Throughout Western culture, the master narrative of the scientist is of an evil and dangerous man. This simplification underlying contemporary mythology of knowledge arises from fear of the power and change that science entails, leaving many people feeling confused and disempowered. It reemerges in the media, most often under the name of “Frankenstein, ” with any new discovery that appears to threaten social equilibrium. This is not a new phenomenon. From medieval stories about alchemists to films about computer hackers, good scientists are in the minority, and the number of recurring stereotypes is small. Seven are identified: the evil alchemist; the noble scientist as hero or savior of society; the foolish scientist, whether the gullible, seventeenth-century virtuoso or the absent-minded professor; the inhuman researcher of romanticism; the scientist as adventurer, transcending boundaries of space and time; the mad, bad, dangerous scientist, unscrupulous in the exercise of power; and the helpless scientist, unable to control the outcome of his or her work. These archetypes offer writers and filmmakers a convenient shorthand, a matrix in which to slot contemporary scientists and their projects, simplifying the issues. Like all myths, they appear simple but represent complex ideas and suppressed fears, which transcend time, place, and race.

The cluster of myths relating to the pursuit of knowledge has perpetuated the archetype of the alchemist/ scientist as sinister, dangerous, possibly mad and threatening to society's values. Shelley's Frankenstein provided imagery and a vocabulary universally invoked in relation to scientific discoveries and technological innovation. The reasons for the longevity of this seemingly antiquated, semiotic imagery are discussed. In the twenty-first century, this stereotype has been radically revised, even overturned. Scientists are now rarely objects of fear or mockery. Mathematicians, both real-life and fictional, are discussed here as being representative of scientists now depicted empathically. This article examines possible sociological reasons for this reversal; what the revisionist image suggests about society's changed attitudes to science; and what might be the substitute fears and sources of horror.

No abstract