Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists

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.

Attitudes Towards Science

“…However, work on the ideological and motivational underpinnings of science acceptance and rejection is a relatively recent endeavor. This is striking, because our time is not only characterized by religious and political disagreements and conflicts, but also by a G high levels of public ambivalence toward the scientific enterprise (e.g., Nagy, Wylie, Eschrich, & Finn, 2017;Pittinsky, 2015). This ambivalence has been argued to stem, among other things, from moral objections against particular scientific findings (e.g., intuitive opposition to GMOs; denial of anthropogenic climate change; vaccine skepticism; Bain et al, 2012;Blancke et al, 2015;Lewandosky & Oberauer, 2016;Rutjens, Sutton, & van der Lee, under review;Scott et al, 2016), but also from the perceived motivations and agendas of science and scientists (e.g., Gleick et al, 2010;Rutjens & Heine, 2016).…”

The (im-)moral scientist? Measurement and framing effects shape the association between scientists and immorality

“…Critically, these behaviors and beliefs often seem to be accompanied by discussions surrounding the trustworthiness of the expert scientists in charge of countries’ responses to the pandemic (such as Dr. Fauci in the United States, Dr. Drosten in Germany, or Dr. Van Dissel in the Netherlands). Given long-standing cultural archetypes of the evil scientist, widely publicized cases of scientific fraud, and increasingly popular theories of biased agenda and conspiracy [ 7 – 9 ], this skepticism toward scientists is not new. However, while considerable effort has been put in analyzing the predictors of science skepticism (see Rutjens et al [ 10 ] for a recent overview), social perceptions of the people conducting science as well as the influence of these perceptions on science distrust have received little attention.…”

Scientific self-fashioning afterFrankenstein: the afterlives of Shelley’s novel in Victorian sciences and medicine

“…Finally, I will turn to the wider implications in present-day science and its communication of the metaphors I have uncovered. For it is absolutely the case that the study of these metaphors is revealing of the politics that underpins present complaints about the "stigma" (Nagy et al 2018(Nagy et al , 1143 School. This was leading, claimed the writer, to poor graduate physicians who were taking up positions as surgeons long before they were skilled enough to do so.…”

“…It is so powerful a metaphor that even scientific communities come to believe the stigmatising of their fellow scientists. (2018, 1143) For those scientists who believe that Frankenstein alters the represention of science for public audiences the answer appears to be to develop strategies to devalue its power and replace it with "more accurate and favourable public perceptions" (Nagy et al 2018(Nagy et al , 1154.…”