Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Stigma Science-fiction Identity Science communication Science narratives Frankenstein 

References

  1. 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.
  2. Adams, W. W. (2001). Making daemons of death and love: Frankenstein, existentialism, psychoanalysis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(4), 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Arluke, A. (1991). Going into the closet with science: Information control among animal experimenters. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20(3), 306–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Barriga, C. A., Shapiro, M. A., & Fernandez, M. L. (2010). Science information in fictional movies: Effects of context and gender. Science Communication, 32(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. Bernstein, M. (1997). Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 531–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brotherton, M. (2016). Science fiction by scientists: An anthology of short stories. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clancy, K. A., & Clancy, B. (2016). Growing monstrous organisms: The construction of anti-GMO visual rhetoric through digital media. Critical Studies in Media Communication. doi:10.1080/15295036.2016.1193670.Google Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59(7), 614–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creed, W. E. D., & Scully, M. A. (2000). Songs of ourselves: Employees’ deployment of social identity in workplace encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(4), 391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crichton, M. (1999). Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities. Science, 283(5407), 1461–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. PNAS, 111(4), 13614–13620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication, 34(5), 592–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. PNAS, 110(3), 14081–14087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. Durkheim, E. [1895] (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Evans, N. G. (2010). Speak no evil: Scientists, responsibility, and the public understanding of science. Nanoethics, 4(3), 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 107(7), 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Franco, D. (1998). Mirror images and otherness in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Literature and Psychology, 44(1–2), 80–95.Google Scholar
  31. Friedman, L. D., & Kavey, A. B. (2016). Monstrous progeny: A history of the Frankenstein narratives. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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.
  33. Gauchat, G. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gauchat, G. (2015). The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces, 94(2), 723–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gerlach, N., & Hamilton, S. N. (2005). From mad scientist to bad scientist: Richard seed as biogovernmental event. Communication Theory, 15(1), 78–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma—Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  37. Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hammond, R. (1986). The modern Frankenstein: Fiction becomes fact. New York: Blandford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hammond, K. (2004). Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism. Cultural Geographies, 11(2), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harrington, B. (2008). Monsters of the complex market. https://thesocietypages.org/economicsociology/tag/frankenstein/. Accessed July 26, 2016.
  41. Hart-Brinson, P. (2016). The social imagination of homosexuality and the rise of same-sex marriage in the United States. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. doi:10.1177/2378023116630555.Google Scholar
  42. Haynes, R. (1995). Frankenstein: The scientist we love to hate. Public Understanding of Science, 4(4), 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haynes, R. D. (2016). Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heffernan, T. (2003). Bovine anxieties, virgin births, and the secret of life. Cultural Critique, 53, 116–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hellsten, I. (2003). Focus on metaphors: The case of “Frankenfood” on the Web. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  47. Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hindle, M. (1990). Vital matters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Romantic science. Critical Survey, 2(1), 29–35.Google Scholar
  49. Jacobson, N., & Greenley, D. (2001). What is recovery? A conceptual model and explication. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 482–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the Status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jost, J. T., Brett, P. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Kirkwood, A. D., & Stamm, B. H. (2006). A social marketing approach to challenging stigma. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 472–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kitzinger, J. (2010). Questioning the sci-fi alibi: A critique of how ‘science fiction fears’ are used to explain away public concerns about risk. Journal of Risk Research, 13(1), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Knust, H. (1983). From Faust to Oppenheimer: The scientist’s pact with the Devil. Journal of European Studies, 13(49–50), 122–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Liakopoulos, M. (2002). Pandora’s Box or panacea? Using metaphors to create the public representations of biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Link, H. S. (2013). Playing God and the intrinsic value of life: Moral problems for synthetic biology? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Locke, S. (1999). Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma. Public Understanding of Science, 8(2), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Losh, S. C. (2010). Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lupia, A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. PNAS, 110(3), 14048–14054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marcus, S. (2002). Frankenstein: Myths of scientific and medical knowledge and stories of human relations. The Southern Review, 38(1), 188–201.Google Scholar
  69. Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1140–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mazlish, B. (1995). The man–machine and artificial intelligence. Stanford Humanities Review, 4(2), 21–45.Google Scholar
  72. Meisenbach, R. J. (2010). Stigma management communication: A theory and agenda for applied research on how individuals manage moments of stigmatized identity. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(3), 268–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mulkay, M. (1996). Frankenstein and the debate over embryo research. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Smith, M. J., Matson, S., Cornell, K., et al. (2014). I just don’t trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Newman, W. R. (2004). Promethean ambitions: Alchemy and the quest to perfect nature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. Oyserman, D., & Swim, J. K. (2001). Stigma: An insider’s view. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The Psychological implication of concealing a stigma: A cognitive–affective–behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Parrington, J. (2016). Redesigning life: How genome editing will transform the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Peláez, A. L., & Kyriakou, D. (2008). Robots, genes and bytes: Technology development and social changes towards the year 2020. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(8), 1176–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pescosolido, B. A., Martin, J. K., Lang, A., & Olafsdottir, S. (2008). Rethinking theoretical approaches to stigma: A framework integrating normative influences on stigma (FINIS). Social Science and Medicine, 67(3), 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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.
  83. Petersen, A. (2002). Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of human cloning in the wake of Dolly. Body & Society, 8(4), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., Yeadon, C., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2004). A dual-process model of reactions to perceived stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 436–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Reed, R. (2001). (Un-)Professional discourse? Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism, 2(3), 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2004). Socio-scientific controversies and students’ conceptions about scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1621–1633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight Bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rutjens, B. T., & Heine, S. J. (2016). The immoral landscape? Scientists are associated with violations of morality. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0152798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shih, M. (2004). Positive stigma: Examining resilience and empowerment in overcoming stigma. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Skal, D. J. (1998). Screams of reason: Mad science and modern culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  91. 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.
  92. 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
  93. Stein, Y. (2005). The psychoanalysis of science: The role of metaphor, paraprax, lacunae and myth. Portland: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
  94. Swart, S. (2014). Frankenzebra: Dangerous knowledge and the narrative of the construction of monsters. Journal of Literary Studies, 30(4), 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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
  96. Tan, A. L., Jocz, J. A., & Zhai, J. (2015). Spiderman and science: How students’ perceptions of scientists are shaped by popular media. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662515615086.Google Scholar
  97. The National Academies of Sciences. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  98. Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  99. van der Laan, J. M. (2010). Frankenstein as science fiction and fact. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(4), 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. van Dijck, J. (1999). Cloning humans, cloning literature: Genetics and the imagination deficit. New Genetics & Society, 18(1), 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. van Dyke, N., & Cress, R. (2006). Political opportunities and collective identity in Ohio’s gay and lesbian movement, 1970–2000. Sociological Perspectives, 49(4), 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Webber, A. J. (2003). The Doppelgänger: Double visions in German literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  103. Weingart, P., Muhl, C., & Pansegrau, P. (2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Whitson, J. A., Galinsky, A. D., & Kay, A. (2015). The emotional roots of conspiratorial perceptions, system justification, and belief in the paranormal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wurzman, R., Hamilton, R. H., Pascual-Leone, A., & Fox, M. D. (2016). An open letter concerning do-it-yourself users of transcranial direct current stimulation. Annals of Neurology, 80(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zhu, L. L., Kay, A. C., & Eibach, R. P. (2013). A test of the flexible ideology hypothesis: System justification motives interact with ideological cueing to predict political judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 755–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Science and the ImaginationArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Center for Science and the Imagination, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Arts, Media and Engineering/EnglishArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations