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.
KeywordsStigma Science-fiction Identity Science communication Science narratives Frankenstein
We would like to thank Phil Weaver-Stoesz, the editors and the anonymous reviewers at Science and Engineering Ethics 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; and King Coffee in Tempe, Arizona.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1516684.
- Abraham, J., & Dessler, A. (2013). What scientists should talk about: Their personal stories. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/20/climate-change-scientists-personal-stories. Accessed October 15, 2016.
- Arkin, R. M. (1980). Self-presentation. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 158–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413–434.Google Scholar
- Beck, J. (2015). Americans believe in science, just not its findings. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/americans-believe-in-science-just-not-its-findings/384937/. Accessed November 12, 2016.
- Bishop, M. G. H. (1994). The “makyng” and re-making of Man: 1. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87(12), 749–751.Google Scholar
- Brotherton, M. (2016). Science fiction by scientists: An anthology of short stories. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Cole, S. (2016). Neuroscientists warn against unsupervised direct brain stimulation—Maybe don’t DIY electrocute your brain. Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com/maybe-dont-diy-electrocute-your-brain. Accessed October 17, 2016.
- Dolan, L. (2016). Pig-human embryos? ‘Ethically corrupt and belonging in fiction’ says PETA doctor. http://talkradio.co.uk/highlights/pig-human-embryos-ethically-corrupt-and-belonging-fiction-says-peta-doctor-1606061471. Accessed December 18, 2016.
- Durkheim, E.  (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Flores, G. (2002). Mad scientists, compassionate healers, and greedy egoists: The portrayal of the physicians in the movies. Journal of National Medical Association, 94(7), 635–658.Google Scholar
- Franco, D. (1998). Mirror images and otherness in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Literature and Psychology, 44(1–2), 80–95.Google Scholar
- Friedman, L. D., & Kavey, A. B. (2016). Monstrous progeny: A history of the Frankenstein narratives. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
- Funk, C., Rainie, L., Smith, A., Olmstead, K., Duggan, M., & Page, D. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2016.
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma—Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Hammond, R. (1986). The modern Frankenstein: Fiction becomes fact. New York: Blandford Press.Google Scholar
- Harrington, B. (2008). Monsters of the complex market. https://thesocietypages.org/economicsociology/tag/frankenstein/. Accessed July 26, 2016.
- Hellsten, I. (2003). Focus on metaphors: The case of “Frankenfood” on the Web. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
- Hindle, M. (1990). Vital matters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Romantic science. Critical Survey, 2(1), 29–35.Google Scholar
- Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173–204). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Kaiser, C. R. (2006). Dominant ideology threat and the interpersonal consequences of attributions to discrimination. In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 45–64). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Marcus, S. (2002). Frankenstein: Myths of scientific and medical knowledge and stories of human relations. The Southern Review, 38(1), 188–201.Google Scholar
- Mazlish, B. (1995). The man–machine and artificial intelligence. Stanford Humanities Review, 4(2), 21–45.Google Scholar
- Nisbet, M. (2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40–67). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Parrington, J. (2016). Redesigning life: How genome editing will transform the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- PETA UK. (2016). Creating human-animal hybrids is bad for people—And worse for animals. http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/creating-human-animal-hybrids-bad-people-worse-animals/. Accessed January 11, 2017.
- Skal, D. J. (1998). Screams of reason: Mad science and modern culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
- Speaking of Research. (2016). Why we haven’t cured the common cold—A response to PETA’s science advisor, Dr. Julia Baines. https://speakingofresearch.com/tag/peta/. Accessed January 12, 2017.
- Stableford, B. (1995). Frankenstein and the origins of science fiction. In D. Seed (Ed.), Anticipations: Essays on early science fiction and its precursors (pp. 46–57). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
- Stein, Y. (2005). The psychoanalysis of science: The role of metaphor, paraprax, lacunae and myth. Portland: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Syrdal, D. S., Nomura, T., Hirai, H., & Dautenhahn, K. (2011). Examining the Frankenstein syndrome: An open-ended cross-cultural survey (pp. 125–134). In B. Mutlu, C. Bartneck, J. Ham, V. Evers & T. Kanda (Eds.), Social robotics: Third international conference, ICSR 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, November 24–25, 2011. Proceedings. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- The National Academies of Sciences. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Webber, A. J. (2003). The Doppelgänger: Double visions in German literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar