Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists

As one of the best known science narratives about the consequences of creating life, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) is an enduring tale that people know and understand with an almost instinctive familiarity. It has become a myth reflecting people’s ambivalent feelings about emerging science: they are curious about science, but they are also afraid of what science can do to them. In this essay, we argue that the Frankenstein myth has evolved into a stigma attached to scientists that focalizes the public’s as well as the scientific community’s negative reactions towards certain sciences and scientific practices. This stigma produces ambivalent reactions towards scientific artifacts and it leads to negative connotations because it implies that some sciences are dangerous and harmful. We argue that understanding the Frankenstein stigma can empower scientists by helping them revisit their own biases as well as responding effectively to people’s expectations for, and attitudes towards, scientists and scientific artifacts. Debunking the Frankenstein stigma could also allow scientists to reshape their professional identities so they can better show the public what ethical and moral values guide their research enterprises.

[1]  N. Roese,et al.  Hindsight Bias , 2012 .

[2]  E. Goffman Stigma; Notes On The Management Of Spoiled Identity , 1964 .

[3]  Sandra Swart,et al.  Frankenzebra: Dangerous Knowledge and the Narrative Construction of Monsters , 2014 .

[4]  P. Corrigan How stigma interferes with mental health care. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[5]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo , 2004 .

[6]  S. Heine,et al.  The Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality , 2016, PloS one.

[7]  J. Kitzinger Questioning the sci‐fi alibi: a critique of how ‘science fiction fears’ are used to explain away public concerns about risk , 2010 .

[8]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? , 2010 .

[9]  G. Gauchat The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[10]  Susan Carol Losh,et al.  Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001 , 2010 .

[11]  Ullrich K. H. Ecker,et al.  Misinformation and Its Correction , 2012, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[12]  M. Crichton Ritual Abuse, Hot Air, and Missed Opportunities , 1999, Science.

[13]  Bilian Ni Sullivan,et al.  Social Inequality and the Reduction of Ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System: Evidence of Enhanced System Justification among the Disadvantaged , 2001 .

[14]  J. Pachankis,et al.  The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: a cognitive-affective-behavioral model. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  B. Major,et al.  The social psychology of stigma. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[16]  Margaret Shih,et al.  Positive Stigma: Examining Resilience and Empowerment in Overcoming Stigma , 2004 .

[17]  A. Arluke GOING INTO THE CLOSET WITH SCIENCE , 1991 .

[18]  Emile Durkheim,et al.  The rules of sociological method / Emile Durkheim , 1966 .

[19]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Bringing values and deliberation to science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  A. Webber The Doppelgänger : double visions in German literature , 1999 .

[21]  William W. Adams Making Daemons of Death and Love: Frankenstein, Existentialism, Psychoanalysis , 2001 .

[22]  Golem science and the public understanding of science: from deficit to dilemma , 1999 .

[23]  Roy H. Hamilton,et al.  An open letter concerning do‐it‐yourself users of transcranial direct current stimulation , 2016, Annals of neurology.

[24]  R. Haynes Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[25]  B. Stamm,et al.  A Social Marketing Approach to Challenging Stigma , 2006 .

[26]  Sheryl N. Hamilton,et al.  From Mad Scientist to Bad Scientist: Richard Seed as Biogovernmental Event , 2005 .

[27]  Mary Bernstein,et al.  Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by the Lesbian and Gay Movement1 , 1997, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  N. Evans Speak No Evil: Scientists, Responsibility, and the Public Understanding of Science , 2010 .

[29]  J Blascovich,et al.  Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  M. Liakopoulos,et al.  Pandora's Box or panacea? Using metaphors to create the public representations of biotechnology , 2002, Public understanding of science.

[31]  Iina Hellsten,et al.  Focus On Metaphors: The Case Of "Frankenfood" On The Web , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[32]  N. Fligstein,et al.  Social Skill and Institutional Theory , 1997 .

[33]  R. Meisenbach,et al.  Stigma Management Communication: A Theory and Agenda for Applied Research on How Individuals Manage Moments of Stigmatized Identity , 2010 .

[34]  Rosslyn Reed (Un-)Professional discourse? , 2001 .

[35]  Nora Jacobson,et al.  What is recovery? A conceptual model and explication. , 2001, Psychiatric services.

[36]  Thomas Christie Williams Long read review: redesigning life: how genome editing will transform the world by John Parrington , 2016 .

[37]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Framing Science: A New Paradigm in Public Engagement , 2009 .

[38]  M. Banaji,et al.  The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness , 1994 .

[39]  Kevin D. Finson Drawing a Scientist: What We Do and Do Not Know After Fifty Years of Drawings , 2002 .

[40]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Examining the Frankenstein Syndrome - An Open-Ended Cross-Cultural Survey , 2011, ICSR.

[41]  Michael F. Dahlstrom Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  N. Van Dyke,et al.  Political Opportunities and Collective Identity in Ohio's Gay and Lesbian Movement, 1970 to 2000 , 2006 .

[43]  Pedro Reis,et al.  Socio‐scientific controversies and students' conceptions about scientists , 2004 .

[44]  Blake E. Ashforth,et al.  How can you do it?: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity , 1999 .

[45]  Kim Hammond,et al.  Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism , 2004 .

[46]  J. M. V. D. Laan Frankenstein as Science Fiction and Fact , 2010 .

[47]  Aik-Ling Tan,et al.  Spiderman and science: How students’ perceptions of scientists are shaped by popular media , 2017, Public understanding of science.

[48]  Michael A. Shapiro,et al.  Science Information in Fictional Movies: Effects of Context and Gender , 2010 .

[49]  A. Goldberg,et al.  Stigma, social context, and mental health: lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. , 2011, Journal of counseling psychology.

[50]  Annie Lang,et al.  Rethinking theoretical approaches to stigma: a Framework Integrating Normative Influences on Stigma (FINIS). , 2008, Social science & medicine.

[51]  D. Oyserman,et al.  Stigma: An insider's view , 2001 .

[52]  P. Weingart,et al.  Of Power Maniacs and Unethical Geniuses: Science and Scientists in Fiction Film , 2003 .

[53]  David J. Skal Screams of Reason: Mad Science and Modern Culture , 1998 .

[54]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Public values and public failure in US science policy , 2005 .

[55]  Michael Lounsbury,et al.  Introduction to “Songs of Ourselves: Employees’ Deployment of Social Identity in Workplace Encounters” , 2011 .

[56]  Aaron C. Kay,et al.  The emotional roots of conspiratorial perceptions, system justification, and belief in the paranormal , 2015 .

[57]  Gregory N. Mandel,et al.  The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks , 2012 .

[58]  L. Nadelson,et al.  I Just Don't Trust Them: The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument to Measure Trust in Science and Scientists , 2014 .

[59]  D. Chambers,et al.  Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw‐a‐scientist test , 1983 .

[60]  G. Flores Mad scientists, compassionate healers, and greedy egotists: the portrayal of physicians in the movies. , 2002, Journal of the National Medical Association.

[61]  Michael F. Dahlstrom,et al.  Ethical Considerations of Using Narrative to Communicate Science , 2012 .

[62]  R. Haynes,et al.  From Alchemy to Artificial Intelligence: Stereotypes of the Scientist in Western Literature , 2003 .

[63]  A. Petersen Replicating Our Bodies, Losing Our Selves: News Media Portrayals of Human Cloning in the Wake of Dolly , 2002 .

[64]  Elizabeth J Marsh,et al.  Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[65]  H. Knust From Faust to Oppenheimer: The Scientist's Pact with the Devil , 1983 .

[66]  J. Pryor,et al.  A dual-process model of reactions to perceived stigma. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[67]  Bruce Mazlish The man-machine and artificial intelligence , 1995 .

[68]  P. Hart-Brinson The Social Imagination of Homosexuality and the Rise of Same-sex Marriage in the United States , 2016 .

[69]  Allison B. Kavey,et al.  Monstrous Progeny: A History of the Frankenstein Narratives , 2016 .

[70]  G. Gauchat,et al.  The Political Context of Science in the United States: Public Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policy and Science Funding , 2015 .

[71]  Gregory M. Herek,et al.  Confronting Sexual Stigma and Prejudice: Theory and Practice , 2007 .

[72]  K. Clancy,et al.  Growing monstrous organisms: the construction of anti-GMO visual rhetoric through digital media , 2016 .

[73]  J. Pryor,et al.  Stigma: Advances in Theory and Research , 2013 .

[74]  J. Dijck Cloning humans, cloning literature: genetics and the imagination deficit , 1999 .

[75]  T. Heffernan Bovine Anxieties, Virgin Births, and the Secret of Life , 2003 .

[76]  M. Brotherton Science Fiction by Scientists , 2017 .

[77]  Cheryl R. Kaiser Dominant ideology threat and the interpersonal consequences of attributions to discrimination , 2006 .

[78]  Washington Dc,et al.  Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda , 2018 .

[79]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Learning facts from fiction. , 2003 .

[80]  Jon Turney,et al.  Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture , 1998 .

[81]  Rachel E. Goldsmith,et al.  System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change” , 2010, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[82]  Michael Mulkay,et al.  Frankenstein and the Debate Over Embryo Research , 1996, Science, technology & human values.

[83]  R. Haynes Frankenstein: the scientist we love to hate , 1995 .

[84]  Antonio López Peláez,et al.  Robots, genes and bytes: technology development and social changes towards the year 2020 , 2008 .

[85]  D. Kahan,et al.  Cultural cognition of scientific consensus , 2011 .

[86]  D. Smith (On) Self-Presentation , 1989 .

[87]  Hans-Jürgen Link,et al.  Playing God and the Intrinsic Value of Life: Moral Problems for Synthetic Biology? , 2013, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[88]  E. Wilson,et al.  Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature , 2005 .

[89]  A. Lupia Communicating science in politicized environments , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[90]  M. G. Bishop The makyng and re-making of man: 2. Mary Shelley, or, the modern Pandora, and gene therapy. , 1994, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[91]  Aaron C. Kay,et al.  A test of the flexible ideology hypothesis: System justification motives interact with ideological cueing to predict political judgments , 2013 .