Allen, G. S. (2009). Master mechanics & wicked wizards: Images of the American scientist as hero and villain from colonial times to present. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Anthes, E. (2013). Frankenstein’s cat: Cuddling up to Biotech’s brave new beasts. New York, NY: Scientific American.
Athanassoulis, N. (2017). A positive role for failure in virtue education. Journal of Moral Education,46(4), 347–362.
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. London: Paladin.
Bird, S. J. (2014). Socially responsible science is more than “Good Science”. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education,15(2), 169–172.
Carlson, M., Park, D. J., Kuo, A., & Clark, F. (2014). Occupation in relation to the self. Journal of Occupational Science,21(2), 117–129.
Cartwright, J. (2007). Science and literature: Towards a conceptual framework. Science and Education,16(2), 115–139.
Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Self-discrepancies and affect: Incorporating the role of feared selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25(7), 783–792.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.
Cross, S., & Markus, H. R. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human Development,34(4), 230–255.
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. PNAS,111(4), 13614–13620.
Davis, H. (2004). Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Medical Humanities,30(1), 32–35.
Diamond, S. A. (1996). Anger, madness, and the daimonic: The psychological genesis of violence, evil, and creativity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science,26(6), 538–542.
Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2014). “Resistance is futile”: Reading science fiction alongside ubiquitous computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(4), 769–778.
Eatough, V., & Smith, J. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 179–194). London: Sage.
Esvelt, K. M. (2017). What Victor Frankenstein got wrong. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/01/how_frankenstein_helps_a_scientist_think_about_his_research.html.
Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review,77(2), 167–187.
Gibbs, S. (2014). Elon Musk: Artificial intelligence is our biggest existential threat. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/27/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-ai-biggest-existential-threat.
Gibson, D. E. (2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science,14(5), 463–613.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,3, 42–55.
Guerrini, A. (2008). Animal experiments and antivivisection debates in the 1820s. In C. Knellwolf & J. Goodall (Eds.), Frankenstein’s science experimentation and discovery in romantic culture, 1780–1830 (pp. 71–86). London: Taylor & Francis.
Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halpern, M. K., Guston, D. H., Sadowski, J., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2016). Stitching together creativity and responsibility: Interpreting Frankenstein across disciplines. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society,36(1), 49–57.
Han, H. (2015). Virtue ethics, positive psychology, and a new model of science and engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics,21(2), 441–460.
Han, H., & Jeong, C. (2014). Improving epistemological beliefs and moral judgment through an STS-based science ethics education program. Science and Engineering Ethics,20(1), 197–220.
Han, H., Kim, J., Jeong, C., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Attainable and relevant moral exemplars are more effective than extraordinary exemplars in promoting voluntary service engagement. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 283.
Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature. Public Understanding of Science,12(3), 243–253.
Hielscher, S., Pies, I., Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016). Rationalizing the GMO debate: The ordonomic approach to addressing agricultural myths. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,13(5), 1–10.
Higgins, D. (2008). Frankenstein: Character studies. New York, NY: Continuum.
Hindle, M. (1990). Vital matters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and romantic science. Critical Survey,2(1), 29–35.
Huxford, J. (2000). Framing the future: Science fiction frames and the press coverage of cloning. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies,14(2), 187–199.
Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Koren, P., & Bar, V. (2009). Science and it’s images—Promise and threat: From classic literature to contemporary students’ images of science and “The Scientist”. Interchange,40(2), 141–163.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. The Journal of American Folklore,68(270), 428–444.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(1), 91–103.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist,41(9), 954–969.
Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory and Cognition,34(5), 1140–1149.
Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language,49(4), 519–536.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature,435(7043), 737–738.
McCauley, L. (2007). AI armageddon and the three laws of robotics. Ethics and Information Technology,9(2), 153–164.
McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics,96(1), 10–16.
Mellor, A. K. (2001). Frankenstein, racial science, and the yellow peril. Nineteenth-Century Contexts,23(1), 1–28.
Meyer, A., Cserer, A., & Schmidt, M. (2013). Frankenstein 2.0.: Identifying and characterizing synthetic biology engineers in science fiction films. Life Sciences, Society and Policy,9(9), 1–17.
Milburn, C. (2010). Modifiable futures science fiction at the bench. Isis,101(3), 560–569.
Morton, T. (2016). Frankenstein and ecocriticism. In A. Smith (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein (pp. 143–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mousley, A. (2016). The Posthuman. In A. Smith (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein (pp. 158–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. London: Sage.
Mulkay, M. (1996). Frankenstein and the Debate Over Embryo Research. Science, Technology and Human Values,21(2), 157–176.
Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018). The enduring influence of a dangerous narrative: How scientists can mitigate the Frankenstein myth. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry,15(2), 279–292.
Nisbet, M. C. (2010). 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.
Nordmann, A. (2017). Undisturbed by reality: Victor Frankenstein’s Technoscientific dream of reason. In D. Guston, E. Finn, & M. Drago (Eds.), Frankenstein: Annotated for scientists, engineers, and creators of all kinds (pp. 223–230). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52(2), 379–385.
Osbeck, L. M., Nersessian, N. J., Malone, K., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Science as psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice. New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
Oyserman, D., Destin, M., & Novin, S. (2015). The context-sensitive future self: Possible selves motivate in context, not otherwise. Self and Identity,14(2), 173–188.
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R. (1990). Possible selves and Delinquency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59(1), 112–125.
Pepperell, R. (1995). The posthuman condition: Consciousness beyond the body. Bristol: Intellect Books.
Pittinsky, T. L. (2015). America’s crisis of faith in science. Science,348(6234), 511–512.
Rotblat, J. (1999). A hippocratic oath for scientists. Science,286(5444), 1475.
Rutjens, B. T., & Heine, S. J. (2016). The immoral landscape? Scientists are associated with violations of morality. PLoS ONE,11(4), 1–16.
Rutjens, B. T., Heine, S. J., Sutton, R. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2018). Attitudes towards science. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,57, 125–165.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 353–376.
Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Martens, A. (2003). Evidence that projection of a feared tran can serve a defensive function. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(8), 969–979.
Schofield, T. M. (2013). On my way to being a scientist. Nature,497(7448), 277–278.
Segal, H. P. (2001). Victor and victim. Nature,412(6850), 861.
Sheldon, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. The Journal of Positive Psychology,1(2), 73–82.
Smith, A. (2016). Scientific contexts. In A. Smith (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein (pp. 69–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stein, Y. (2005). The psychoanalysis of science: The role of metaphor, Paraprax, lacunae and myth. Portland, OR: Sussex Academic Press.
Swart, S. (2014). Frankenzebra: Dangerous knowledge and the narrative construction of monsters. Journal of Literary Studies,30(4), 45–70.
Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. London: Yale University Press.
Vacquin, M. (2002). The monstrous as the paradigm of modernity? Or Frankenstein, myth of the birth of the contemporary. Diogenes,49(195), 27–33.
van Dellen, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2008). Possible selves as behavioral standards in self-regulation. Self and Identity,7(3), 295–304.
van den Belt, H. (2009). Playing god in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. NanoEthics,3(3), 257–268.
Vignoles, L. V., Manzi, C., Regalia, C., Jemmolo, S., & Scabini, E. (2008). Identity motives underlying desired and feared possible future selves. Journal of Personality,76(5), 1165–1200.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, I. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.