Reviewing the media output of a society has always been a great way of understanding it’s underlying thoughts, feelings and fears. Public concerns about ethical issues often find their way into popular media such as fiction and film. Post-Vietnam war, American cinema was full of disillusioned vets and jaded war heroes, whilst during the Cold War almost every antagonist was a Russian spy or ex KGB agent.  Although some fears and anxieties have eased with changing attitudes, such as the disappearance of the “Russian Menace” from our TV screens, one monstrous creature has persisted in the minds of the film-makers – the SCIENTIST!

Stereotypical images of “mad scientists” complete with bubbling test tubes and buzzing electrodes have remained entrenched in the public consciousness despite an increased awareness and acceptance of science within daily life. I feel this consistent negative stereotyping is hampering scientific developments, and that the media is playing a powerful subversive role in scaring the public, and leading them to fear emergent technologies.

Historically, looking through films, comic books and TV shows, scientists have been portrayed as figures of threat, evil and mistrust. Consider Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau, Dr. Doom and Dr. Evil – all stereotypical parodies of the “mad Scientist” character. It seems achieving a PhD is an essential criterion for joining the “Evil League of Evil!”

Developments in science usually come hand in hand with increased fears of the unknown, worries about potential implications, and suspicions of the mad men behind these developments – which are then seized and exaggerated by popular media. Scientific innovations such as Cloning, Artificial Intelligence and Genetic Manipulation have been followed by films exploring the Dark side of this technology – see “The Boys from Brazil” “The Terminator” or “Cloverfield” for examples. Advances in microbiology, and resulting public fear of “designer viruses”, have prompted filmmakers such as Danny Boyle and Breck Eisner (amongst many others), to jump on the bandwagon with their films “28 Days Later” and “The Crazies”. A communications report published in 2002 [1] found that there were 3 main negative stereotypical characterizations of scientists in the media. These were:  Scientists as Dr. Frankenstein, the evil genius stereotype mentioned above, Scientists as powerless pawns, manipulated and controlled by corrupt governments or shady businesses, and Scientists as eccentric and anti-social geeks, conducting strange and deadly experiments on the fringes of society.

It seems that if the media is to be believed, scientists primarily motivated by greed, power or insanity, do not understand the implications of their actions, and always get their comeuppance at the hands of whatever virus/creature/monster they have unwittingly created.
The main problem that I can see with this harmful stereotyping is that the media are potentially to blame for adversely affecting the public’s opinions when relating to advances in science. This means that when consulted on new technologies they will give negative and misinformed answers as a result of their unfounded fears. 

An example of this influence can be seen by examining the recommendations made by the HFEA in the report “Sex Selection: Options for regulation” After a yearlong public consultation, In 2003 the HFEA announced there should be a continuation of the current ban on sex selection for non-medical reasons. Almost 80 per cent of the respondents to the survey were against sex selection, and as such the HFEA felt that a continuation of the ban would be the best option. [2]

It is in my opinion, however, that such a ban would not have been continued, or would have been more thoroughly considered, if public opinion wasn’t so clouded by the image of “evil science”. The issue in question, whether it should be freely allowed to use sperm sorting techniques in order to determine the sex of a resulting embryo, is not one on which I feel the general public are well enough informed to make such a strong decision. I believe most of the negativity towards this issue was fuelled by the fears and worries instilled by the negative representations of science in the media. (An interesting fact to note is that one the major films released during the time of this public consultation, Code 46, focused on the possible negative impacts of genetic manipulation, cloning and genetic engineering in the future.) [3]
According to some theorists, gender itself is a morally neutral trait, i.e. it is not morally wrong to be a man or a woman, and as such it cannot be wrong to choose to create a man or a woman. When considering the question of whether it is morally wrong to create a man rather than a woman or vice versa, there are also no arguments to support this case.

For example, if a female XX Sperm is chosen rather than a Male XY sperm during sex selection, there can be no complaint from the unselected male, because for him, there was no alternative but never to have existed. “He” could not have been a girl. This is because the boy that might have been selected or created instead of the girl would not have been ‘‘her’’. It would not have been a case of sex reallocation; it would simply have involved the creation of an entirely different person. In this sense then, nothing is altered or modified, either one person is born or a different person is born – there are no positives or negatives for either potential child because they either will exist or they will not – the sex selection process in this case does not negatively impact on the “boy”. [4] This is exactly the same as if the process was left in the hands of “Mother Nature”

If this reasoning is accurate, then it would seem that the issue of sex-selection should not bring about such a negative response from the general public, and this is where I feel the media is to blame. Films chronicling the misuse and abuse of science such as Godzilla, the Island of Dr.Moreau, Gattaca and more recently Splice, as well as serials such as the X-Files and the Outer-Limits – which have continually shown the dangers of science -  could have served to influence public opinion, and have turned this “morally neutral” process  into one that 80 percent of people believe is wrong.

By using public consultation to set legislation for such an “emotionally charged” issue as sex selection, and by failing to note the powerful negative-influence by the media, I feel the HFEA are guilty of using a “biased jury”, something that is stringently prevented in any court of law.  This is a distressing case where new technological advances have been halted due to baseless public fear. Sadly, otherwise responsible parents who wish to use sex selection for family balancing are being pushed abroad or underground.

Although this is one example, I believe it is a good way of highlighting the negative image of science in the general public. Recent developments, such as Craig Venter’s groundbreaking work with synthetic DNA have been labelled as “Playing God” [5] and he has been written off as a “Maverick Frankenstein”[6] by the media. In the news Doctors have used a genetically engineered herpes virus to successfully treat cancer patients [7] should be widely celebrated, but this development could easily be shown as the first step towards biological warfare, and “Rage” infected psychotic zombies running around the place! [8]

I believe the media should have stricter controls in place when reporting on scientific developments, and should stop sensationalising and over exaggerating these breakthroughs for the sake of catchy headlines and selling papers. There should be a level of responsibility to inform the public of the potential implementations, but this should not be turned towards scare-mongering and the creation of moral panics. Although I feel it is important for scientists to consider public opinions and fears when engaging in potentially morally questionable acts, I believe the scientific community would greatly benefit if the public was free from bias and clouded judgements.    

References

1) Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise?: A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology [online]
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/Nisbet_et_al_2002_MediaEffects_CR.pdf
2) Sex Selection Options for Regulation [online]
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Final_sex_selection_main_report.pdf
3) Internet Movie Database – Code 46 [online]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345061/
4) Sex Selection and Regulated Hatred [online]
http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/5/291.full.pdf
5) Scientists play God: Synthetic cells are given life – The Scotsman [online]
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Scientists-play-God-Synthetic-cells.6310191.jp
6) “Maverick Frankenstein scientist” Dr Craig Venter creates “Artificial life” – The Metro [online]
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/827189-maverick-frankenstein-scientist-creates-artificial-life
7) Herpes Virus used to treat cancer – BBC News [online]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10817277
8) Internet Movie Database – 28 Days Later [online]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/

Downloads

	Scientists: Mad or Misrepresented? pdf