Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Enduring Influence of a Dangerous Narrative: How Scientists Can Mitigate the Frankenstein Myth

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reflecting the dangers of irresponsible science and technology, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein quickly became a mythic story that still feels fresh and relevant in the twenty-first century. The unique framework of the Frankenstein myth has permeated the public discourse about science and knowledge, creating various misconceptions around and negative expectations for scientists and for scientific enterprises more generally. Using the Frankenstein myth as an imaginative tool, we interviewed twelve scientists to explore how this science narrative shapes their views and perceptions of science. Our results yielded two main conclusions. First, the Frankenstein myth may help scientists identify popular concerns about their work and offer a framework for constructing a more positive narrative. Second, finding optimistic science narratives may allow scientists to build a better relationship with the public. We argue that by showing the ethical principles and social dimensions of their work, scientists could replace a negative Frankenstein narrative with a more optimistic one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the concept of Frankenstein myth to refer to people’s general interpretation of the Frankenstein narrative. That is, combining various literary and cinematic adaptations of the original story, the Frankenstein myth represents how popular culture imagines Frankenstein.

  2. This interview data is part of a larger research project on how scientists relate to the Frankenstein myth. We will also be using this data in another stream of research focused on how scientists think about the influence of the Frankenstein myth on their professional identity. An article based on this second avenue of research is currently under review in another academic journal.

References

  • Avraamidou, L., and J. Osborne. 2009. The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education 31(12): 1683–1707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M.W., N. Allum, and S. Miller. 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessi, A., M. Coletto, G.A. Davidescu, A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, and W. Quattrociocchi. 2015. Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation PLoS ONE 10(2): 1–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnam-Fink, M. 2015. Creating narrative scenarios: Science fiction prototyping at Emerge. Futures 70: 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, S. 2001. Ahead of the curve: David Baltimore's life in science. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csicsery-Ronay, I. 2008. The Seven beauties of science fiction. Middleton: Wesleyan University Press.

  • Culliton, B.J. 1976. Recombinant DNA: Cambridge City Council votes moratorium. Science 193(4250): 300–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M.F. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. PNAS 111(4): 13614–13620.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M.F., and S.S. Ho. 2012. Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication 34(5): 592-617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H. 2004. Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Medical Humanities 30(1): 32–35.

  • Dudo, A., and J.C. Besley. 2016. Scientists’ polarization of communication for public engagement. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0148867.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N.G. 2010. Speak no evil: Scientists, responsibility, and the public understanding of science. Nanoethics 4(3): 215–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fell, J. 2016. Could current experiments in science and technology lead to the creation of a modern-day Frankenstein's monster? Engineering & Technology 11(6): 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, E., and K. Cramer. 2014. Introduction: A blueprint for better dreams. In Hieroglyph: Stories and visions for a better future, edited by E. Finn and K. Cramer, xxiii–xxvi. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazzetto, G. 2004. The changing identity of the scientist: As science puts on a new face, the identity of its practitioners evolves accordingly. EMBO Reports 5(1): 18–20.

  • Gergen, K.J., and M.M. Gergen. 1988. Narrative and the self as relationship. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 21: 17–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, M., G. Garsoffky, and S. Schwan. 2009. Narrative-based learning: Possible benefits and problems. Communications: European Journal of Communication Research 34(4): 429–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, M.C., and T.C. Brock. 2000. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(5): 701–721.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grinbaum, A. 2010. The nanotechnological golem. Nanoethics 4(3): 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenewald, T. 2004. A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3(1): 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunkel, D.J. 2012. The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldane, J.B.S. 1924. Daedalus, or, science and the future. New York: E. P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, M.K., D.H. Guston, J. Sadowski, J. Eschrich, and E. Finn. 2016. Stitching together creativity and responsibility: Interpreting Frankenstein across disciplines. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36(1): 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. 2004. Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism. Cultural Geographies 11(2): 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R.D. 1995. Frankenstein: The scientist we love to hate. Public Understanding of Science 4(4): 435–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellsten, I. and B. Nerlich. 2011. Synthetic biology: Building the language for a new science brick by metaphorical brick. New Genetics & Society 30(4): 375–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, W. 1958. The image of the scientist in science fiction: A content analysis. American Journal of Sociology 63(5): 506–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, R. 2014. The tensions of scientific storytelling. American Scientist 102(4): 250–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, T., and M. Ideland. 2016. Imagination laboratory: Making sense of bio-objects in contemporary genetic art. The Sociological Review 64(3): 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. 1992. How to think about the “anti-science” phenomenon. Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxford, J. 2000. Framing the future: Science fiction frames and the press coverage of cloning. Continuum: Journal of Media & Culture Studies 14(2): 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hycner, R.H. 1985. Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. Human Studies 8(3): 279–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyun, I. 2016. What’s wrong with human/nonhuman chimera research? PLoS Biology 14(8): e1002535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, L. 1987. Creation and responsibility in science: Some lessons from the Modern Prometheus. In Creativity and the imagination: Case studies from the classical age to the twentieth century, edited by M. Amsler, 59–104. Newark: University of Delaware Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jotterand, F. 2008. Beyond therapy and enhancement: The alteration of human nature. Nano Ethics 2(1): 15–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D.M. 2015. Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36: 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D.M., E. Peters, M. Wittlin, P. Slovic, L.L. Ouellette, D. Braman, and G. Mandel. 2012. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 2: 732–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kata, A. 2010. A postmodern Pandora's box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine 28(7): 1709–1716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. 1983. The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 14(2): 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, K. 2011. Frankenstein’s legacy: The mad scientist remade. In Vader, Voldemort and other villains: Essays on evil in popular media, edited by J. Heit, 46–63. London: McFarland & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, F. 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, E.J., and L.K. Fazio 2006. Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition 34(5): 1140–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazlish, B. 1995. The man-machine and artificial intelligence. Stanford Humanities Review 4(2): 21–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D.P., and K.C. McLean. 2013. Narrative identity. Current Direction in Psychological Science 22(3): 233–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousley, A. 2016. The posthuman. In The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein, edited by A. Smith, 158–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moustakas, C. 1994. Phenomenological research methods. London: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. 1993. Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science 23(4): 721–742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. 1996. Frankenstein and the debate over embryo research. Science, Technology & Human Values 21(2): 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M. (2003). Narrative psychology and narrative analysis. In Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design, edited by P.M. Camic, J.E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley, 95–112. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, J. 1978. Science and its critics. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

  • Peters, T. 2003. Playing God? Genetic determinism and human freedom. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A., A. Anderson, and S. Allan. 2005. Science fiction/science fact: Medical genetics in news stories. New Genetics & Society 24(3): 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. 2011. Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(3): 399–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rutjens, B.T. and Heine, S. J. 2016. The immoral landscape? Scientists are associated with violations of morality. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0152798.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. and D. Kellner. 1990. Camera politica: The politics and ideology of contemporary Hollywood film. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarbin, T.R. 1986. The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct, edited by T. R. Sarbin, 3–21. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, H.P. 2001. Victor and victim. Nature 412(6850): 861.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck, R. 1996. Forbidden knowledge: From Prometheus to pornography. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skal, D.J. 1998. Screams of reason: Mad science and modern culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart, S. 2014. Frankenzebra: Dangerous knowledge and the narrative of the construction of monsters. Journal of Literary Studies 30(4): 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turney, J. 1998. Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt, H. 2009. Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. Nanoethics 3(3): 257–268.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. 1999. Cloning humans, cloning literature: Genetics and the imagination deficit. New Genetics & Society 18(1): 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vint, S. 2014. The culture of science. In: The Oxford handbook of science fiction, edited by R. Latham, 305–316, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, N. 1973. Microbiology: Hazardous profession faces new uncertainties. Science 182(4112): 566–567.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weasel, L.H. and E. Jensen. 2005. Language and values in the human cloning debate: A web-based survey of scientists and Christian fundamentalist pastors. New Genetics & Society 24(1): 114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of the Frankenstein Bicentennial Project at Arizona State University. We would like to thank Ira Bennett and Michael Burnam-Fink and the anonymous reviewers for their guidance and thoughtful comments regarding our work. We also would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the Center for Science and the Imagination.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1516684.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Science and the Imagination, Arizona State University, PO Box 876511, Tempe, AZ, 85287-6511, USA

    Peter Nagy

  2. Center for Science and the Imagination, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Ruth Wylie

  3. Center for Science and the Imagination, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Joey Eschrich

  4. Arts, Media and Engineering / English, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Ed Finn

Authors
  1. Peter Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth Wylie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joey Eschrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ed Finn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Nagy.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 212 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J. et al. The Enduring Influence of a Dangerous Narrative: How Scientists Can Mitigate the Frankenstein Myth. Bioethical Inquiry 15, 279–292 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9846-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9846-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation