INTRODUCTION
What is science exactly? The most generalized definition might be the pursuit of knowledge that can be studied, that can be tested through tangible experiments and then can be proven through repetition and presented in real world parameters. Science considers all possibilities but it does not necessarily answer to religious ideologies and philosophical principles that many adhere to, because science only supports what can be proven to be factual. Science, in all of its facets, has been and remains often controversial discipline, whether it is chemistry, robotics or genetics. The source of this consistent public criticisms and questioning of science stems from fear and lack of factual knowledge. This fear has always followed science since its inception and it has faced continuous ignorance of the general public. This ignorance has led to people being influenced by antiquated stereotypes, outdated views on science and misleading presentation by popular media. It is this influence that directly effects how the average public understands, perceive and relate to the ever-advancing wonders of science and the scientists that develop them.
BACKGROUND
There was a time, when science first became an actual discipline, it was something that existed in contrary to classical beliefs and was often called religious heresy. Before science people had no real explanation for life, nature or the universe, so they attributed to the divine or supernatural. Darwin’s theories on evolution were continuously controversial. So often science and the scientists that dedicated themselves to its study are presented as villains, doing things that are antithetical of what is “good;” they are often presented to be dangerous or downright evil. Throughout the year science received greater acceptance overall, but as science become more and more commonplace and mainstream it still manages to perpetuate fears that people have had due to the influences of popular media and creative works (Achenbach, 2015).
DISCUSSION
There was a time after years of watching comic book superheroes battle evil geniuses who use science as a weapon to harm and dominate had a profound influence on society. Off hand it is easy to name how many villains in popular culture began as a scientist and somehow turned to evil; Poison Ivy from the Batman realm was a botanist before her transformation and Doctor Octopus was a research scientists and engineer before he became an enemy to Spider-Man. Scientists in general are often blamed for any number of apocalyptic stories, where science is generally blamed. We see this in disease films, like “28 Days Later” and the unidentified disease that starts the zombie-apocalypse in the widely popular “The Walking Dead.” It is not surprising that most children see scientists as the common “bad guy, but as science has become more a part of people’s lives that images has changed (Weingart, 2006). Scientists often do resemble one another in their physical appearance and attire. No scientist would be complete with his white lab-coat. In an uncanny way so they are often no physically imposing and are slight in stature. Finally a scientist needs a pair of glasses that they can regularly straighten, awkwardly. The idea of the scientists has moved away from madness and mass crime sprees, to a more humble and less threatening interpretation. As seen on the popular show, “The Big Bang Theory,” where scientist are geeks, nerds and intellectually eccentric, but entirely harmless.
Again there is a long history in literature, film and television of scientists being the optimal threat to people; they were seldom the hero. We look at classic villains like Darth Vader, who became less human as he became more and more a creature of scientific technology. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, showed that even when ones scientific intentions are good, playing with science can have drastic and dangerous consequences. He used science to separate the good and bad of men, but instead released the dangerous pseudo-personality, the psychopathic Edward Hyde. Of course the quintessential ‘mad scientist” is Doctor Frankenstein, who used science to reanimate dead tissues and ultimately brings an unnatural being, the Frankenstein’s Monster, to life, which was unstable and wreaked havoc and spread fear throughout the little community. These are just a few of the more famous villains that were in some way involved with science and technology (Weingart, 2006). However, again, as some become more and more comfortable with science that negative image has improved. Today people appreciate more the ways that science saves lives and can be used in positive ways and for prime benefit, for example the cure and treatment of diseases (Funk & Rainie, 2015).
Science, again, in its earliest origins were not met with a great deal of distrust and it consider heretical under certain laws. That being said science has and continues to be presented as something negative, something that is threatening to society and the people living within it (Achenbach, 2015). Classic Horror films, like “Frankenstein,” set the tone for many literature and films to follow. The Terminator franchise marketed on the fear of advance sciences and technologies taking over society with apocalyptic side effects. Again, science and technology are something to be avoided and feared. The 1990s film “GATTACA,” showed what the near distant future would look like with genetic modification, “designer babies” and an era where DNA means more than the value of a person. For the most part the presence of science in media has been negative, but not all interpretation of science is negative (Medin, Lee, C.D. & Bang, 2014). The science fiction franchise “Star Trek” showed a future where mankind had embraced science and technology, ultimately, ending poverty, hunger and inequality. Today there are many people who do not see science as necessarily good or bad, but neutral; it is how people use it that will determine whether it is negative or positive.
That being said there is little doubt that history, literature, modern media have and continue to play a huge role in the perceptions and reactions that the general public has toward science. Again, so often scientists are evil geniuses, who misuse their knowledge and become dedicated to world domination. Science is often presented as being somehow anti-nature, anti-moral and highly utilitarian in its means of arbitrarily making decisions without the ethical considerations (Weingart, 2006). People see a scientists that look like Doctor Frankenstein surrounded by gyros, flasks, boiling beakers and antique mechanical equipment, because that is what has been represented to them. It sends the message that scientists are tampering with things that they should not, that their actions will have horrible consequences to innocent people and with intentions that are egocentric and foolish. This is the image that many have. In many ways it makes people more suspicious of people who are scientists and exactly what they are involved in; it certainly taints their image in the eyes of the general public (Medin, Lee, C.D. & Bang, 2014).
Today, again, popular culture has moved away in some instances from the antiquated stereotype of the mad scientist with nefarious intentions. There are still long standing impressions that are difficult to forget (Weingart, 2006). “The Island of Doctor Moreau” established the idea that when left un-monitored and to their own devices scientists will cross dangerous lines to validate a theory or succeed in proving a point. This story around “The Island of Dr. Moreau, is all about gene splicing and cross breeding human beings with animals, turning them into dangerous maturations. Any time science discusses changing the “natural order” of things, it is an affront to humanity and is frightening to many people. There are even some real life scientists who were not so different from those presented in literature, film and television. Joseph Mengele was a member of the Nazi party and specifically engaged in questionable scientific experiments throughout the years of World War II. He used the interred Jewish prisoners locked away in concentration camps to perform his experiments. He was free to do whatever experiments however, invasive, painful and stripping of their dignity it may be with no need for regard for the human subjects. He was a true mad scientist and it is the presence of such men and the stereotype that have negatively slanted the views on science. It is the images presented by media that has created the fear and distrust present among many people when it comes to science and the scientists that study it (Achenbach, 2015).
As science and technology become more and more advances people are beginning to see that the “science” of science fiction is not just exaggerated creativity, but actual scientific possibilities, which reignites old fears as to the negative concerns to that science. There are many specific areas of concern for the public. Some scientific areas of research are entirely controversial and are the types of experimentation that is frightening to many people. Stem cell research is a heavily debated scientific topic today. It is not so much about the positive health potentials that further stem cell research may provide, but in how it is often acquired in scientific settings. Aborted fetal tissues are one of the main sources, donated by the woman having the procedure, which raises many ethical red flags for many. Cloning is another prime example of this fear given the media’s long time presentation of science and its negative consequences in these areas (Resnik, 2015).
One of the greatest issues between scientists, the scientific community and the general public stems from a lack of understanding of the real pursuit of science (Funk & Rainie, 2015). Most people believe that the type of scientific technologies that are part of a film or television show is, in fact, accurate. There are many examples of this fact. The televisions “CSI” changed the way people perceived the impression of how crime scenes are investigated. They see these heroic agents, with powers similar to police, who returned to their lab, donned a lab coat, run their own experiments on the evidence, getting quick results and then confront the suspect. While it does present a more positive use of science it is entirely fiction. Crime scene investigation is not an investigative unit, but a evidence collecting role. The tests they require are time consuming and take weeks to gain results. “Criminal Minds,” as set the precedent for behavioral science as used by the FBI to track down the most dangerous serial killers and public threats. Many believe that that is exactly how “profilers,” as psychological scientists, function within the real FBI. The reality is, much like with “CSI,” it is more time-consuming than it is presented on television. Most people cannot separate what is complete science fiction from what is real science (Auchenback, 2006). Finding ways to educate people is the only way for them to set aside their biases and make an effort to understand science, scientists and the positive benefits that it can have and that much of the fear they have had is myth, not fact.
CONCLUSION
Most scientist do not all look the same. Not all have lab coats and glasses. Not all have nefarious plans to use their scientific discoveries for evil. Not all scientists are blinded by their own scientific ambition. Not all have the makings of an mad scientist. Today scientists come in different ages, sizes and gender. They, in many ways, look like everyone else; diverse and unique. The general public needs to be more educated about real science and what it can do and what it cannot do. Science is not the enemy of ethics and decency. Science can be a powerful tool for good, not just a path to “evil.” There is absolutely no doubt that people have been and continue to be influenced by the depictions of science in popular literature, films and television throughout the decades. While many of the stereotypes have changed and perceptions regarding science have soften, there is still a level of fear that people have regarding certain scientific endeavors like cloning and stem cell research. In order for people to overcome their bias and see science for its plethora of potential benefits and see less the possible dangers that science fiction and other popular media has portrayed it throughout history, from the first scientific discoveries to the most current.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, J. (2015). Why do many reasonable people doubt science? National Geographic. 1.
Retrieved July 16, 2016, from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
Funk, C. and Rainie, L. (2015). Public and scientists' views on science and society. Pew
Research Center. 1. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
Medin, D., Lee, C.D. and Bang, M. (2014). Point of view affects how science is done. Scientific
American. 1. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/point-of-view-affects-how-science-is-done/
Resnik, D.B. (2015). What ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences. 1. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/
Weingart, P. (2006). Chemists and their craft in fiction film. International Journal for
Philosophy of Chemistry. 12(1). 31-44.
