Abstract
Advances in technology typically outpace the public’s understanding of the underlying science, the consequences of which are public distrust and confusion about the actual benefits and risks involved. That popular culture, particularly movies, often misrepresent scientific facts and ideas for the purpose of entertainment is usually viewed as part of the problem. Some movies, however, offer excellent opportunities for teachers to draw connections and parallels between entertaining movie science and exciting real world science. This article illustrates how movies with genetics and developmental biology themes can be used to teach important ideas such as how genes control animal development and evolution, how cloning works, whether DNA is sufficient to create life, and how much genes matter in determining human behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Interestingly, the “geep” has since been cited as proof of feasibility for a patent application to make human–chimp chimeras. The application was submitted primarily to draw attention to ethical concerns about patenting human genes and body parts (Newman, 2002). Also, the phenomenon of human–human chimeras, which form when two non-identical twins fuse prior to implantation, has been well utilized in TV crime shows including CSI.
References
Crichton, M. (1999). Ritual abuse, hot air and missed opportunities. Science, 283, 1461–4163
DeSalle, R., & Lindley, D. (1997). The science of Jurassic Park and The Lost World or how to build a dinosaur. New York: Basic Books
Fehilly, C. B., Willadsen, S. M., & Tucker, E. M. (1984). Interspecific chimaerism between sheep and goat. Nature, 307, 634–636
Futuyma, D. J. (2007). Science’s greatest challenge. Bioscience, 57, 3
Halder, G., Callaerts, P., & Gehring, W. J. (1995). Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science, 267, 1788–1792
International HapMap Consortium (2003). The international hapmap project. Nature, 426, 789–796
Jimenez-Sanchez, G., Childs, B., & Valle, D. (2001). Human disease genes. Nature, 409, 853–855
Kass, L. (1997). The wisdom of repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of human beings. The New Republic, 216(22), 17–26
Kimberly, M. (2002). Reevaluating repugnance: A critical analysis of Leon Kass’ writings on genetic reproductive technologies. Princeton Journal of Bioethics, 5, 8–24
Kirby, D. A. (2003). Scientists on the set: Science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 261–278
Lewontin, R. (2000). The triple helix, gene, organism and environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Meinecke-Tilmann, S., & Meinecke, B. (1984). Experimental chimaeras – removal of reproductive barrier between sheep and goat. Nature, 307, 637–638
Midgley, M. (2000). Biotechnology and monstrosity: Why we should pay attention to the “Yuk factor”. Hastings Center Report, 30, 7–15
Newman, S. A. (2002). The human chimera patent initiative. Medical Ethics, 9, 4–7
Rose, C. S. (2003). How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 289–296
Turner, L. (2004). Is repugnance wise? Visceral responses to biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 269–270
Acknowledgments
Thanks to my students for thoughtful discussions and to Maria Rose for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rose, C.S. Biology in the Movies: Using the Double-Edged Sword of Popular Culture to Enhance Public Understanding of Science. Evol. Biol. 34, 49–54 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-007-9001-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-007-9001-8