps be the case that 99% of female scientists make a decision in mid-life that spending more time with their children is more important to them than doing everything imaginable to try to get one of the rare positions at the utter pinnacle of their field.”

The reviewer goes on: “Or perhaps it is the case that only some small portion of men (and only men) have the kind of egomaniac personality disorder that drives them on to try to become the chief of the world at the expense of all else in life.”

The reviewer also suggests that male doctoral candidates may have co-authored more papers than females because they can work on average 15 minutes longer per week. “Such a small difference of average effort could easily be due to marginal gender differences of physiology and health,” the reviewer says.

“So perhaps it is not so surprising that on average male doctoral students co-author one more paper than female doctoral students, just as, on average, male doctoral students can probably run a mile race a bit faster than female doctoral students,” adds the reviewer.

Ingleby and Head appealed the rejection on the grounds that it seemed “unprofessional and inappropriate”. After the outrage the Twitter caused the Public Library of Science the publishers of the Journal announced that it had removed the “reviewer” who had caused the uproar and apologised for the distress that the report had caused the authors. The paper is now being re-reviewed and they are addressing the process of peer-reviewing to ensure that authors are given fair and unprejudiced reviews in the future.

It seems relatively safe to say that in the case of male scientists such a situation would never arise. Women’s numbers in science may have increased but it seems that the discipline is still harbouring the antiquated ‘men only club’ sentiments. It is somewhat of a touchy subject in the world of science but why are there still so few women in science, and how might hat affect what we learn from research? (Del Giudice, 2014)

Gross’s concern speaks volumes about what has been a touchy subject in the world of science for a long time: Why are there still so few women in science, and how might that affect what we learn from research? A number of cultural forces have been blamed for this, ranging from girls being encouraged into other professions from an early age, gender bias, sexual harassment in the workplace to the potentially career-stalling effects on women of having children (Del Giudice, 2014).

How are we supposed to encourage more young women to make a career in science if incidences like this are still occurring in 2015?

Resources:

Del Giudice, Marguerite (2014). Why It’s Crucial to Get More Women Into Science. National Geographic Online. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141107-gender-studies-women-scientific-research-feminist/ (accessed 27/05/2015).

Else, Holly (2015). ‘Sexist’ Peer Review Causes Storm Online. Times Higher Educators. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/sexist-peer-review-causes-storm-online/2020001.article (accessed 27/05/2015).

Merlan, Anna (2015). Female Scientists Tolde To Get A Man To Help Them With Their Paper. Jezebel. http://jezebel.com/female-scientists-told-to-get-a-man-to-help-them-with-t-1701245887 (accessed 27/05/2015).

The Science Of Gender: Women’s Role In Science

Throughout history, men have dominated science. Just look at the main stereotype of the older, white man, wearing glasses and a lab coat. There is a reason why this became the dominant stereotype. Back in the day science was a boys club and

Image Source: https://publichealthwatch.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/in-outrageously-sexist-peer-review-female-scientists-told-to-add-a-male-author-to-their-study/

But it has slowly changed; there are plenty of women who’ve played an important role in science. Although, historically they had to work incredibly hard and often didn’t get the credit they deserved.

Take, Rosalind Franklin for example, and her role in the discovery of the double helix. She took some of the first photographs of the double helix and a colleague showed these images to Watson and Crick without her knowledge, which lead to them publishing the discovery of the double helix in nature and claiming all the credit. To rub it in even more, some years after Rosalind’s death Watson wrote an autobiography about the double helix and painted her in a negative light.

Other famous names of female scientists include Marie Curie,Jane Goodall, Mary Leakey, Sylvia Earle, Elise Andrew and the list goes on. However, a gender gap still persists. According to the U.S. census statistics in only 7% of women made up the workforce in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in the 1970s, which has increased to 26% in 2011.

The number of women working in STEM has increased and so has the number of female scientists depicted in films and media (Perkowitz, 2007, 186). There are a number of studies, conducted by sociologist Eva Flicker and Jocelyn Steinke, which look at scientists in films. Flicker’s study looked at scientists featured in 60 films made between 1929 and 2003. She only found 11 female scientists in total, accounting for 18% of the scientists in the films.

Steinke’s study examined 74 more recent films, made between 1991 and 2001. The presence of female scientists increased to 23 out of the 74 films, which accounted for 31% of the scientists in the films. This shift in the media is relatively recent.

In the 90s, “stronger film roles for female scientists emerged” (Perkowitz, 2007, 186). Take for example paleobotanist Ellie Sattler in Jurassic Park. We see her working in an archaeological dig site and later attending to a sick triceratops. She’s young, beautiful and highly intelligent.

Jo Harding in Twister is a tornado hunter. Sigourney Weaver plays Dian Fossey in Gorillas In The Mist. Ellie Arroway is a scientist who makes contact with beings from another planet in Contact. Once again these women are young, beautiful, highly intelligent and experts in their field of science.

Television followed suit as well and female scientists in shows like CSI and Bones were shown as equals with male scientists. These shows presented careers in science in a positive light and it seems that the inclusion of female scientists is helping to break down stereotypes.

However, there are a couple of stereotypes surrounding female scientists and I’ve hinted at one above. They are often young, in their twenties, beautiful and highly attractive. They are experts in their field and often some reason for their career choice is often required as justification.

Another stereotype attached to women scientists is that of the middle-aged scientist who is hard-nosed and kind of a bitch. Women scientists like their male counterparts also have their own egocentricities but they still play second fiddle to a male scientist.

A number of examples in the media include:

Thor (2011) Jane Foster is an astrophysicist, she’s young beautiful and determined. She is incredibly dedicated to her science. Ultimately she falls in love with the leading man Thor.

Gravity (2013) Dr. Ryan Stone is a medical engineer. Who survives the catastrophic destruction of a space shuttle.

Bones (2005 – present) Dr. Temperance Brennan (a.k.a Bones) is a forensic scientist who works with the FBI to solve crimes using human remains. She is relatively young and attractive, she is also a highly respected scientist and a successful author. However, she displays some of the egocentricities associated with female scientists, such as lacking understanding of certain social graces (Snyder, 2015).

Avatar (2009) Dr. Grace Augustine is an astrobiologist (studying the effects of extraterrestrial environments and life and the head of the Avatar program. She is highly intelligent and driven. She is passionate about her research and somewhat of a bitch.

Helix (2014-2015) Dr. Sarah Jordan is a scientist for the CDC. She is young, beautiful and highly intelligent. She is incredibly driven and hides a relationship with her mentor Dr. Alan Farragut.

Helix (2014-2015) Dr. Julia Walker is Farragut’s ex-wife. She is middle-aged, beautiful and incredibly talented.

NCIS (2003-present) Abigail (Abby) Sciuto is a forensic specialist working for the government. She has a witty sense of humour and a quirky sense of dress as a Goth. She is incredibly intelligent, her skills and knowledge are crucial to solving crimes.

References:

Perkowitz, Sidney (2007). Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, & The End Of The World. Columbia University Press, New York.

Scientists: Saving The World All In A Day’s Work.

It’s about time we looked at some more positive stereotypes of scientists so to speak, but just remember they are still stereotypes and stereotypes in general are damaging. The most positive stereotype is the ‘Scientist As The Hero’ or the ‘Adventurer’. It’s an attractive stereotype because who doesn’t love a good hero?

According to Haynes (2003) this stereotype emerged in the “late nineteenth century when belief in progress and a realisation of the lucrative commercial results of technology re-cast science as an obedient servant, an empowering tool”.

In the 1800s inventors like Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison were heroes. Their inventions were tools that revolutionised the way that people lived. They were the stuff of science fiction.

Think Jules Verne and his stories of scientists defeating “the marvels of nature with the marvels of science” (Haynes, 2003, 250). The scientists in Verne’s novels had morals, they were brave and optimistic, they endured and believed that their knowledge of science made it possible to overcome impossible odds. For example, Professor Lidenbrock was able to save his party against impossible odds in Journey To The Centre Of The Earth (1864).

Or take Arthur Conan Doyle’s, Sherlock Holmes as another example, who mixes science with mystery, adventure and logic in order to restore justice and order (Haynes, 2003). According to Perkowitz (2007) “these scientists represent the best that science can do”. Through the use of science they are able to overcome the natural world, restore order and provide justice.

Alongside Jules Verne’s scientists and the likes of Sherlock Holmes these heroes of science gave rise to a whole new set of characters in popular media. Inventors and space travellers of science fiction, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lost in Space, Interstellar and Avatar.

They fulfil the readers desire to transcend the limitations of the physical world, to discover the unknown and venture beyond the limits of human knowledge. Their aim is to save the world, save lives or make the world a better place.

 As I said in previous blogs the representation of scientists in media tends to depend on current attitudes to scientific research and its role in society. There are still mad scientists and villainous scientists but they seem to fill these roles for the purposes of entertainment now. A recent trend has seen a significant shift away from scientists playing the role of the villain and instead playing the hero. This is particularly evident in television.

 Take for example Dr. Temperance Brennan in Bones, who helps solve murder cases by studying bones. With a team of scientists they use science to find evidence and help put criminals away. Scientists play similar roles in programs such as CSI(Las Vegas, New York and Miami), Criminal Minds, NCIS, Numb3rs and Fringe.

Television shows present scientists doing science and helping restore order and provide justice for the victims of murder. These scientists aren’t the villains anymore; instead they are teaming up with the good guys, which makes them the heroes.

There is also a plethora of scientists in films who are the heroes. Take for example the group of scientists and engineers in the film Interstellar who risk their lives to explore unknown planets in search of a new habitable planet for the human race. Scientist Jack Hall warns governments on the danger of climate change in The Day After Tomorrow, he is consulted on what to do when his prediction for the future begin occurring sooner than predicted. He then risks his life venturing across country amidst the beginning of the next ice age to rescue his son. These scientists aim to save the world and they are willing to risk their lives to do it.

There are other scientists who are looking to save lives on a smaller scale, look at scientists Sam Daniels and Robby Keough in Outbreak, or the television series Helix. There is volcanologist Harry Dalton in Dante’s Peak and tornado hunger Jo Harding in Twister. They are looking to save lives when a disaster strikes and they once again put their lives at risk in order to do so.

Don’t forget Indiana Jones, who battles against the Nazi’s. Or Heroes, palaeontologist Alan Grant, paleobotanist Elle Settler and mathematician Ian Malcolm who are the heroes in Jurassic Park. Or Dr. Grace Augustine in Avatar, who fights to save an alien race.

These scientists are important because not only do they capture people’s imaginations but they make science appealing to people. They make science attractive to people. They override the stereotypical image of science and technology as destructive and show it as a tool that can be used by scientists for good. I’ll explore this in my next blog.

References:

 Haynes, Roslynn. (2003). From Alchemy to Artificial Intelligence: Stereotypes of the Scientist in Wester Literature. Public Understanding of Science 12 (3) 243-253.

Perkowitz, Sidney. (2007). Hollywood Science: Movies, Science & The End Of The World. Columbia University Press, New York.

Missing Scientist Found In Drug Lab: Promoting Negative Stereotype

So I’ve  spent the last couple of weeks explaining ‘Mad Scientists’, ‘Villainous Scientists’ and ‘Emotionless Moral Vacuums’ and where these stereotypes originate from and I come across this article online, “Scientist Missing For Over 20 Years Found Living Inside Secret LSD Drug Lab Hidden In Basement“. It’s stories like this one which don’t help  perceptions of scientists. They certainly grab people’s attention but not in a positive way.

The article is a fictional news story about the discovery of ‘Dr. Winston Corrigan’, a ‘Chemistry Professor’ from the University of Minnesota, who supposedly went missing 31 years ago and was recently discovered living in a secret laboratory in the basement of a Minnesotan families home.

Image Source:    http://www.iflscience.org/

The fake story describes how a couple called 911 after they heard the shouts of a man from their basement. Police Officers arrived at their home and entered the basement, which appeared to be empty. However, they could hear banging sounds coming from behind a large storage cabinet. Officers moved the cabinet to reveal the entrance to a large basement room filled with scientific equipment and a terrified Dr. Winston Corrigan.

The article then goes on to say that Police believe that he’s been living in the basement since his disappearance in the 80s. Also, according to the article police recovered over $500,000 worth of equipment stolen from the university, 3 hand guns, an assault rifle, 50 years worth of military grade rations and twelve 55 gallon barrels of LSD.

 There is no truth to the above-quoted story. IFLScience.org is one of many “satirical” (i.e., fake news) sites operating on the Internet.
-Snopes.com

The bogus article was published by the website IFLScience.org,  a satirical (fake news) knockoff of the very popular IFLScience.com. I Fucking Love Science is a Facebook page which promotes popular science and IFLScience.org uses the same layout as the real site to camouflage and trick readers into believing they are reading authentic news about science.

Image Source:    http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/missingscientist.asp

(Image on the Left belongs to the Satirical News Website and the Image on the right belongs to the original real website.)

If you pay attention to the website IFLScience.org you will notice the website’s tagline is “100% Mostest Official And More Sciencey” okay so IFLScience is attempting to make science appeal to the masses but it doesn’t need to dumb itself down. The website publishes stories such as a robotic dog designed to aid in assisted suicide and studies that claim dogs can see their own farts. Also, IFLScience.org only has a few hundred likes on Facebook compared to the millions of followers on the real IFLScience.com page.The logos are similar but clearly differently when set beside each other as well.

The bogus article borrows photos from different sources. According to Snopes.com photos were taken from legitimate but completely unrelated news stories. The photo of Dr. Winston Corrigan is actually a picture of Gary Sandford Raub, a 63 year old homeless man arrested in Seattle in 2012 for stabbing to death a 70-year-old woman in 1976.

Most people aren’t aware of the two separate websites and are subject to believing articles such as this like as factual. Although, humourous and entertaining, stories like this feed and perpetuate negative stereotypes about scientists, which we have been examining.

References:

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/missingscientists.asp#dCbqMWbmGjZkeDRT.99

http://www.iflscience.org/

Why Do We Think Of Scientists As Emotionless Moral Vacuums?

The emotionless rationalist, the unfeeling moral vacuum, the inhuman researcher. According to Haynes (2003), this is “perhaps the most enduring scientist stereotype: that of the inhuman researcher who has sacrificed his or her emotions and human relationships in an obsessive pursuit of scientific materialism”.

This brings us back to Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’. Remember that scientists often exhibit the characteristics of different stereotypes and Victor Frankenstein fits into almost all of the stereotypes in one way or another. In this case Frankenstein represents “the man who, in pursuit of science, rejects relationships – father, fiancee, Nature, and even his surrogate child, the Monster”. This image combined with his pride and isolation serves to dehumanise him.

Haynes (2003) lists the characteristics that contribute to the ‘Inhuman Researcher’:

1)   the psychological effects of voluntary isolation
2)   supression of human affections
3)   loss of the ability to appreciate natural beauty
4)   the naïve optimism that knowledge will inevitably be for the good of all
5)   the desire to be always the first to discover something
6)   the delusion that one’s research is for the benefit of humanity
7)   the fanatical desire to complete a project whatever the human cost

Victor Frankenstein isolated himself at the University of Ingolstadt and spent months single-mindedly working on creating life. Frankenstein ignores his relationships with his family, friends and fiancee. He never stopped once to ask whether it was moral or ethical. Although, I suspect that if he had it wouldn’t have been such a great work of fiction. As a result he creates a monster.

The point is that this is one of the ways that people perceive scientists, so obsessed with their work that they don’t stop to think about the morals, the ethics or the consequences of their discoveries. Whether it is due to thoughtlessness or it is deliberate, it doesn’t make a difference. It is still seen as less than human.

This stereotype like that of the ‘Mad Scientists’ and the’Villainous Scientists’ attributes a lot to the scientists of World War II and the Cold War. The work that they did on the atomic bomb added a lot of weight to this stereotype “with their documented declarations of unconcern about the human cost of their inventions” (Haynes, 2003). Not to repeat the inhuman research of Josef Mengele in Auschwitz Concentration Camp.

So lets look at a couple examples in the Media:

Deep Blue Sea (1999) – Dr. Susan McAlester is experimenting on the brain tissue of DNA altered sharks as a possible cure for Alzheimer’s in humans. Did anybody ever stop to think it was a bad idea to genetically alter sharks. Of course a routine procedure goes wrong and they run the risk of these highly intelligent sharks escaping into the ocean.

Jurassic World (2015) – I know that this film has yet to be released and I can’t name any of the scientists but really? Genetically modifying a dinosaur? It makes you question the intelligence of the scientists in this film. Or does it link back to point 5 of Hayne’s list, the desire to be always the first to discover/do something? I do allow that the research is realised because of a huge commercial enterprise that of Jurassic World but honestly didn’t they learn anything from the first film?

Fringe (2008-2013)Professor Walter Bishop – a scientist who opened a portal into a parallel universe to find a cure for his dying son doesn’t think of the consequences of his actions. In the present the consequences are being realised and they are catastrophic. Walter swings in and out of sanity and awareness. He is lacking in emotion and is often sitting on the other side of the fence in relation to the ethics of fringe science.

The first season of fringe also follows bizarre and frightening X-Files like incidents, which are ultimately orchestrated by a network of rogue scientists called the ZFT (Zerstörung durch Fortschritte der Technologie – Destruction through Advancement of Technology).They release their destructive technology and experiments into the world using people as test subjects. Needless to say the scientists in this series are entirely inhuman.

Helix (2014-2015) – A huge faceless corporation of Ilaria run by immortal scientists are working on a virus that will help them gain control of the world’s population.

No doubt there are plenty more examples of ‘Inhuman Scientists’ out there but I’m just giving a handful of examples.

This stereotype, like the ‘Mad Scientist’ and the ‘Villainous Scientist’ isn’t that surprising and I know I’ve said this before but “scientists are still widely perceived as powerful, frightening, and isolated figures speaking a language and thinking thoughts accessible only to their colleagues” (Haynes, 2003) because people generally don’t understand science and that makes it scary.

References:

 Haynes, Roslynn. (2003). From Alchemy to Artificial Intelligence: Stereotypes of the Scientist in Wester Literature. Public Understanding of Science 12 (3) 243-253.

Solutions to Stereotypes of Scientists

So far, I’ve managed to take you through a third of the scientists’ stereotypes on the list, other than the main stereotype we started off with. I think it’s a good time to take a moment to look at a couple of examples that are attempting to break the stereotypes and re-visualise scientists as real people.

One great example of this is a blog begun by a fellow student, for the very assignment, which inspired this one. It’s called ‘What Gets Scientists Out of Bed?’

Screen Capture: https://twiceaweekipromise.wordpress.com

“What makes people tick? What makes them do what they do? What gets their heart racing? What are those key moments or periods in their life that lit a spark within?….. So as a Science Communication Masters student I’m off for a wander around Otago University Science departments to cross paths with passionate students, and see what gets THEM out of bed in the mornings.

– What Makes Scientists Get Out Of Bed, Guy Frederick.

The blog combines mini biographies of scientists with beautiful portraits taken by author Guy Frederick. Frederick is an accomplished photographer studying Science Communication at the University of Otago. Each mini biography explores what drives and motivates scientists. Briefly explaining what it is that they are studying and why they are interested in it.

A study of photographic portraits of scientists (Jacobi and Schieler, 1989) analysed the images of scientists and found that the typical portrait of a scientists usually conform to these rules, “the scientist (usually male) is shown in a medium shot; he is in his place of work (laboratory, office or library); and he holds an object or device that helped him arrive at his discovery”.

Frederick’s accompanying photos of the scientists don’t conform to the rules. They include a healthy mixture of male and female scientists. The majority of the portraits are taken outside and they are completely removed from their work, so they aren’t holding test tubes or books. Most importantly there is a distinct absence of white lab coats and microscopes. Instead they are dressed in normal clothes and look like everyday people.

These simple understated portraits reveal scientists as real people and combined with their mini biographies show a group of people who passionate about science. What more could we ask for? It’s everything we want without the stereotypes!

There is another blog, which is very similar to ‘What Gets Scientists Out Of Bed’ called ‘This Is What A Scientist Looks Like: Change The Perception Of Who And What A Scientist Is Or Isn’t.’

This blog is a project developed by Allie Wilkinson, a freelance science writer in order to challenge the stereotypical perception of scientists.

“There is no single clear-cut path to becoming a scientist. A scientist can come from any background. There is no cookie-cutter mould of what a scientist looks like. A scientist can look like you, or can look like me. There is no rule that scientists can’t be multidimensional and can’t have fun. Help change the way the world views scientists.”

– This Is What A Scientist Looks Like, Allie Wilkinson.

Screen Capture: http://lookslikescience.tumblr.com/

This website is dedicated to changing the overwhelming stereotype that science is conducted behind closed doors by unapproachable old, white men. While some scientists do work in a lab, others spend their days traveling the world looking for rare insects, or underwater studying sharks, or up a volcano collecting rocks. Scientists enjoy food, dancing, music, and traveling. There are many women in science, and the number of minorities in the field is steadily increasing.

– This Is What A Scientist Looks Like, Allie Wilkinson.

In her blog Wilkinson invites scientists to send in images of themselves. The photographs on the blog include images of scientists doing everything from swing dancing, hiking to painting. They show scientists as people, not just scientists. The images show scientists as everyday human beings “with tastes, sensations, preferences, a way of living and loving” and the scientist is taken down “from a pedestal and [mixed] with the rest of us” (Jacobi and Schiele, 1989).

In this way Wilkinson is making scientists more human, familiar and therefore more relatable to non-scientists. This is important because it makes them less removed from a society, which doesn’t understand science and in this way makes it easier for them to begin to bridging the gap between science and a general population who don’t understand science. This is ultimately the goal, isn’t it.

The Scientists In the Background of Major Catastrophes: Still Villains?

I have noticed a new group of so-called ‘dangerous’ scientists emerging in media.They aren’t often placed directly before the audience, instead they hover at the edge of the viewer’s sight. The danger is no longer represented by a single scientist in the foreground but instead by group of scientists in the background, conducting experiments in the shadows, which have the potential to destroy the world.

However, it bears pointing out that the scientists themselves aren’t necessarily evil or the villains but instead are controlled by large corporate or government bodies. They are often employed to produce biological weapons or to solve a problem. However, in some way they are not in control of their research.

For example, the nameless scientists of the Secret Umbrella Corporation Laboratory who are working on a deadly virus in the film Resident Evil. Don’t forget the scientists who manufacture diseases that result in the world being overrun by flesh-eating zombies 28 Days Later, I am Legend and Helix just to name a few. Yes they were working on these diseases but they aren’t necessarily the ones responsible for it’s release into the world. Resident Evil it is released by a thief trying to steal it.

What about Divergent, a large group of scientists stick a population of people inside a walled city to try to cure society of violence? The group with scientific orientations the ‘Erudite’ end up seizing control and killing innocent people.

How about Planet of the Apes,  scientists are doing experiments on apes, which make them smarter and aware of their abuse causing them to hate humans. The same so-called cure almost wipes out the human race.

Don’t even get me started on Fringe, the show suggests that there is a group of scientists out there, some working independently and others who are working together to test their horrific experiments in the world. It suggests that they are being funded by a corporate group.

In the film Serenity, scientists killed almost an entire population of people on the planet Miranda by adding an experimental chemical into the air designed to suppress aggression. The mistake is then covered up.

This group of scientist, the nameless and often faceless scientists is interesting because we no longer villainise scientists or view them as megalomaniacal mad men, instead we don’t trust their ability to control their research. The people who fund and control their research have become the villains. It seems like this is a legitimate fear, because hey, scientists aren’t bad guys!